Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Rural kids, parents angry about Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores. City kids still have green light to sell drugs, their bodies and stolen car stereos   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Department of Labor, FFA, public comment, American farmers, farms, American Farm Bureau, farm chores  
•       •       •

2686 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Apr 2012 at 10:33 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



372 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-04-25 08:36:10 AM  
Settle down hillbillies, you'll be getting your government welfare farm check soon enough.
 
2012-04-25 08:43:21 AM  
"Daily Caller"

*closes link*

It's getting to the point where there's no reason to click any Yahoo link anymore.
 
2012-04-25 09:29:52 AM  

Aarontology: Settle down hillbillies, you'll be getting your government welfare farm check soon enough.


As one of those hillbillies, I actually agree with banning kids from those sights listed. As far as transporting farm raw materials, I think that might be a bit broad.

Uhm, small farmers do not get those welfare checks.
 
2012-04-25 09:37:29 AM  

brerrabbit: As one of those hillbillies, I actually agree with banning kids from those sights listed. As far as transporting farm raw materials, I think that might be a bit broad.


Some of them seem more sensible than others, I agree. But eliminating the 4-H and FFA training seems pointless. Those are good programs for kids who have an interest in agriculture.
 
2012-04-25 09:51:29 AM  

Aarontology: brerrabbit: As one of those hillbillies, I actually agree with banning kids from those sights listed. As far as transporting farm raw materials, I think that might be a bit broad.

Some of them seem more sensible than others, I agree. But eliminating the 4-H and FFA training seems pointless. Those are good programs for kids who have an interest in agriculture.


Even DC/Yahoo couldn't come out and say "eliminate" or "ban". What they said was "revoke...approval". So 4-H and FFA are free to continue doing whatever they want, they just aren't able to provide government backed certification. If you want that you have to go through a program actually certified by the government.

Having grown up on a farm operating machinery that was definitely not age appropriate I can see both side of the issue. Personally I worked in great fear of having a limb ripped off and so learned to be very careful. Not everyone learns this sort of lesson the easy way. One neighbor's son fell off a wagon and was run over earning him a colostomy bag while in grade school. A good friend of mine couldn't seem to learn to watch where he put his hands and lost fingers in several separate incidents. Modern farming is done with powerful machines and the risk of life and limb is definitely real.

The important thing to remember here is that this is a DC/Yahoo article and so we can only assume that whatever they are saying is probably not actually true.
 
2012-04-25 09:57:41 AM  

TwoHead: Even DC/Yahoo couldn't come out and say "eliminate" or "ban". What they said was "revoke...approval". So 4-H and FFA are free to continue doing whatever they want, they just aren't able to provide government backed certification. If you want that you have to go through a program actually certified by the government.


That's what I was referring to.
 
2012-04-25 10:21:08 AM  
Why are these kids allowed to work all day on farms anyway? Shouldn't they be in school?
 
2012-04-25 10:35:15 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Why are these kids allowed to work all day on farms anyway? Shouldn't they be in school?


You snob!
 
2012-04-25 10:37:27 AM  
Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!
 
2012-04-25 10:40:07 AM  

GAT_00: "Daily Caller"

*closes link*

It's getting to the point where there's no reason to click any Yahoo link anymore.


There's a noticeable correlation between Yahoo circling the drain and its increase in right wing troll bait articles.
 
2012-04-25 10:40:41 AM  
No good law/regulation goes unexploited/misused.

Banning kids from working on family farms is one of those slippery slopes we hear so much about.
 
2012-04-25 10:41:16 AM  
As amended, the rules exempt farmers' direct children, so I fail to see the issue here.

Besides, look at what the rule covers:

"The proposal would strengthen current child labor regulations prohibiting agricultural work with animals and in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits and storage bins. It would prohibit farmworkers under age 16 from participating in the cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco. And it would prohibit youth in both agricultural and nonagricultural employment from using electronic, including communication, devices while operating power-driven equipment."

and

"Prohibited places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions."



These are dangerous places for even a experienced adult to be. Teens have no business being in any of those locations.
 
2012-04-25 10:42:49 AM  

TwoHead: Aarontology: brerrabbit: As one of those hillbillies, I actually agree with banning kids from those sights listed. As far as transporting farm raw materials, I think that might be a bit broad.

Some of them seem more sensible than others, I agree. But eliminating the 4-H and FFA training seems pointless. Those are good programs for kids who have an interest in agriculture.

Even DC/Yahoo couldn't come out and say "eliminate" or "ban". What they said was "revoke...approval". So 4-H and FFA are free to continue doing whatever they want, they just aren't able to provide government backed certification. If you want that you have to go through a program actually certified by the government.

Having grown up on a farm operating machinery that was definitely not age appropriate I can see both side of the issue. Personally I worked in great fear of having a limb ripped off and so learned to be very careful. Not everyone learns this sort of lesson the easy way. One neighbor's son fell off a wagon and was run over earning him a colostomy bag while in grade school. A good friend of mine couldn't seem to learn to watch where he put his hands and lost fingers in several separate incidents. Modern farming is done with powerful machines and the risk of life and limb is definitely real.

The important thing to remember here is that this is a DC/Yahoo article and so we can only assume that whatever they are saying is probably not actually true.


I'm of two minds as well. My parents were pretty strict about which farm machinery I could operate and at what age (and with good reason). We worked a small dairy farm and while I was permitted to help with milking, feeding, and shoveling shiat, they wouldn't let me drive anything other than the skidloader because of the danger of falling off. Not all parents are quite as careful with their kids. I know of a kid who was killed from falling off a tractor and a girl who will always have scars on her face from leaning over a piece of machinery while wearing a long scarf.

My brother went on to major in agricultural science and manages a farm now...while I'm grateful for the experiences I had with 4-H/growing up on a farm, I don't have any desire to make that a career.
 
2012-04-25 10:44:44 AM  
Executive summary for those who dnr:

WHHAARRRGGBLLEEFARTBONGOINFLICTINGKENYANSOCIALISMONGODFEARINGFARMERSD E RPDERPDERPDERPHERPWHHHAAARRRGGGBLLLLL
 
2012-04-25 10:46:42 AM  
Who the hell steals a car stereo these days? Someone broke into my car over the weekend, they didn't bother with the stereo.

/they didn't get anything
//nothing worth taking
 
2012-04-25 10:46:43 AM  

verbaltoxin: GAT_00: "Daily Caller"

*closes link*

It's getting to the point where there's no reason to click any Yahoo link anymore.

There's a noticeable correlation between Yahoo circling the drain and its increase in right wing troll bait articles.


How many flushes does it take to get rid of that turd?
 
2012-04-25 10:46:53 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: These are dangerous places for even a experienced adult to be. Teens have no business being in any of those locations.


Bullshiat.
 
2012-04-25 10:46:53 AM  

Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!


If your business can't get by without exploiting child labor perhaps you have a larger problem than "Big ag".
 
2012-04-25 10:46:54 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: As amended, the rules exempt farmers' direct children, so I fail to see the issue here.

Besides, look at what the rule covers:

"The proposal would strengthen current child labor regulations prohibiting agricultural work with animals and in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits and storage bins. It would prohibit farmworkers under age 16 from participating in the cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco. And it would prohibit youth in both agricultural and nonagricultural employment from using electronic, including communication, devices while operating power-driven equipment."

and

"Prohibited places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions."


These are dangerous places for even a experienced adult to be. Teens have no business being in any of those locations.


Nanny state much? You want to keep a teenager out of a grain elevator is one thing, but feed lots, stock yards, cattle auctions. Oh no, you are much too young to feed the pigs! Give me a break.
 
2012-04-25 10:47:30 AM  

James!: Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!

If your business can't get by without exploiting child labor perhaps you have a larger problem than "Big ag".


So now a family farm is exploiting child labor?
 
2012-04-25 10:47:39 AM  
Hell, the rules don't even "ban" kids from working, as trollmitter states. It only reduces the total hours they can work each day.

Meanwhile, while farmers are yelling at TV cameras about not being able to employ kids all day, Monsanto is running them all out of business.
 
2012-04-25 10:49:39 AM  
I'm originally from rural Nebraska, and when I was in high school, a friend of mine was in a grain bin when it exploded. He was only 15, and he recovered, thankfully. I guess my point is that people are dismissing how much this could help save lives because they believe the BS from the right about "big gubmint." Yes, it is truly insidious of those nasty Democrats to try and keep children safe.
 
2012-04-25 10:50:19 AM  
This law is probably aimed at illegal immigrant workers, who in many cases get started working agricultural jobs when they are vulnerable minors.

Children also die every year doing something as innocuous as corn tasselling, a 'traditional' youth job sort of thing.

As for eliminating FFA and 4H that will never happen, that is scare-mongering on a scale with "Obama's going to ban hunting!!"
 
2012-04-25 10:50:25 AM  

EWreckedSean: James!: Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!

If your business can't get by without exploiting child labor perhaps you have a larger problem than "Big ag".

So now a family farm is exploiting child labor?


If it isn't then there shouldn't be any problems with these new rules.
 
2012-04-25 10:50:40 AM  
Why does the Obama admin put out shiat like this? Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm. Its hard enough for small farms to make it, but this will just make it harder. Wouldn't this encourage the farmer to hire people, making it more expensive for the farmer, thus increasing prices? I bet they would hire illegal immigrants to do the work too.

I thought this was a free country...
 
2012-04-25 10:51:03 AM  

EWreckedSean: Grand_Moff_Joseph: As amended, the rules exempt farmers' direct children, so I fail to see the issue here.

Besides, look at what the rule covers:

"The proposal would strengthen current child labor regulations prohibiting agricultural work with animals and in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits and storage bins. It would prohibit farmworkers under age 16 from participating in the cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco. And it would prohibit youth in both agricultural and nonagricultural employment from using electronic, including communication, devices while operating power-driven equipment."

and

"Prohibited places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions."


These are dangerous places for even a experienced adult to be. Teens have no business being in any of those locations.

Nanny state much? You want to keep a teenager out of a grain elevator is one thing, but feed lots, stock yards, cattle auctions. Oh no, you are much too young to feed the pigs! Give me a break.


I know right? I mean, minors ONLY make up about half of all farm task related deaths each year, so it's not like we need to do anything about that.
 
2012-04-25 10:51:21 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: Executive summary for those who dnr:

WHHAARRRGGBLLEEFARTBONGOINFLICTINGKENYANSOCIALISMONGODFEARINGFARMERSD E RPDERPDERPDERPHERPWHHHAAARRRGGGBLLLLL


Another repeat, is it?
 
2012-04-25 10:51:27 AM  
cost of doing business - up
responsibility and ability of the young - down

what could be wrong with that
 
2012-04-25 10:51:47 AM  

LockeOak: Who the hell steals a car stereo these days? Someone broke into my car over the weekend, they didn't bother with the stereo.


No kidding. These days the cool kids are stealing Honda FIT wheels and catalytic converters.
 
2012-04-25 10:52:00 AM  

DozeNutz: I didn't bother to read TFA, and it shows...

 
2012-04-25 10:52:21 AM  
"Prohibited places of employment," a Department press release read, "would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions."

None of those actually have anything to do with any farm small enough to be a family operation. Unless you're talking about "family farm" in the sense that Wal-mart is a "Walton family business".

A married couple with 20 acres, a tractor, and a cow do not have a goddamned grain elevator, and are still exempted from labor laws including child labor and minimum wage laws. It's exactly the same as how children are allowed to darn their own socks but aren't allowed to operate industrial electric looms that put out a hundred square yards a second.

//Technically a family ranch has something called a stock yard, but it would not be registered as such in the business classification.
 
2012-04-25 10:52:21 AM  

DozeNutz: Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm.


Nope, look again.
 
2012-04-25 10:52:24 AM  

TomMalory: I guess my point is that people are dismissing how much this could help save lives because they believe the BS from the right about "big gubmint." Yes, it is truly insidious of those nasty Democrats to try and keep children safe.


I'm thinking that we ban kids from riding bikes, skates, scooters, in cars, wrap them in rubber...wait. Better yet, let's lock them in closets and never let them go outside. It's the only way to be sure.
 
2012-04-25 10:52:26 AM  
Is this gonna throw a kink in Michelle Bachmann's government subsidized "farm" scam replete with foster kid labor?

Cos that would be a darn shame.
 
2012-04-25 10:52:48 AM  

EWreckedSean: Nanny state much? You want to keep a teenager out of a grain elevator is one thing, but feed lots, stock yards, cattle auctions. Oh no, you are much too young to feed the pigs! Give me a break.


You try getting kicked in the face by a cow at 14.
It makes sense. Working around large animals, especially a lot of them like in a stockyard, is only work for seasoned professionals, not teenagers. No one's saying teens can feed the pigs, but there's plenty of situations where livestock can be just as deadly as any machinery.
 
2012-04-25 10:52:59 AM  

LockeOak: Who the hell steals a car stereo these days? Someone broke into my car over the weekend, they didn't bother with the stereo.

/they didn't get anything
//nothing worth taking


You made me think of this:

Link

NSFW
 
2012-04-25 10:53:09 AM  

brerrabbit: Aarontology: Settle down hillbillies, you'll be getting your government welfare farm check soon enough.

As one of those hillbillies, I actually agree with banning kids from those sights listed. As far as transporting farm raw materials, I think that might be a bit broad.

Uhm, small farmers do not get those welfare checks.


Your paw is holding out on you.
 
2012-04-25 10:53:26 AM  

EWreckedSean: James!: Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!

If your business can't get by without exploiting child labor perhaps you have a larger problem than "Big ag".

So now a family farm is exploiting child labor?


YOUR OWN CHILDREN ARE EXEMPT FROM THE RULE. SO NO.

I don't blame you, though, it IS easier to get mad at shiat when you ignore half of it.
 
2012-04-25 10:53:48 AM  

DozeNutz: Why does the Obama admin put out shiat like this? Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm. Its hard enough for small farms to make it, but this will just make it harder. Wouldn't this encourage the farmer to hire people, making it more expensive for the farmer, thus increasing prices? I bet they would hire illegal immigrants to do the work too.

I thought this was a free country...


t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-25 10:54:06 AM  

Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!


As someone who grew up on a small farm, no kid under 16 should be working in the listed jobs. Farm work is hard and frequently dangerous even without the addition of mechanization that can literally rip off a limb. Let the kids muck out stalls or help deliver calves/lambs/kids, put them to work collecting eggs from the family coop or walking the irrigation lines, hell, teach them how to humanely kill and dress an animal but for farks sake don't put a twelve year old in charge of a farking thresher.
 
2012-04-25 10:54:46 AM  

DozeNutz: Why does the Obama admin put out shiat like this? Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm.


But that's 'literally' not what's happening.
 
2012-04-25 10:55:04 AM  

DozeNutz: Why does the Obama admin put out shiat like this? Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm. Its hard enough for small farms to make it, but this will just make it harder. Wouldn't this encourage the farmer to hire people, making it more expensive for the farmer, thus increasing prices? I bet they would hire illegal immigrants to do the work too.

I thought this was a free country...


How can you call for the killing and eating of left handed people? I thought we were living in a free country and here you are literally calling for a state sponsored barbeque of people who just happen to favor their left hand over a right.

Truly you are history's greatest monster!
 
2012-04-25 10:55:40 AM  
I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm a Democrat and I don't support curbing child labor laws or anything crazy teabaggers might say.

This country, incrementally is trying to legislate away an entire way of life by making it prohibitively expensive, and impossible to navigate all the regs and bureaucracy. Everybody is always talking about the phony wars on religion, Christmas, guns, church, blah blah, etc. But there is actually a real war on rural life as it has been for hundreds of years. The eventual result will be all American farms and ranches being heavy machined, large corporate operations, and a tremendous transfer of land from the middle class to the wealthy.
 
2012-04-25 10:57:12 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: I'm thinking that we ban kids from riding bikes, skates, scooters, in cars, wrap them in rubber...wait. Better yet, let's lock them in closets and never let them go outside. It's the only way to be sure.


Those damn federals are making it ILLEGAL for me to pay an untrained neighbor kid to drive a hay baler around without supervision? WHY NOT JUST BAN ALL-AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL THEN, THAT'S THE SAME GOL-DURN THING
 
2012-04-25 10:57:29 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: EWreckedSean: Nanny state much? You want to keep a teenager out of a grain elevator is one thing, but feed lots, stock yards, cattle auctions. Oh no, you are much too young to feed the pigs! Give me a break.

You try getting kicked in the face by a cow at 14.
It makes sense. Working around large animals, especially a lot of them like in a stockyard, is only work for seasoned professionals, not teenagers. No one's saying teens can feed the pigs, but there's plenty of situations where livestock can be just as deadly as any machinery.


Seriously. I've had bruised ribs, puncture wounds, kicks flying around my face, and broken toes from working with fairly mild-mannered cows and with having hypervigilant parents. Enormous stockyards aren't really the place for anyone who can't hold their own against a 1400+ lb animal.
 
2012-04-25 10:58:11 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: EWreckedSean: Grand_Moff_Joseph: As amended, the rules exempt farmers' direct children, so I fail to see the issue here.

Besides, look at what the rule covers:

"The proposal would strengthen current child labor regulations prohibiting agricultural work with animals and in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits and storage bins. It would prohibit farmworkers under age 16 from participating in the cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco. And it would prohibit youth in both agricultural and nonagricultural employment from using electronic, including communication, devices while operating power-driven equipment."

and

"Prohibited places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions."


These are dangerous places for even a experienced adult to be. Teens have no business being in any of those locations.

Nanny state much? You want to keep a teenager out of a grain elevator is one thing, but feed lots, stock yards, cattle auctions. Oh no, you are much too young to feed the pigs! Give me a break.

I know right? I mean, minors ONLY make up about half of all farm task related deaths each year, so it's not like we need to do anything about that.


Facts aren't your friends are they?

Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities
 
2012-04-25 10:58:32 AM  

James!: Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!

If your business can't get by without exploiting child labor perhaps you have a larger problem than "Big ag".


children working a family farm goes back as far as farming, "exploiting" is a charged word.
 
2012-04-25 10:58:58 AM  

James!: DozeNutz: Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm.

Nope, look again.


Ok, semantics. Banning them from working on parts of the farm... Better now? Its still stupid, and I'm sure you think its dumb too. But you wouldn't let partisan politics get in the way of that now would you?
 
2012-04-25 10:59:37 AM  

Headso: James!: Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!

If your business can't get by without exploiting child labor perhaps you have a larger problem than "Big ag".

children working a family farm goes back as far as farming, "exploiting" is a charged word.


No, son. You lost your arm because of tradition! Doesn't that make it all better?
 
2012-04-25 11:00:05 AM  

DozeNutz: James!: DozeNutz: Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm.

Nope, look again.

Ok, semantics. Banning them from working on parts of the farm... Better now? Its still stupid, and I'm sure you think its dumb too. But you wouldn't let partisan politics get in the way of that now would you?


Still nope, look again.
 
2012-04-25 11:00:07 AM  

spiderpaz: I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm a Democrat and I don't support curbing child labor laws or anything crazy teabaggers might say.

This country, incrementally is trying to legislate away an entire way of life by making it prohibitively expensive, and impossible to navigate all the regs and bureaucracy. Everybody is always talking about the phony wars on religion, Christmas, guns, church, blah blah, etc. But there is actually a real war on rural life as it has been for hundreds of years. The eventual result will be all American farms and ranches being heavy machined, large corporate operations, and a tremendous transfer of land from the middle class to the wealthy.


What do you think BigAg and Monsanto have been doing for 20 years?
 
2012-04-25 11:00:46 AM  

EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities


And that's a GOOD thing for you? Man, you are one f*cked up piece of sh*t
 
2012-04-25 11:00:59 AM  

EWreckedSean: Facts aren't your friends are they?

Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities


How many dead children would be enough for you to care?
 
2012-04-25 11:00:59 AM  

James!: DozeNutz: James!: DozeNutz: Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm.

Nope, look again.

Ok, semantics. Banning them from working on parts of the farm... Better now? Its still stupid, and I'm sure you think its dumb too. But you wouldn't let partisan politics get in the way of that now would you?

Still nope, look again.


Shh. Reading is hard.
 
2012-04-25 11:01:11 AM  
Manufactured outrage along the lines of "What about the small farmers / small businessmen" where the economic advocates and advantages really go to big business and big agriculture.

Current loopholes in labor law allows the children of migrant workers to be migrant workers themselves.

At least 90% of the amount of farmwork performed by children is done by the children of hired low cost laborers.
 
2012-04-25 11:01:21 AM  

kingoomieiii: EWreckedSean: James!: Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!

If your business can't get by without exploiting child labor perhaps you have a larger problem than "Big ag".

So now a family farm is exploiting child labor?

YOUR OWN CHILDREN ARE EXEMPT FROM THE RULE. SO NO.

I don't blame you, though, it IS easier to get mad at shiat when you ignore half of it.


Well as the article claims the exact opposite, why don't you source it.

FTFA: The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land.
 
2012-04-25 11:03:25 AM  

Lost Thought 00: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

And that's a GOOD thing for you? Man, you are one f*cked up piece of sh*t


People die moron. It's a fact of life. I can go find you statistics for the number of kids who die being hit by a car playing in front of the family house if you want too.
 
2012-04-25 11:03:54 AM  
Is it still okay to use my foster children?
 
2012-04-25 11:05:23 AM  
Wow EWS is working overtime to top idiocy records he already holds with this thread.

Whar Popcorn?
 
2012-04-25 11:05:46 AM  

EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities


Only 20%? Well, I guess that makes all the difference in the world.
 
2012-04-25 11:05:53 AM  

TwoHead: EWreckedSean: Facts aren't your friends are they?

Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

How many dead children would be enough for you to care?


Won't somebody think of the children? Really? Children die in accidents no matter what they do. So we should deprive millions of people of learning a valuable skill while growing up because occasionally there are accidents?
 
2012-04-25 11:05:55 AM  

EWreckedSean:
Well as the article claims the exact opposite, why don't you source it.

FTFA: The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land.


Bare assertion is bare.
 
2012-04-25 11:06:04 AM  

James!: Headso: James!: Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!

If your business can't get by without exploiting child labor perhaps you have a larger problem than "Big ag".

children working a family farm goes back as far as farming, "exploiting" is a charged word.

No, son. You lost your arm because of tradition! Doesn't that make it all better?


So no bike riding, skateboarding, sking, hockey, anything dangerous? or just helping on the farm?
 
2012-04-25 11:06:05 AM  
t would prohibit farmworkers under age 16 from participating in the cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco

I can understand a lot of the regs but this one I just cannot think what would be the reason. We dont want kids to smoke?
 
2012-04-25 11:06:59 AM  

James!: DozeNutz: James!: DozeNutz: Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm.

Nope, look again.

Ok, semantics. Banning them from working on parts of the farm... Better now? Its still stupid, and I'm sure you think its dumb too. But you wouldn't let partisan politics get in the way of that now would you?

Still nope, look again.


FTA: Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work "in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials."

What am I missing? Maybe you should look again, when you take your head out of your ass.
 
2012-04-25 11:07:22 AM  

brerrabbit: Aarontology: Settle down hillbillies, you'll be getting your government welfare farm check soon enough.

As one of those hillbillies, I actually agree with banning kids from those sights listed. As far as transporting farm raw materials, I think that might be a bit broad.

Uhm, small farmers do not get those welfare checks.


As I understand it, the big ag-businesses like Monsanto get the largest subsidy checks. Small farmers are screwed.

That said, I find it interesting that ya'll consider the source unreliable. I have to admit, as I read the article, I thought "This new set of rules seems to make as much sense as the government making it against the law for me to require my kids to clean their own rooms."

Now, thanks to other posters, I'm aware that there may be more to the issue than is revealed in the article.
 
2012-04-25 11:07:33 AM  

EWreckedSean: Lost Thought 00: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

And that's a GOOD thing for you? Man, you are one f*cked up piece of sh*t

People die moron. It's a fact of life. I can go find you statistics for the number of kids who die being hit by a car playing in front of the family house if you want too.


If 20% of all steel worker deaths were children, would you not be upset? Why is farming suddenly exempt from normal common decency to protect life?
 
2012-04-25 11:07:40 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

Only 20%? Well, I guess that makes all the difference in the world.


When he claims it is half, it is a huge difference.

100 kids died last year in farming accidents. 175,000 died in car accidents. They are more likely to die on the drive to summer camp than on their farms working.
 
2012-04-25 11:08:30 AM  

DozeNutz: James!: DozeNutz: James!: DozeNutz: Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm.

Nope, look again.

Ok, semantics. Banning them from working on parts of the farm... Better now? Its still stupid, and I'm sure you think its dumb too. But you wouldn't let partisan politics get in the way of that now would you?

Still nope, look again.

FTA: Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work "in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials."

What am I missing? Maybe you should look again, when you take your head out of your ass.


You shouldn't be mad at me. You should be mad at the Daily Caller for giving you bad information. The rules have been amended to allow you to work your own children. You just can't hire someone else's children to do those jobs.
 
2012-04-25 11:08:41 AM  
bike riding is pretty much exactly the same as operating a hay baler

besides a few more deaths and mutilations will teach those children personal responsibility and furthermore
 
2012-04-25 11:08:43 AM  
Frothy rhetoric aside, this (the original proposal, which is being reproposed) just doesn't seem all that controversial. No "family farm" needs young children doing this work, and I speak as someone who grew up on a subsistence farm.
 
2012-04-25 11:08:51 AM  

Lost Thought 00: EWreckedSean: Lost Thought 00: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

And that's a GOOD thing for you? Man, you are one f*cked up piece of sh*t

People die moron. It's a fact of life. I can go find you statistics for the number of kids who die being hit by a car playing in front of the family house if you want too.

If 20% of all steel worker deaths were children, would you not be upset? Why is farming suddenly exempt from normal common decency to protect life?


Because having chores on the family farm isn't remotely the same thing as being shipped off to a steal mill?
 
2012-04-25 11:09:22 AM  

EWreckedSean: FTFA: The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land.


From the DoL:

"On February 1, 2012, the Department announced that it will re-propose the portion of its regulation on child labor in agriculture interpreting the "parental exemption." The parental exemption allows children of any age who are employed by their parent, or a person standing in the place of a parent, to perform any job on a farm owned or operated by their parent or such person standing in the place of a parent."

http://www.dol.gov/whd/CL/AG_NPRM.htm

I guess you can trust an article from Daily Make Shiat Up if you want, but you can't expect everyone to be stupid enough to do that.
 
2012-04-25 11:09:47 AM  

spiderpaz: I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm a Democrat and I don't support curbing child labor laws or anything crazy teabaggers might say.

This country, incrementally is trying to legislate away an entire way of life by making it prohibitively expensive, and impossible to navigate all the regs and bureaucracy. Everybody is always talking about the phony wars on religion, Christmas, guns, church, blah blah, etc. But there is actually a real war on rural life as it has been for hundreds of years. The eventual result will be all American farms and ranches being heavy machined, large corporate operations, and a tremendous transfer of land from the middle class to the wealthy.


F*cking economies of scale... how do they work?

Hint: They have little to do with legislators or bureaucrats
 
2012-04-25 11:09:48 AM  

Headso: James!: Headso: James!: Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!

If your business can't get by without exploiting child labor perhaps you have a larger problem than "Big ag".

children working a family farm goes back as far as farming, "exploiting" is a charged word.

No, son. You lost your arm because of tradition! Doesn't that make it all better?

So no bike riding, skateboarding, sking, hockey, anything dangerous? or just helping on the farm?


Not being able to run a thresher is THE VERY SAME as not being able to ride a bike.

You guys realize that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy not a great way to make a point, right?
 
2012-04-25 11:10:34 AM  

EWreckedSean: Monkeyhouse Zendo: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

Only 20%? Well, I guess that makes all the difference in the world.

When he claims it is half, it is a huge difference.

100 kids died last year in farming accidents. 175,000 died in car accidents. They are more likely to die on the drive to summer camp than on their farms working.


What those numbers don't figure in is the per capita rate. For instance, there's a hell of a lot fewer farming children than children in cars.
 
2012-04-25 11:10:35 AM  

EWreckedSean: Monkeyhouse Zendo: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

Only 20%? Well, I guess that makes all the difference in the world.

When he claims it is half, it is a huge difference.

100 kids died last year in farming accidents. 175,000 died in car accidents. They are more likely to die on the drive to summer camp than on their farms working.


What's the total number of children working on farms versus the total number of children who ride in a car on any given day? What number of children received serious injury as a result of farm work?
 
2012-04-25 11:10:42 AM  

Jim_Callahan:
A married couple with 20 acres, a tractor, and a cow do not have a goddamned grain elevator, and are still exempted from labor laws including child labor and minimum wage laws. It's exactly the same as how children are allowed to darn their own socks but aren't allowed to operate industrial electric looms that put out a hundred square yards a second.


20 acres isn't a farm, it is someones hobby. In the middle of the country a family farm can be rather large with a dozen small grain bins and not have a single employee other than immediate family.
 
2012-04-25 11:11:06 AM  

Saiga410: t would prohibit farmworkers under age 16 from participating in the cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco

I can understand a lot of the regs but this one I just cannot think what would be the reason. We dont want kids to smoke?


Handling raw tobacco is dangerous. The farm workers who work on mass tobacco harvests all need to be regular smokers because anyone without a significant tolerance built up can get really sick due to chemical toxicity.
 
2012-04-25 11:11:14 AM  

Portia: EWreckedSean: Monkeyhouse Zendo: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

Only 20%? Well, I guess that makes all the difference in the world.

When he claims it is half, it is a huge difference.

100 kids died last year in farming accidents. 175,000 died in car accidents. They are more likely to die on the drive to summer camp than on their farms working.

What's the total number of children working on farms versus the total number of children who ride in a car on any given day? What number of children received serious injury as a result of farm work?


1 second off...so close.
 
2012-04-25 11:11:43 AM  

RedPhoenix122: EWreckedSean: Monkeyhouse Zendo: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

Only 20%? Well, I guess that makes all the difference in the world.

When he claims it is half, it is a huge difference.

100 kids died last year in farming accidents. 175,000 died in car accidents. They are more likely to die on the drive to summer camp than on their farms working.

What those numbers don't figure in is the per capita rate. For instance, there's a hell of a lot fewer farming children than children in cars.


Simul-post! You beat me by a second.
 
2012-04-25 11:11:54 AM  

EWreckedSean: Lost Thought 00: EWreckedSean: Lost Thought 00: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

And that's a GOOD thing for you? Man, you are one f*cked up piece of sh*t

People die moron. It's a fact of life. I can go find you statistics for the number of kids who die being hit by a car playing in front of the family house if you want too.

If 20% of all steel worker deaths were children, would you not be upset? Why is farming suddenly exempt from normal common decency to protect life?

Because having chores on the family farm isn't remotely the same thing as being shipped off to a steal mill?


The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents.
 
2012-04-25 11:12:08 AM  

EWreckedSean: Well as the article claims the exact opposite, why don't you source it.

FTFA: The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land.


Yahoo's bit is incorrect.

From the United States Department of Farking Labor,

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Labor is proposing revisions to child labor regulations that will strengthen the safety requirements for young workers employed in agriculture and related fields. The agricultural hazardous occupations orders under the Fair Labor Standards Act that bar young workers from certain tasks have not been updated since they were promulgated in 1970.

The department is proposing updates based on the enforcement experiences of its Wage and Hour Division, recommendations made by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and a commitment to bring parity between the rules for young workers employed in agricultural jobs and the more stringent rules that apply to those employed in nonagricultural workplaces. The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents.


Link
 
2012-04-25 11:12:21 AM  

EWreckedSean: Won't somebody think of the children? Really? Children die in accidents no matter what they do. So we should deprive millions of people of learning a valuable skill while growing up because occasionally there are accidents?


Dude, I grew up on a small farm. When I went to college one of my girlfriends commented that she'd never seen someone with so many scars (I think I was 20 at the time). I never really thought about it since I'd picked them up over years of accidents but, looking back, I realize just how much more dangerous my day to day life was when compared to other kids my age. It's not occasionally. Injuries of varying severity happen all the time in the course of farm work.
 
2012-04-25 11:12:33 AM  

RedPhoenix122: Portia: EWreckedSean: Monkeyhouse Zendo: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

Only 20%? Well, I guess that makes all the difference in the world.

When he claims it is half, it is a huge difference.

100 kids died last year in farming accidents. 175,000 died in car accidents. They are more likely to die on the drive to summer camp than on their farms working.

What's the total number of children working on farms versus the total number of children who ride in a car on any given day? What number of children received serious injury as a result of farm work?

1 second off...so close.


And a second off again. WTF, are you reading my mind?
 
2012-04-25 11:12:40 AM  
The parental exemption allows children of any age who are employed by their parent, or a person standing in the place of a parent, to perform any job on a farm owned or operated by their parent or such person standing in the place of a parent

Good lord if you thumb-dicked shiat wizard trolls had even the tiniest ability for introspection, you'd pretty much not post ever again after this thread.
 
2012-04-25 11:13:24 AM  

Portia: And a second off again. WTF, are you reading my mind?


No, just that awesome.

My wife gets mad when I finish ahead of her.
 
2012-04-25 11:13:41 AM  

TwoHead: EWreckedSean: FTFA: The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land.

From the DoL:

"On February 1, 2012, the Department announced that it will re-propose the portion of its regulation on child labor in agriculture interpreting the "parental exemption." The parental exemption allows children of any age who are employed by their parent, or a person standing in the place of a parent, to perform any job on a farm owned or operated by their parent or such person standing in the place of a parent."

http://www.dol.gov/whd/CL/AG_NPRM.htm

I guess you can trust an article from Daily Make Shiat Up if you want, but you can't expect everyone to be stupid enough to do that.


Cherry picking is fun. Quote the whole thing:

On February 1, 2012, the Department announced that it will re-propose the portion of its regulation on child labor in agriculture interpreting the "parental exemption." The parental exemption allows children of any age who are employed by their parent, or a person standing in the place of a parent, to perform any job on a farm owned or operated by their parent or such person standing in the place of a parent. The re-proposal process will seek comments and inputs as to how the department can comply with statutory requirements to protect children, while respecting rural traditions. The re-proposed portion of the rule is expected to be published for public comment by early summer. The department will continue to review the comments received regarding the remaining portions of the proposed rule for inclusion in a final rule.

They are not proposing to exempt family.
 
2012-04-25 11:14:04 AM  

Jackson Herring: The parental exemption allows children of any age who are employed by their parent, or a person standing in the place of a parent, to perform any job on a farm owned or operated by their parent or such person standing in the place of a parent

Good lord if you thumb-dicked shiat wizard trolls had even the tiniest ability for introspection, you'd pretty much not post ever again after this thread.


henpantha.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-25 11:14:20 AM  

RedPhoenix122: What those numbers don't figure in is the per capita rate. For instance, there's a hell of a lot fewer farming children than children in cars.


But, but, more people died in California this year than Iraq, and they're the same size.
 
2012-04-25 11:14:44 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-25 11:15:31 AM  

HairBolus: Manufactured outrage along the lines of "What about the small farmers / small businessmen" where the economic advocates and advantages really go to big business and big agriculture.

Current loopholes in labor law allows the children of migrant workers to be migrant workers themselves.

At least 90% of the amount of farmwork performed by children is done by the children of hired low cost laborers.


That's a good point and one that did not occur to me while I was reading the article. I was distracted by implications that children wouldn't be able to work on their parents own land and that 4-H would cease to exist.
 
2012-04-25 11:15:52 AM  

kingoomieiii: But, but, more people died in California this year than Iraq, and they're the same size.


So why are we in either place?
 
2012-04-25 11:16:12 AM  

EWreckedSean: They are not proposing to exempt family.


"According to the Department, a new "parental exemption" rule is expected to be proposed this summer. Today's announcement only applies to that portion of the new farm labor rules that considers the "parental exemption."
The re-proposed rule reverts back to prior regulations, said Labor Department officials today, and uses broader language used before the 2011 proposals that include parents who are partial owners of an agricultural operation instead of only including whole owners." (source)

You're a farking toolbox. The re-proposal is to strengthen the parental exemption, not eliminate it. How stupid can you be?
 
2012-04-25 11:16:46 AM  
I can imagine EWS and some of the others in here arguing for child labor rights in factories around the turn of the century. It really sounds just as silly as that to be outraged over an attempt to provide minimal protection to minors from a handful of the most dangerous tasks (and not even your own kids, just other people's kids - you want to kill your own? Have at it - the regs don't prevent you from using the spawn of your loins over an experienced and trained adult). For christ's sake, my daughter works in a movie theatre and they won't let anyone under 18 bring the trash out to the trash compactor!
 
2012-04-25 11:16:57 AM  

James!: Headso: James!: Headso: James!: Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!

If your business can't get by without exploiting child labor perhaps you have a larger problem than "Big ag".

children working a family farm goes back as far as farming, "exploiting" is a charged word.

No, son. You lost your arm because of tradition! Doesn't that make it all better?

So no bike riding, skateboarding, sking, hockey, anything dangerous? or just helping on the farm?

Not being able to run a thresher is THE VERY SAME as not being able to ride a bike.

You guys realize that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy not a great way to make a point, right?


The pedestrian fatality rate in big cities is about a quarter the fatality rate for farms and more children live in big cities. So we should outlaw walking in big cities for children as well. You keep making farming out to be more dangerous than it actually is wit your cheesy hyperbole.
 
2012-04-25 11:17:12 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: How stupid can you be?


have you read his posts in the past?
 
2012-04-25 11:17:38 AM  

EWreckedSean: They are not proposing to exempt family.


But that's what the proposal is about. That is literally the sole topic of the proposal. That's why there is a proposal. It's why the proposal exists. Do you see what I'm getting at here?
 
2012-04-25 11:17:40 AM  

Saiga410: t would prohibit farmworkers under age 16 from participating in the cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco

I can understand a lot of the regs but this one I just cannot think what would be the reason. We dont want kids to smoke?


I'm not an expert on this subject, but I believe that tobacco leaves themselves are somewhat poisonous. Handling them, in large quantities, for long periods of time can result in illness. I can't swear to that though.
 
2012-04-25 11:17:54 AM  

Lunaville: That's a good point and one that did not occur to me while I was reading the article. I was distracted by implications that children wouldn't be able to work on their parents own land and that 4-H would cease to exist.


I'm impressed, someone who can listen to the evidence, both for and against their current argument, and actually form their own opinion. You are a rare breed.
 
2012-04-25 11:17:59 AM  

RedPhoenix122: EWreckedSean: Monkeyhouse Zendo: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

Only 20%? Well, I guess that makes all the difference in the world.

When he claims it is half, it is a huge difference.

100 kids died last year in farming accidents. 175,000 died in car accidents. They are more likely to die on the drive to summer camp than on their farms working.

What those numbers don't figure in is the per capita rate. For instance, there's a hell of a lot fewer farming children than children in cars.


500,000 work on farms. 75,000,000 children in the US. So a little 8th grade algebra means on a per capita comparison, you are almost 12 times more likely to die in a car accident as a child than die in a farming accident.
 
2012-04-25 11:18:07 AM  

kingoomieiii: Those damn federals are making it ILLEGAL for me to pay an untrained neighbor kid to drive a hay baler around without supervision? WHY NOT JUST BAN ALL-AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL THEN, THAT'S THE SAME GOL-DURN THING


That will be next I'm sure.
 
2012-04-25 11:18:57 AM  

GAT_00: It's getting to the point where there's no reason to click any Yahoo link anymore.


It's really 'bottom of the barrel' when it's from the "Contributor Network". This one sounds like a valid story, I don't know how much is made up outrage, but at least it appears as an actual news story, as opposed to a Fox-Style thinly veiled press release for the Right.
 
2012-04-25 11:19:46 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Frothy rhetoric aside, this (the original proposal, which is being reproposed) just doesn't seem all that controversial. No "family farm" needs young children doing this work, and I speak as someone who grew up on a subsistence farm.


Yeah, I grew up on a large-ish ranch, and I don't really see much of a problem with these rules either. When I was a kid my dad's basic rules were 1) don't taunt the animals, especially the bulls, 2) stay out of the granaries, and 3) don't touch any piece of equipment that's worth more than the house. Somehow those restrictions never kept him from finding things for me and my brother to do.
 
2012-04-25 11:20:23 AM  

Headso: James!: Headso: James!: Headso: James!: Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!

If your business can't get by without exploiting child labor perhaps you have a larger problem than "Big ag".

children working a family farm goes back as far as farming, "exploiting" is a charged word.

No, son. You lost your arm because of tradition! Doesn't that make it all better?

So no bike riding, skateboarding, sking, hockey, anything dangerous? or just helping on the farm?

Not being able to run a thresher is THE VERY SAME as not being able to ride a bike.

You guys realize that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy not a great way to make a point, right?

The pedestrian fatality rate in big cities is about a quarter the fatality rate for farms and more children live in big cities. So we should outlaw walking in big cities for children as well. You keep making farming out to be more dangerous than it actually is wit your cheesy hyperbole.


No, you're right. Life is dangerous so child labor is fine. I'm totally with you now.
 
2012-04-25 11:20:32 AM  

RedPhoenix122: kingoomieiii: But, but, more people died in California this year than Iraq, and they're the same size.

So why are we in either place?


Well, we've completely destroyed its infrastructure and its government is powerless to contain the seedier element of its population. We can't leave until that's fixed, because it's our fault.

As for Iraq, some of the generals are starting to like it out there.
 
2012-04-25 11:21:46 AM  

apoptotic: A Dark Evil Omen: Frothy rhetoric aside, this (the original proposal, which is being reproposed) just doesn't seem all that controversial. No "family farm" needs young children doing this work, and I speak as someone who grew up on a subsistence farm.

Yeah, I grew up on a large-ish ranch, and I don't really see much of a problem with these rules either. When I was a kid my dad's basic rules were 1) don't taunt the animals, especially the bulls, 2) stay out of the granaries, and 3) don't touch any piece of equipment that's worth more than the house. Somehow those restrictions never kept him from finding things for me and my brother to do.


The new law is a hell of a lot stricter than that. You wouldn't be allowed in a stockyard or feeding lot at all.
 
2012-04-25 11:22:21 AM  

DozeNutz: I thought this was a free country...


They say there's a Santa Claus, too.

Just another cultural myth.
 
2012-04-25 11:22:34 AM  

EWreckedSean: apoptotic: A Dark Evil Omen: Frothy rhetoric aside, this (the original proposal, which is being reproposed) just doesn't seem all that controversial. No "family farm" needs young children doing this work, and I speak as someone who grew up on a subsistence farm.

Yeah, I grew up on a large-ish ranch, and I don't really see much of a problem with these rules either. When I was a kid my dad's basic rules were 1) don't taunt the animals, especially the bulls, 2) stay out of the granaries, and 3) don't touch any piece of equipment that's worth more than the house. Somehow those restrictions never kept him from finding things for me and my brother to do.

The new law is a hell of a lot stricter than that. You wouldn't be allowed in a stockyard or feeding lot at all.


You wouldn't be allowed to be EMPLOYED by a stockyard or feed lot in certain positions.
 
2012-04-25 11:23:08 AM  

Lunaville: That's a good point and one that did not occur to me while I was reading the article. I was distracted by implications that children wouldn't be able to work on their parents own land and that 4-H would cease to exist.


That is what sites like Daily Make Shiat Up are all about. They count on most people assuming that they aren't being lied to and they know that people like EWS will back up their lies with ignorance and/or malice so innocent people like you can be misled.

Being well informed these days is a full time job requiring follow up research rather than just taking what you are told as fact.
 
Bf+
2012-04-25 11:23:20 AM  
So, lemme get this right...
Derpers are angry about a labor department rule that doesn't ban farm chores...
because it bans farm chores?

I guess I can look forward to crazy uncle's email.
RE:FWD:FWD:RE:FWD:FWD:RE:FWD:FWD: OMG!!! LOOKIT WHAT 9BAMA - MUST SEE!!! FOXNEWS!!
 
2012-04-25 11:24:05 AM  

Lernaeus: DozeNutz: I thought this was a free country...

They say there's a Santa Claus, too.

Just another cultural myth.


[crying_sparkly_eagle.jpg]
 
2012-04-25 11:25:09 AM  

apoptotic: A Dark Evil Omen: Frothy rhetoric aside, this (the original proposal, which is being reproposed) just doesn't seem all that controversial. No "family farm" needs young children doing this work, and I speak as someone who grew up on a subsistence farm.

Yeah, I grew up on a large-ish ranch, and I don't really see much of a problem with these rules either. When I was a kid my dad's basic rules were 1) don't taunt the animals, especially the bulls, 2) stay out of the granaries, and 3) don't touch any piece of equipment that's worth more than the house. Somehow those restrictions never kept him from finding things for me and my brother to do.


So now there have been at least 4 people in this thread who at least claim to have experience on a farm who are alright with the proposed provisions and think there's still plenty for kids to do on the family farm besides these few tasks; and then there are a few people who don't seem to have farm experience who are freaking out about the provisions. I think the people who seem to have some farm experience have made more convincing arguments than the reactionaries who are claiming that this will end all farm chores for all kids on all farms.
 
2012-04-25 11:26:01 AM  

EWreckedSean: RedPhoenix122: EWreckedSean: Monkeyhouse Zendo: EWreckedSean: Children account for about 20 percent of all farm fatalities

Only 20%? Well, I guess that makes all the difference in the world.

When he claims it is half, it is a huge difference.

100 kids died last year in farming accidents. 175,000 died in car accidents. They are more likely to die on the drive to summer camp than on their farms working.

What those numbers don't figure in is the per capita rate. For instance, there's a hell of a lot fewer farming children than children in cars.

500,000 work on farms. 75,000,000 children in the US. So a little 8th grade algebra means on a per capita comparison, you are almost 12 times more likely to die in a car accident as a child than die in a farming accident.


Only works if you make the numbers up, considering in 2009, only 35,900 total people were killed in car accidents, so even less must be children. Of course, that's just the info from the census, not some propaganda website.
 
2012-04-25 11:26:35 AM  
"City kids still have green light to sell drugs, their bodies and stolen car stereos"

100 posts in, I think it's time to point out the plainly obvious, "All of these things have been illegal your entire life, 100-yo Subby"
 
2012-04-25 11:26:48 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Frothy rhetoric aside, this (the original proposal, which is being reproposed) just doesn't seem all that controversial. No "family farm" needs young children doing this work, and I speak as someone who grew up on a subsistence farm.


I notice kids 16 and older can still operate the power-driven equipment. That sounds absolutely reasonable to me.

In high school, I had class wherein we were trained to operate a tractor. Please, don't ask me what kind. I have no idea. There was a young man in the class who was mentally retarded.

This young man was allowed to ride the tractor with the instructor, but not alone as the rest of us did. One day a social worked turned up and threatened our instructor with legal action unless the young man was allowed to drive the tractor.

He was put on the tractor and lost control almost immediately. He could not remember how to slow down or stop it. Our instructor sprinted to the tractor and snatched that young man off the tractor just before it crashed through a chain link fence, smashed into the front of a teachers' car, and flipped over on to its' side.

I admit I took some pleasure in circling that social worker with the other young ladies in the class and cussing her with every obscenity we could collectively come up with while the, relatively innocent, young men in the class looked on a little wide-eyed.

The state had deemed that young man ineligible to drive a car: a vehicle that has sides, a roof, seat belts; a vehicle in many ways significantly safer to drive than a tractor. But the social worker thought he was okay to drive a tractor.
 
2012-04-25 11:27:23 AM  

kingoomieiii: Well, we've completely destroyed its infrastructure and its government is powerless to contain the seedier element of its population. We can't leave until that's fixed, because it's our fault.

As for Iraq, some of the generals are starting to like it out there.


Very nice. Been to both, I'll pass.
 
2012-04-25 11:28:33 AM  

Bf+: So, lemme get this right...
Derpers are angry about a labor department rule that doesn't ban farm chores...
because it bans farm chores?

I guess I can look forward to crazy uncle's email.
RE:FWD:FWD:RE:FWD:FWD:RE:FWD:FWD: OMG!!! LOOKIT WHAT 9BAMA - MUST SEE!!! FOXNEWS!!


This particular outrage stems from large agribusiness, which are the last businesses allowed to exploit child labor. As usual, all of the "family farm" nonsense actually goes exactly the opposite way: Family farms are at a disadvantage against large factory farms and these regs would eliminate some of that imbalance by requiring factory farms to follow somewhat saner labor regulations.

Always be suspicious of coordinated major media campaigns that purport to be for the benefit of the little guy.
 
2012-04-25 11:28:59 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: That will be next I'm sure.


Even living in the heart of southern football mania, I've never understood what makes the game such a sacred institution. I get that cheering on a football team is basically tribal porn for overweight, middle aged men and serves to shore up their flagging testosterone levels but, apart from that, I don't see what it is that makes that particular sport the axis of athletic competition.
 
2012-04-25 11:29:01 AM  

Lunaville: But the social worker thought he was okay to drive a tractor.


I think it's fair to say that that social worker was a complete farking moron.
 
2012-04-25 11:30:01 AM  

EWreckedSean: 500,000 work on farms. 75,000,000 children in the US. So a little 8th grade algebra means on a per capita comparison, you are almost 12 times more likely to die in a car accident as a child than die in a farming accident.


So you are saying that the 74,500,000 children who don't work on farms are not at risk of being killed in farm accidents? You may be using 8th grade math but that is definitely 2nd grade logic.
 
2012-04-25 11:30:18 AM  
feeble-minded weak people like the idea of a nanny-state.
 
2012-04-25 11:30:52 AM  

Jim_Callahan: "Prohibited places of employment," a Department press release read, "would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions."

None of those actually have anything to do with any farm small enough to be a family operation. Unless you're talking about "family farm" in the sense that Wal-mart is a "Walton family business".

A married couple with 20 acres, a tractor, and a cow do not have a goddamned grain elevator, and are still exempted from labor laws including child labor and minimum wage laws. It's exactly the same as how children are allowed to darn their own socks but aren't allowed to operate industrial electric looms that put out a hundred square yards a second.

//Technically a family ranch has something called a stock yard, but it would not be registered as such in the business classification.


Dude, that's a hobby farm. Talk to the small timers where I grew up that had 80-100 acres worth of corn, soybeans, and/or alfalfa to take care of. Those are the type with 4-5 kids that all need to on machinery when they're able; if they can afforto hire people they try but otherwise they're mostly family operations.
 
2012-04-25 11:30:59 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Dancin_In_Anson: That will be next I'm sure.

Even living in the heart of southern football mania, I've never understood what makes the game such a sacred institution. I get that cheering on a football team is basically tribal porn for overweight, middle aged men and serves to shore up their flagging testosterone levels but, apart from that, I don't see what it is that makes that particular sport the axis of athletic competition.


Nope, you got it.
 
2012-04-25 11:31:22 AM  

RedPhoenix122: Lunaville: That's a good point and one that did not occur to me while I was reading the article. I was distracted by implications that children wouldn't be able to work on their parents own land and that 4-H would cease to exist.

I'm impressed, someone who can listen to the evidence, both for and against their current argument, and actually form their own opinion. You are a rare breed.


I don't know. Those people most of us have on ignore aside, don't you think most people who post to FARK are like that?
 
2012-04-25 11:31:55 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: This particular outrage stems from large agribusiness, which are the last businesses allowed to exploit child labor. As usual, all of the "family farm" nonsense actually goes exactly the opposite way: Family farms are at a disadvantage against large factory farms and these regs would eliminate some of that imbalance by requiring factory farms to follow somewhat saner labor regulations.

Always be suspicious of coordinated major media campaigns that purport to be for the benefit of the little guy.


That never happens. They really do care about the small business owner that is a job creator....*twitch*

Sorry, can't even type that with a straight face.
 
2012-04-25 11:32:38 AM  

Lunaville: I don't know. Those people most of us have on ignore aside, don't you think most people who post to FARK are like that?


Not in the politics tab.
 
2012-04-25 11:32:57 AM  
My grandparents were farmers. They were retired by the time I came along.

I know some of the teenagers in the area worked at the grain elevator helping to unload trucks and that sort of thing. They'd have a big hole in the ground, and the truck would dump it sort of on top of the hole and they would sweep/rake the leftovers in. If you had a non-dumping truck they'd shovel the truck out. There was basically a sewer grate over anything dangerous so it was pretty safe work.

Versus me on running a bush hog when I was 14.
 
2012-04-25 11:33:38 AM  
I heard Democrats want to sew penises on the faces of farm boys so they can't play football.
 
2012-04-25 11:33:54 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Why are these kids allowed to work all day on farms anyway? Shouldn't they be in school?


Not sure if trolling, but they don't, many get up early, work around the farm, go to school, come home and work some more.
 
2012-04-25 11:33:55 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Family farms are at a disadvantage against large factory farms and these regs would eliminate some of that imbalance by requiring factory farms to follow somewhat saner labor regulations.


This is an odd take, the small family farms near me are the ones that employ kids during the summer. The large ag farms seem to be the ones utilizing illegal labor and that is where they are getting the imbalance on pay, by treating the illegals as throw away workers.
 
2012-04-25 11:34:53 AM  

TwoHead: Lunaville: That's a good point and one that did not occur to me while I was reading the article. I was distracted by implications that children wouldn't be able to work on their parents own land and that 4-H would cease to exist.

That is what sites like Daily Make Shiat Up are all about. They count on most people assuming that they aren't being lied to and they know that people like EWS will back up their lies with ignorance and/or malice so innocent people like you can be misled.

Being well informed these days is a full time job requiring follow up research rather than just taking what you are told as fact.


It's natural for most people to assume they are not being lied to because 99.99% of the people in the world are honest 99.99% of the time. The problem is how busy the .01% can be at times.
 
2012-04-25 11:35:05 AM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: Those are the type with 4-5 kids that all need to on machinery when they're able; if they can afforto hire people they try but otherwise they're mostly family operations.


I didn't think of it that way. That's a great system, actually. I think we need a "Stretched beyond our means by design" exemption for child labor laws across the board. Can't afford full wages, but need SOMEONE to push metal into the giant choppers? Well, you're in luck! KIDS. They'll work for fresh honey or whatever the fark you make!
 
2012-04-25 11:37:00 AM  

sigdiamond2000: I heard Democrats want to sew penises on the faces of farm boys so they can't play football.


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/democrats-want-to-kill-football-with- s ecret-new-penis-transplant-procedure
 
2012-04-25 11:37:46 AM  

dennysgod: Not sure if trolling, but they don't, many get up early, work around the farm, go to school, come home and work some more.


Many are also "home-schooled". Would never pass a 4th grade reading level, but that's OK, because you're gonna grow up and work on this farm till ya die, son!
 
2012-04-25 11:39:06 AM  
I find it hilarious that EWreckedSean just can't bear to admit that he is 100% wrong and got completely owned.
 
2012-04-25 11:41:04 AM  

birchman: I find it hilarious that EWreckedSean just can't bear to admit that he is 100% wrong and got completely owned.


Welcome to the politics tab
 
2012-04-25 11:42:07 AM  

Lunaville: 99.99% of the people in the world are honest 99.99% of the time.


ummmm
 
2012-04-25 11:44:51 AM  

CPennypacker: DozeNutz: Why does the Obama admin put out shiat like this? Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm. Its hard enough for small farms to make it, but this will just make it harder. Wouldn't this encourage the farmer to hire people, making it more expensive for the farmer, thus increasing prices? I bet they would hire illegal immigrants to do the work too.

I thought this was a free country...

[t2.gstatic.com image 259x194]


I'm imagining Randy from Southpark, pantless drunk and screaming this is AMerica right? I thought this was America!
 
2012-04-25 11:44:53 AM  

Jackson Herring: Lunaville: 99.99% of the people in the world are honest 99.99% of the time.

ummmm


I actually agree. It's hard to lie when you're not talking.
 
2012-04-25 11:46:29 AM  

Wendy's Chili: spiderpaz: I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm a Democrat and I don't support curbing child labor laws or anything crazy teabaggers might say.

This country, incrementally is trying to legislate away an entire way of life by making it prohibitively expensive, and impossible to navigate all the regs and bureaucracy. Everybody is always talking about the phony wars on religion, Christmas, guns, church, blah blah, etc. But there is actually a real war on rural life as it has been for hundreds of years. The eventual result will be all American farms and ranches being heavy machined, large corporate operations, and a tremendous transfer of land from the middle class to the wealthy.

F*cking economies of scale... how do they work?

Hint: They have little to do with legislators or bureaucrats


No, he's right. Except for the parts where he seems to imply this is new or unique to the US. Kicking the shiat out of farmer folk so they'll go get a city job has been a worldwide tradition since the industrial revolution.
 
2012-04-25 11:48:04 AM  

dennysgod: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Why are these kids allowed to work all day on farms anyway? Shouldn't they be in school?

Not sure if trolling, but they don't, many get up early, work around the farm, go to school, come home and work some more.


5 am: Get up and feed the livestock
6:30 am: Get ready for school
8-3:30: School
4:30-5:30: Homework
5:30-7:30pm: Chores
7:30: Dinner
8-10pm: Free time unless there was some emergency

High school farking sucked and the weekends weren't much better. My friends were generally of the opinion that I was being used as slave labor.
 
2012-04-25 11:48:17 AM  

Ned Stark: No, he's right. Except for the parts where he seems to imply this is new or unique to the US. Kicking the shiat out of farmer folk so they'll go get a city job has been a worldwide tradition since the industrial revolution.


Yeah, because the serfs need to be productive.
 
2012-04-25 11:49:41 AM  

Urbn: So now there have been at least 4 people in this thread who at least claim to have experience on a farm who are alright with the proposed provisions


I'm curious how many of them are parents.
 
2012-04-25 11:51:09 AM  

kingoomieiii: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Dancin_In_Anson: That will be next I'm sure.

Even living in the heart of southern football mania, I've never understood what makes the game such a sacred institution. I get that cheering on a football team is basically tribal porn for overweight, middle aged men and serves to shore up their flagging testosterone levels but, apart from that, I don't see what it is that makes that particular sport the axis of athletic competition.

Nope, you got it.


Funny, neither of my kids played. Personally, I like watching HS baseball more than football too.
 
2012-04-25 11:52:44 AM  

spiderpaz: I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm a Democrat and I don't support curbing child labor laws or anything crazy teabaggers might say.

This country, incrementally is trying to legislate away an entire way of life by making it prohibitively expensive, and impossible to navigate all the regs and bureaucracy. Everybody is always talking about the phony wars on religion, Christmas, guns, church, blah blah, etc. But there is actually a real war on rural life as it has been for hundreds of years. The eventual result will be all American farms and ranches being heavy machined, large corporate operations, and a tremendous transfer of land from the middle class to the wealthy.


Big ag cant use child labor so they want to make sure the little guy cant either.
 
2012-04-25 11:55:01 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Urbn: So now there have been at least 4 people in this thread who at least claim to have experience on a farm who are alright with the proposed provisions

I'm curious how many of them are parents.


I'm sure you are. Perhaps you'd like someone to provide you an example?

/grew up on family farm
//ok with proposed rules because they exempt family farms
///parent
 
2012-04-25 11:55:03 AM  
Force them off the family farm and into McDonalds. Lower unemployment and be praised as a savior. Who gives a fark about farmettes they can always sell their lot to a developer.
 
2012-04-25 11:56:34 AM  

Jim_Callahan: "Prohibited places of employment," a Department press release read, "would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions."

None of those actually have anything to do with any farm small enough to be a family operation. Unless you're talking about "family farm" in the sense that Wal-mart is a "Walton family business".

A married couple with 20 acres, a tractor, and a cow do not have a goddamned grain elevator, and are still exempted from labor laws including child labor and minimum wage laws. It's exactly the same as how children are allowed to darn their own socks but aren't allowed to operate industrial electric looms that put out a hundred square yards a second.

//Technically a family ranch has something called a stock yard, but it would not be registered as such in the business classification.


Well, on my family farm (me, dad, whatever help we can get out of my brothers) we have 3 grain bins. and 2 silos. We are a small farm. 60 milk cows, 276 acres. I have a neighbour with an even smaller farm, 35 milk cows. He has 3 smaller silos and a grain bin. I also know a small, family run feedlot. Not every feedlot is finishing thousands of cattle at a time

You don't seem to know what you're talking about
 
2012-04-25 11:57:34 AM  

TwoHead: /grew up on family farm
//ok with proposed rules because they exempt family farms
///parent



So you need to be told where you can allow your child to work. I guess I'm ok with that if you are.
 
2012-04-25 11:57:44 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Urbn: So now there have been at least 4 people in this thread who at least claim to have experience on a farm who are alright with the proposed provisions

I'm curious how many of them are parents.


I am. I quit that life for a better one and would never put my daughter through what my day to day life was. There's a temptation to look back at it with the eyes of nostalgia but, when I honestly evaluate it, growing up as a kid on a farm sucked ass.

I sometimes look outside my office and miss working in the fresh air and sun but then remind myself that working in the sun sucks when it's 95+ degrees and you don't have the option of quitting for the day.
 
2012-04-25 11:58:35 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: your child


Nothing whatsoever to do with this new rule.
 
2012-04-25 11:59:03 AM  
Grew up on a small Nebraska farm. I'm OK with the regs as long as they exempt the children of the farmers themselves. It should be up to the parents to decide when a child is old enough to perform certain tasks. The last thing a farmer needs is his kid threatening to call the cops on him because he made him go sweep out a grain bin or bottle a calf.
 
2012-04-25 11:59:56 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Dancin_In_Anson: Urbn: So now there have been at least 4 people in this thread who at least claim to have experience on a farm who are alright with the proposed provisions

I'm curious how many of them are parents.

I am. I quit that life for a better one and would never put my daughter through what my day to day life was. There's a temptation to look back at it with the eyes of nostalgia but, when I honestly evaluate it, growing up as a kid on a farm sucked ass.

I sometimes look outside my office and miss working in the fresh air and sun but then remind myself that working in the sun sucks when it's 95+ degrees and you don't have the option of quitting for the day.


Meh, if you're nostalgic, just buy the game Harvest Moon.
 
2012-04-25 12:00:16 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: TwoHead: /grew up on family farm
//ok with proposed rules because they exempt family farms
///parent


So you need to be told where you can allow your child to work. I guess I'm ok with that if you are.


Jesus Christ on a cracker, how many times does it need to be repeated that this does not apply to the children of the farm owners?
 
2012-04-25 12:00:25 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Urbn: So now there have been at least 4 people in this thread who at least claim to have experience on a farm who are alright with the proposed provisions

I'm curious how many of them are parents.


I'm curious how whether or not I have kids would make my opinion, born of spending all 18 years of my own childhood on a ranch, any more or less relevant to the topic.
 
2012-04-25 12:00:25 PM  

spiderpaz: The eventual result will be all American farms and ranches being heavy machined, large corporate operations, and a tremendous transfer of land from the middle class to the wealthy.


This is true, if by "eventual result" you mean "what occurred about 30 years ago."
 
2012-04-25 12:00:39 PM  

James!: Dancin_In_Anson: your child

Nothing whatsoever to do with this new rule.


doesn't matter libs bad

(sung to the tune of "I Just Had Sex")
 
2012-04-25 12:02:04 PM  

spiderpaz: I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm a Democrat and I don't support curbing child labor laws or anything crazy teabaggers might say.

This country, incrementally is trying to legislate away an entire way of life by making it prohibitively expensive, and impossible to navigate all the regs and bureaucracy. Everybody is always talking about the phony wars on religion, Christmas, guns, church, blah blah, etc. But there is actually a real war on rural life as it has been for hundreds of years. The eventual result will be all American farms and ranches being heavy machined, large corporate operations, and a tremendous transfer of land from the middle class to the wealthy.


Your premise assumes that the Government is making this happen. That is incorrect. Advances in technology will make this happen no matter what. We are on the verge of a major cultural upheaval. Within one or two decades there will be no manual labour left for humans to perform, as machines will be able to do it better, faster, and cheaper in all instances.

Look at United States productivity levels over the past 50 years. They are skyrocketing, even when taken at a per-capita view. Most pundits take this to show that people in this country are increasingly overworked, and while that may be true, there's no way that the extra working hours account for that productivity gain. Humans are increasingly being replaced with machines.

No amount of free child labour is going to help Mr. Hypothetical Family Farmer compete against MegaCorp Inc. The machines that MegaCorp Inc. uses will always be far more efficient than humans. The bigger the corp, the better and more efficient machines they'll be able to afford.


We're at a point in history where there is increasingly less work that humans need to accomplish to maintain society, and rapidly approaching the point where that number becomes zero. We're going to have to learn to adopt our economic policies to this endgame or there will be a massive amount of chaos once all the formerly-labouring-humans are out of work and only the machine-owners own anything anymore. This, more than anything else, is the cause of the wealth shift from the middle-class to the wealthy.
 
2012-04-25 12:03:14 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: dennysgod: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Why are these kids allowed to work all day on farms anyway? Shouldn't they be in school?

Not sure if trolling, but they don't, many get up early, work around the farm, go to school, come home and work some more.

5 am: Get up and feed the livestock
6:30 am: Get ready for school
8-3:30: School
4:30-5:30: Homework
5:30-7:30pm: Chores
7:30: Dinner
8-10pm: Free time unless there was some emergency

High school farking sucked and the weekends weren't much better. My friends were generally of the opinion that I was being used as slave labor.


I was a little luckier than you. my day would go
6am, get up, get ready for school.
7am: hour long bus ride
8-330:school
3 30: hour long busride
430: snack, then chores till 8
8pm: dinner
830-6: homework, sleep
 
2012-04-25 12:03:19 PM  
I wonder how many anti child farm worker farkers can be cross referenced from the drinking and driving thread.....its ok when they endanger kids lives....amirite.
 
2012-04-25 12:04:15 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: TwoHead: /grew up on family farm
//ok with proposed rules because they exempt family farms
///parent


So you need to be told where you can allow your child to work. I guess I'm ok with that if you are.


So you support DozeNutz call for barbequing and eating all left handed people? Can you provide any more examples of you completely missing the point?
 
2012-04-25 12:04:39 PM  

birchman: Jesus Christ on a cracker, how many times does it need to be repeated that this does not apply to the children of the farm owners?


can you point out the part of the article that mentions this exemption?
 
2012-04-25 12:06:10 PM  

colon_pow: birchman: Jesus Christ on a cracker, how many times does it need to be repeated that this does not apply to the children of the farm owners?

can you point out the part of the article that mentions this exemption?


We've linked several times to the Department of Labor website stating that. Peruse the thread.
 
2012-04-25 12:08:19 PM  

colon_pow: birchman: Jesus Christ on a cracker, how many times does it need to be repeated that this does not apply to the children of the farm owners?

can you point out the part of the article that mentions this exemption?


No I can't, because the article is a piece of shiat partisan hatchet job that is completely incorrect.

I can, however, cite the US Department Of Labor website's page on the issue, which states the following:

On February 1, 2012, the Department announced that it will re-propose the portion of its regulation on child labor in agriculture interpreting the "parental exemption." The parental exemption allows children of any age who are employed by their parent, or a person standing in the place of a parent, to perform any job on a farm owned or operated by their parent or such person standing in the place of a parent. The re-proposal process will seek comments and inputs as to how the department can comply with statutory requirements to protect children, while respecting rural traditions. The re-proposed portion of the rule is expected to be published for public comment by early summer. The department will continue to review the comments received regarding the remaining portions of the proposed rule for inclusion in a final rule.

Questions?
 
2012-04-25 12:09:24 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: You try getting kicked in the face by a cow at 14.
It makes sense. Working around large animals, especially a lot of them like in a stockyard, is only work for seasoned professionals, not teenagers. No one's saying teens can feed the pigs, but there's plenty of situations where livestock can be just as deadly as any machinery.


I'm not saying that working around large animals isn't dangerous, I understand that it is and grew up around farms. However, there are lots of things that teenagers do that are dangerous and I don't think the federal government needs to try and make them all illegal. I couldn't find very recent numbers but the numbers I saw were from the early/mid 90s and said that on average 104 deaths per year occurred in farm related accidents, and this number included anyone 19 years old or younger. That isn't a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, which is not to say that their lives aren't important or don't matter. But consider that on average in the US 600+-700+ people die in bicycle accidents each year. I couldn't find what percentage were minors but it did state that the age bracket at highest risk of death from bicycle injury was 5-14, so I think it is probably safe to assume that we have as many, or possibly even more, children dying from bicycle accidents as from farm accidents. Should the federal government make laws preventing children and anyone who isn't a seasoned professional ride bikes? Why does it make sense for them to address one and not the other?

I think that people should be safe and not put anyone into a position that they can't handle, whether they're a minor or an adult. However, this doesn't seem like something the federal government needs to be spending their time focusing on. If these laws are needed, they can be done at the state level where they are likely to have a better understanding of what would work well in their area and with their citizens. Many of the rules they are proposing make sense, but others are far too broad and drastically reduce what someone under 18 could do on a farm.
 
2012-04-25 12:09:25 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: TwoHead: /grew up on family farm
//ok with proposed rules because they exempt family farms
///parent


So you need to be told where you can allow your child to work. I guess I'm ok with that if you are.


You've still got it.
 
2012-04-25 12:09:55 PM  

colon_pow: birchman: Jesus Christ on a cracker, how many times does it need to be repeated that this does not apply to the children of the farm owners?

can you point out the part of the article that mentions this exemption?


You don't think the DailyCrapper is going to do that much work, do you?

Check it out at the DoL's website.
 
2012-04-25 12:13:56 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: dennysgod: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Why are these kids allowed to work all day on farms anyway? Shouldn't they be in school?

Not sure if trolling, but they don't, many get up early, work around the farm, go to school, come home and work some more.

5 am: Get up and feed the livestock
6:30 am: Get ready for school
8-3:30: School
4:30-5:30: Homework
5:30-7:30pm: Chores
7:30: Dinner
8-10pm: Free time unless there was some emergency

High school farking sucked and the weekends weren't much better. My friends were generally of the opinion that I was being used as slave labor.


Yeah, you were. I grew up in farm country and I helped some of my friends on their farm and my normal payment was a big dinner or some beer, but I had to luxury to not work that day and leave when I choose.
 
2012-04-25 12:14:00 PM  

colon_pow: birchman: Jesus Christ on a cracker, how many times does it need to be repeated that this does not apply to the children of the farm owners?

can you point out the part of the article that mentions this exemption?


Oh gee, I wonder what reason the Daily Caller might have to omit the exemption from their article?
 
2012-04-25 12:14:27 PM  

birchman: Jesus Christ on a cracker, how many times does it need to be repeated that this does not apply to the children of the farm owners


It does indeed if your kid wants to work at the feedlot.
 
2012-04-25 12:15:30 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: birchman: Jesus Christ on a cracker, how many times does it need to be repeated that this does not apply to the children of the farm owners

It does indeed if your kid wants to work at the feedlot.


Nobody's kid ever wants to work at the feedlot, unless they get a job when they're 16 like a normal person.
 
2012-04-25 12:16:24 PM  

birchman: Questions?


I have one!

How can I blame this on Obama?
 
2012-04-25 12:17:33 PM  

mahuika: birchman: Questions?

I have one!

How can I blame this on Obama?


Taxbongo is just bitter about people working on farms for free?
 
2012-04-25 12:19:54 PM  

runin800m: Should the federal government make laws preventing children and anyone who isn't a seasoned professional ride bikes? Why does it make sense for them to address one and not the other?


Is the US government currently allowing children to ride their bikes on federal highways?
 
2012-04-25 12:21:01 PM  
Anything that limits a right-winger's ability to exploit cheap labor is bad. We get it.
 
2012-04-25 12:22:01 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: birchman: Jesus Christ on a cracker, how many times does it need to be repeated that this does not apply to the children of the farm owners

It does indeed if your kid wants to work at the feedlot.


If my kid wants to work in a feedlot I'll pay her not to and try getting her an internship at the local nanotech lab. For kids of farmers it isn't so much that they *want* to work in the family business but that they *have* to. Even for teenagers there's frequently better paying jobs that are less labor intensive.
 
2012-04-25 12:22:22 PM  

mahuika: birchman: Questions?

I have one!

How can I blame this on Obama?


Well first you have to ignore all the facts and falsely claim that the law prevents anyone from working outside of a large city until they are 40 years old. Then you claim that it's socialist marxism and destroying America because muslims.
 
2012-04-25 12:23:59 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: birchman: Jesus Christ on a cracker, how many times does it need to be repeated that this does not apply to the children of the farm owners

It does indeed if your kid wants to work at the feedlot.


They can't work at textile factories or coal mines either. I thought this was a free country.
 
2012-04-25 12:24:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nobody's kid ever wants to work at the feedlot, unless they get a job when they're 16 like a normal person.


Rule applies to children under 18 and yes, there are still kids who don't mind doing some grunt work for gas money.
 
2012-04-25 12:25:13 PM  
More government intrusion. There goes the family farm.

Why does Obama and the democrats hate the hard working families who instill a decent work ethic in children?
 
2012-04-25 12:25:59 PM  
So any other hilarious right wing shills going to come in here and lie about this, or have we heard from all of the usual suspects so far?
 
2012-04-25 12:26:21 PM  
This legislation may be intended to reduce the children of immigrant workers from being taken advantage of, but it really hampers the ability of kids to get experience in the farming business when they themselves don't have a farm, or have a farm that is too small to keep them busy. It is the rare farmer that did not help out a neighboring farm as a kid.

Anyone over 12 can drive a tractor, clean a silo, and feed cattle safely as long as there is adequate training. Agriculture has and continues to improve on safety, particularly in machinery.

/Applied anhydrous ammonia in junior high.
//If the main line ruptures, put it in neutral, jump out and run against the wind
 
2012-04-25 12:27:32 PM  

EWreckedSean: Grand_Moff_Joseph: As amended, the rules exempt farmers' direct children, so I fail to see the issue here.

Besides, look at what the rule covers:

"The proposal would strengthen current child labor regulations prohibiting agricultural work with animals and in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits and storage bins. It would prohibit farmworkers under age 16 from participating in the cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco. And it would prohibit youth in both agricultural and nonagricultural employment from using electronic, including communication, devices while operating power-driven equipment."

and

"Prohibited places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions."


These are dangerous places for even a experienced adult to be. Teens have no business being in any of those locations.

Nanny state much? You want to keep a teenager out of a grain elevator is one thing, but feed lots, stock yards, cattle auctions. Oh no, you are much too young to feed the pigs! Give me a break.


Why are we using the term "teenagers? The policy refers to kids under 16. Sure... 13, 14, and 15 are technically *-teen agers. But, when people think of teenagers, they think of kids who can drive.

Using the term "teenagers" in this context is totally dishonest and a deliberate attempt to conjure a misleading image.

"Oh my God, what you mean my 13 year old can't drive the cattle truck 11 hours from Houston to Amarillo?!?!? This is bullshiat!!! NANNY STATE!!!"
 
2012-04-25 12:30:04 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Nobody's kid ever wants to work at the feedlot, unless they get a job when they're 16 like a normal person.

Rule applies to children under 18 and yes, there are still kids who don't mind doing some grunt work for gas money.


Right. They can get a job somewhere else doing gruntwork, and not at a feedlot where the potential for injury/death is not so high.

Get it? Kids these days have CARS and things where they can DRIVE elsewhere to work.

I grew up in a town of 500 people. When I was sixteen I got a job at Taco Bell.

Do you know where the nearest Taco Bell was? 35 minutes away. But I did it. It was grunt work. I got gas money. I didn't have to work in the local feedlot.
 
2012-04-25 12:31:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Nobody's kid ever wants to work at the feedlot, unless they get a job when they're 16 like a normal person.

Rule applies to children under 18 and yes, there are still kids who don't mind doing some grunt work for gas money.

Right. They can get a job somewhere else doing gruntwork, and not at a feedlot where the potential for injury/death is not so high.

Get it? Kids these days have CARS and things where they can DRIVE elsewhere to work.

I grew up in a town of 500 people. When I was sixteen I got a job at Taco Bell.

Do you know where the nearest Taco Bell was? 35 minutes away. But I did it. It was grunt work. I got gas money. I didn't have to work in the local feedlot.


Also, no, the policy refers to children under the age of 16.
 
2012-04-25 12:32:52 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Nobody's kid ever wants to work at the feedlot, unless they get a job when they're 16 like a normal person.

Rule applies to children under 18 and yes, there are still kids who don't mind doing some grunt work for gas money.


The DoL FLSA establishes a minimum age of 18 for hazardous work in nonagricultural employment and 16 in agricultural employment. Once agricultural workers reach age 16, they are no longer subject to the FLSA's child labor provisions. The FLSA also provides a complete exemption for youths employed on farms owned by their parents. Source
 
2012-04-25 12:33:04 PM  

piledhigheranddeeper: or have a farm that is too small to keep them busy


There is no such thing unless you're talking about someone's backyard garden and chicken coop. There is always something whether it's maintenance or improvements to existing facilities. Usually upkeep alone is enough to keep everyone busy.
 
2012-04-25 12:33:19 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: If my kid wants to work in a feedlot I'll pay her not to and try getting her an internship at the local nanotech lab.


You mean you can make decisions like this on your own? So tell me again why you need to be told where you can allow her to work.

James!: They can't work at textile factories or coal mines either. I thought this was a free country.


It's not and you're ok with it.
 
2012-04-25 12:34:41 PM  
Should the federal government make laws preventing children and anyone who isn't a seasoned professional ride bikes? Why does it make sense for them to address one and not the other?

Because one is a hired job where the adult, who is fundamentally in a position of power over children, has a profit motive to coerce the child into doing something they can't handle, and the other it just kids being kids.
 
2012-04-25 12:35:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I grew up in a town of 500 people. When I was sixteen I got a job at Taco Bell.


Congratulations. No burns from hot grease, slips on the floor etc etc etc. How did you ever survive?
 
2012-04-25 12:36:08 PM  
But I thought the dirty revenuers done already used the DEATH TAX to seize all the family farms?

Oh GOP... You and your Orwellian newspeak. I suspect Frank Luntz is behind the "war on CHORES" tactic.

"Why, I say the filthy gubmint won't even let Wally Cleaver take out the garbage or mow the lawn no more. How he s'posed to learn a work ethic now???"
 
2012-04-25 12:36:34 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: I grew up in a town of 500 people. When I was sixteen I got a job at Taco Bell.

Congratulations. No burns from hot grease, slips on the floor etc etc etc. How did you ever survive?


Government regulations, actually. I was not allowed to clean the fryer at 16 without supervision, or operate a mechanical slicer.

Thanks for the setup, though, that was pretty awesome.
 
2012-04-25 12:36:40 PM  
Next regulation coming up: prohibiting a child who has dust allergies from sweeping
 
2012-04-25 12:38:04 PM  

cman: Next regulation coming up: prohibiting a child who has dust allergies from sweeping


You do know the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, right? I mean, you're so smart you've bucked the two-party trend! Despite the fact that you're going to vote for a Republican in the next election.
 
2012-04-25 12:39:27 PM  
What a surprise... a pack of right-wing lies and distortions, and Dancin_In_Anson is falling all over himself to be the first in line to swallow 'em down.
 
2012-04-25 12:40:31 PM  

technicolor-misfit: What a surprise... a pack of right-wing lies and distortions, and Dancin_In_Anson is falling all over himself to be the first in line to swallow 'em down.


And he didn't grow up in farm country nor does he have any farming experience. Yet this is Important To Him because the Daily Caller says its Bad For America.
 
2012-04-25 12:40:39 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You mean you can make decisions like this on your own? So tell me again why you need to be told where you can allow her to work.


I completely agree. I had a job lined up for my 10-year old, down at the oil refinery. I figured that would keep him in Pokemon cards for a while, and teach him some valuable lessons about how to work around highly inflammable carcinogens, which I'm sure you'll agree is a valuable skill in this economy. Turns out, they can't legally let him work there. I mean, really - what the hell is wrong with this country?
 
2012-04-25 12:41:14 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Monkeyhouse Zendo: If my kid wants to work in a feedlot I'll pay her not to and try getting her an internship at the local nanotech lab.

You mean you can make decisions like this on your own? So tell me again why you need to be told where you can allow her to work.


You're so farking obtuse you may as well be a straight line. The issue isn't that when presented with the option that people can make a good choice, it's that frequently they don't with some pretty bad consequences. Regulations aren't put in place to control people who are good actors, they are to limit bad actors.

Is it your contention that, in the absence of regulations, everyone will make the decision that limits negative consequences for kids who may have no part in that decision?
 
2012-04-25 12:44:42 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Is it your contention that, in the absence of regulations, everyone will make the decision that limits negative consequences for kids who may have no part in that decision?


That is the basis of rightist rhetoric... At least, among the stupid rightists. The smart ones know it isn't true and are just evil.
 
2012-04-25 12:46:47 PM  

BMulligan: I completely agree. I had a job lined up for my 10-year old, down at the oil refinery. I figured that would keep him in Pokemon cards for a while, and teach him some valuable lessons about how to work around highly inflammable carcinogens, which I'm sure you'll agree is a valuable skill in this economy. Turns out, they can't legally let him work there. I mean, really - what the hell is wrong with this country?


Child labor laws: legal theft at the point of a gun.
 
2012-04-25 12:48:54 PM  
BigAg is doing a bang up job. No need for small farms anymore.

It's all good.
 
2012-04-25 12:54:48 PM  
If the article is completely accurate, it sounds like the rules go too far.

However, I suspect the article is exaggerating just a wee bit.
 
2012-04-25 12:57:59 PM  

ourbigdumbmouth: BigAg is doing a bang up job. No need for small farms anymore.

It's all good.


It's like you didn't read the thread. At all.
 
2012-04-25 01:00:19 PM  
I guess D_I_A hit the eject button on this thread after allowing too many facts to enter the conversation.
 
2012-04-25 01:11:22 PM  
Just think of all the kids who are going to be denied character-building experiences like the one John Thompson triumphed over...

bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com

"It's been ten years and over twenty surgeries since John Thompson, a shy North Dakota native, was catapulted into international headlines.

While working alone on his parents' Hurdsfield, North Dakota farm in January 1992, Thompson's shirt became entangled in a power take-off while grinding feed. In an instant, both his arms were ripped from his body and he was knocked unconscious. His dog Tuffy licked his face until he regained consciousness. Thompson, then an 18 year-old high school senior, gathered his strength, staggered more than 100 yards to the farmhouse and opened the door with his mouth. Inside, he grasped a pencil in his teeth and used it to punch numbers on the telephone to call for help. He then climbed into the bathtub so he wouldn't bleed on his mother's carpet. After initial treatment at St. Aloisius Hospital in Harvey, North Dakota, Thompson was flown to North Memorial Medical Center in Robbinsdale, Minnesota where he underwent a six-hour long operation to reattach his arms."


Way to go O-blame-o.
 
2012-04-25 01:12:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I guess D_I_A hit the eject button on this thread after allowing too many facts to enter the conversation.


I'm sure he's just cleaning his spurs...
 
2012-04-25 01:15:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Government regulations, actually. I was not allowed to clean the fryer at 16 without supervision, or operate a mechanical slicer.


As opposed to not being able to do it at all.


cameroncrazy1984: And he didn't grow up in farm country nor does he have any farming experience.


Take a gander where I live.

BMulligan: I had a job lined up for my 10-year old, down at the oil refinery.


And that would make you a total dumbass.

cameroncrazy1984: I guess D_I_A hit the eject button on this thread after allowing too many facts to enter the conversation.


I'm right here.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Regulations aren't put in place to control people who are good actors, they are to limit bad actors.


So in other words, you want the government to control not your actions, just the actions of others. You betcha.
 
2012-04-25 01:17:05 PM  
You know what? I've been approaching this all wrong. I encourage republicans to fight against Obama's devious attempts to take away the GOD GIVEN right of a 13 year old to drive a forklift for a paycheck. Shout it from the rooftops, culture warriors.
 
2012-04-25 01:19:00 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: And that would make you a total dumbass.


I'm sorry - I thought that your whole point ITT was that parents have to have the right to be total dumbasses about their kids' health and safety, otherwise we were all being crushed under the boot of oppression. Turns out, you really didn't have a point at all. Imagine my surprise.
 
2012-04-25 01:21:01 PM  

BMulligan: - I thought that your whole point ITT was that parents have to have the right to be total dumbasses about their kids' health and safety


Indeed they do.
 
2012-04-25 01:22:16 PM  
I'm going to move to Africa and force my children to work in diamond mines just to piss off the libs.
 
2012-04-25 01:22:58 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: BMulligan: - I thought that your whole point ITT was that parents have to have the right to be total dumbasses about their kids' health and safety

Indeed they do.


So, wait - are you saying that there should be no legal restriction on my 10-year old working at the oil refinery for Pokemon cards, so long as I'm okay with it?
 
2012-04-25 01:22:58 PM  

BMulligan: Dancin_In_Anson: And that would make you a total dumbass.

I'm sorry - I thought that your whole point ITT was that parents have to have the right to be total dumbasses about their kids' health and safety, otherwise we were all being crushed under the boot of oppression. Turns out, you really didn't have a point at all. Imagine my surprise.


DIA doesn't see a need for the government to protect minor children from the sometimes fatal stupidity of their parents.
 
2012-04-25 01:28:49 PM  
First they grab all the raw milk...now they tell farm kids they cannot work.

Isn't Globalist Socialism fun!

More of the push to eliminate the family farm.

All you supporting this move...hope you will enjoy paying twice as much for food.

Most of the corn grown in this country uses youth labor to de-tassle each stalk of corn. It's a job that is so much easier for kids to do than adults....and the kids do it better (and more cost-effectively) than illegal aliens

But hey, knowing liberals and Obama...this sounds like another Illegal Alien work program
 
2012-04-25 01:29:15 PM  
I don't see the issue.

If it's illegal for a child to work in a dangerous environment in any other context (e.g. manufacturing), why should they be permitted to do so on a farm?

Just sounds to me like farms have been living a century behind the rest of us.
 
2012-04-25 01:30:07 PM  

UCFRoadWarrior: First they grab all the raw milk...now they tell farm kids they cannot work.

Isn't Globalist Socialism fun!

More of the push to eliminate the family farm.

All you supporting this move...hope you will enjoy paying twice as much for food.

Most of the corn grown in this country uses youth labor to de-tassle each stalk of corn. It's a job that is so much easier for kids to do than adults....and the kids do it better (and more cost-effectively) than illegal aliens

But hey, knowing liberals and Obama...this sounds like another Illegal Alien work program


BOOGA BOOGA!
 
2012-04-25 01:31:00 PM  

UCFRoadWarrior: Most of the corn grown in this country uses youth labor to de-tassle each stalk of corn. It's a job that is so much easier for kids to do than adults....and the kids do it better (and more cost-effectively) than illegal aliens


The tiny hands of children are SO much better at repairing the gearing in jammed presses...only a total COMMIE would be opposed to such things! Hope you like paying more for your [insert anything]!

/moron
 
2012-04-25 01:32:08 PM  

UCFRoadWarrior: Most ofwe produce t the corn grown in this country uses youth labor to de-tassle each stalk of corn. It's a job that is so much easier for kids to do than adults....and the kids do it better (and more cost-effectively) than illegal aliens


By the way, we produce too much goddamn corn anyway. Good riddance.
 
2012-04-25 01:32:53 PM  

verbaltoxin: GAT_00: "Daily Caller"

*closes link*

It's getting to the point where there's no reason to click any Yahoo link anymore.

There's a noticeable correlation between Yahoo circling the drain and its increase in right wing troll bait articles.


Waaaaaaaahhhhh. A news source doesn't portray my viewpoint! God what and ignorant babies many in the fark left have become. Go to kos if alternative viewpoints hurt so much.
 
2012-04-25 01:33:03 PM  

UCFRoadWarrior: First they grab all the raw milk


Bullshiat right out of the gate. There is no federal restriction on selling raw milk, and 28 states allow it.
 
2012-04-25 01:33:36 PM  

Headso: Big ag says thanks! Making the small family farm even less profitable is great!



I like how the people who have no sympathy whatsoever for factory workers who are made redundant by machinery because free market, simultaneously believe that the government should bend over backwards to protect and preserve someone's "right" to turn a profit on an outmoded endeavor that simply can't keep up with industrial farming... up to and including doling out big subsidies in order to keep them afloat.

"Unions are the debbil, 'cause ain't nobody entitled to a job... but the federal gubmint should hand country folk a giant pile of money to keep 'em in bidness and then git the hell out of the way 'cause the family is sacred and them folks got a right to their way of life."
 
2012-04-25 01:36:21 PM  

James!: BMulligan: Dancin_In_Anson: And that would make you a total dumbass.

I'm sorry - I thought that your whole point ITT was that parents have to have the right to be total dumbasses about their kids' health and safety, otherwise we were all being crushed under the boot of oppression. Turns out, you really didn't have a point at all. Imagine my surprise.

DIA doesn't see a need for the government to protect minor children from the sometimes fatal stupidity of their parents.



Well them kids don't belong to the gubmint... They's the property of their parents to do with as they please. You libs and your war on property rights!
 
2012-04-25 01:38:21 PM  

BMulligan: UCFRoadWarrior: First they grab all the raw milk

Bullshiat right out of the gate. There is no federal restriction on selling raw milk, and 28 states allow it.


There isn't? There isn't an FDA rule that prohibits the interstate sale of raw milk?

You would think that the FDA would know that.

5. Is it legal to sell raw milk for human consumption?

Not in interstate commerce. Pasteurization of milk was adopted decades ago as a basic public health measure to kill dangerous bacteria and largely eliminate the risk of getting sick from one of the most important staples of the American diet. In 1987, the FDA issued a regulation prohibiting the interstate sale of raw milk. However, some states do permit the intrastate (within the borders) sale of raw milk intended for human consumption.
 
2012-04-25 01:38:51 PM  

UCFRoadWarrior: First they grab all the raw milk...now they tell farm kids they cannot work.

Isn't Globalist Socialism fun!

More of the push to eliminate the family farm.

All you supporting this move...hope you will enjoy paying twice as much for food.

Most of the corn grown in this country uses youth labor to de-tassle each stalk of corn. It's a job that is so much easier for kids to do than adults....and the kids do it better (and more cost-effectively) than illegal aliens

But hey, knowing liberals and Obama...this sounds like another Illegal Alien work program



Like watching a gorilla with a Rubik's Cube.
 
2012-04-25 01:40:11 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So in other words, you want the government to control not your actions, just the actions of others. You betcha.


The government passing laws does not control my actions, it simply implements consequences when my actions are considered by the state to run counter to the interests of the state and its people.

You seem to think laws are like mind control while I tend to think of them as a fence or warning sign that one is about to move beyond what the state and people consider acceptable behavior. The decision regarding whether to comply with a law or not, always rests with me.
 
2012-04-25 01:41:47 PM  

UCFRoadWarrior: this sounds like another Illegal Alien work program


Can we address the fact that a good number of the minor children who are working on farms are the children of illegal workers?
 
2012-04-25 01:42:20 PM  

technicolor-misfit: "Unions are the debbil, 'cause ain't nobody entitled to a job... but the federal gubmint should hand country folk a giant pile of money to keep 'em in bidness and then git the hell out of the way 'cause the family is sacred and them folks got a right to their way of life."


Save your idiotic strawmen for people who actually think those things. Just because I see benefit in children working on their relatives or family friend's farms doesn't mean I support union busting, flat taxes or any of the other crap republicans support. You might not understand this but a person can hold views that deviate from the party line at times.
 
2012-04-25 01:43:02 PM  

James!: UCFRoadWarrior: this sounds like another Illegal Alien work program

Can we address the fact that a good number of the minor children who are working on farms are the children of illegal workers?


No.
 
2012-04-25 01:45:27 PM  
Really? Green light to sell drugs? Do you even know how many kids have lost their chance at education due to petty arrests for drug charges, sub-farkingretard?
 
2012-04-25 01:45:35 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: There isn't? There isn't an FDA rule that prohibits the interstate sale of raw milk?


Regulating the sale of raw milk across state lines isn't "grabbing all the raw milk". It means that if you want raw milk you need to get it from sources in your state. You know, constitutional regulation of interstate commerce while allowing for states to decide whether raw milk is fit for consumption.
 
2012-04-25 01:46:41 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: The_Six_Fingered_Man: There isn't? There isn't an FDA rule that prohibits the interstate sale of raw milk?

Regulating the sale of raw milk across state lines isn't "grabbing all the raw milk". It means that if you want raw milk you need to get it from sources in your state. You know, constitutional regulation of interstate commerce while allowing for states to decide whether raw milk is fit for consumption.


Never said it was. Just countering the bare assertion that "there is no Federal restriction on the sale of raw milk," when there very clearly is one.
 
2012-04-25 01:47:51 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Why are these kids allowed to work all day on farms anyway? Shouldn't they be in school?


i328.photobucket.com

They actually manage to do both. The farmer friends I know get the kids up at 5 a.m., the kids do a couple hours of chores, go to school, then come home and do more work.

 
2012-04-25 01:48:05 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: There isn't an FDA rule that prohibits the interstate sale of raw milk?


I apologize; I misspoke. I meant to say there was no general federal restriction on selling raw milk - the states are still free to allow it in intrastate commerce, as your quote acknowledges. While one might look at the ban on interstate sales as problematic (I don't, but reasonable people may disagree), the fact remains that there is no general outright ban on the sale of raw milk in those states which allow it.
 
2012-04-25 01:49:03 PM  

BMulligan: The_Six_Fingered_Man: There isn't an FDA rule that prohibits the interstate sale of raw milk?

I apologize; I misspoke. I meant to say there was no general federal restriction on selling raw milk - the states are still free to allow it in intrastate commerce, as your quote acknowledges. While one might look at the ban on interstate sales as problematic (I don't, but reasonable people may disagree), the fact remains that there is no general outright ban on the sale of raw milk in those states which allow it.


No problem. Apologies if I came across as crass. This is the politics tab, so I felt compelled.
 
2012-04-25 01:49:14 PM  

sigdiamond2000: James!: UCFRoadWarrior: this sounds like another Illegal Alien work program

Can we address the fact that a good number of the minor children who are working on farms are the children of illegal workers?

No.


Okay... thanks.
 
2012-04-25 01:49:43 PM  

Headso: technicolor-misfit: "Unions are the debbil, 'cause ain't nobody entitled to a job... but the federal gubmint should hand country folk a giant pile of money to keep 'em in bidness and then git the hell out of the way 'cause the family is sacred and them folks got a right to their way of life."

Save your idiotic strawmen for people who actually think those things. Just because I see benefit in children working on their relatives or family friend's farms doesn't mean I support union busting, flat taxes or any of the other crap republicans support. You might not understand this but a person can hold views that deviate from the party line at times.


you crossed the line, dude.
 
2012-04-25 01:51:05 PM  

technicolor-misfit: I like how the people who have no sympathy whatsoever for factory workers who are made redundant by machinery because free market, simultaneously believe that the government should bend over backwards to protect and preserve someone's "right" to turn a profit on an outmoded endeavor that simply can't keep up with industrial farming... up to and including doling out big subsidies in order to keep them afloat.


There's an arguement to be made that the nation's food supply, as a critical resource, should not be controlled by a small number of entities but the time to prevent the concentration of that resource into a small number of business interests passed a long time ago and we failed to act. At this point we need to either accept that ConAgra, Monsanto and the other big players control our food supply or start breaking them up.
 
2012-04-25 02:04:31 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: technicolor-misfit: I like how the people who have no sympathy whatsoever for factory workers who are made redundant by machinery because free market, simultaneously believe that the government should bend over backwards to protect and preserve someone's "right" to turn a profit on an outmoded endeavor that simply can't keep up with industrial farming... up to and including doling out big subsidies in order to keep them afloat.

There's an arguement to be made that the nation's food supply, as a critical resource, should not be controlled by a small number of entities but the time to prevent the concentration of that resource into a small number of business interests passed a long time ago and we failed to act. At this point we need to either accept that ConAgra, Monsanto and the other big players control our food supply or start breaking them up.



Oh, I'm all for breaking them up. I have no problem a certain level of government intervention to prevent abuses or the establishment of monopolies/trusts or to untilt tables that have been tilted to an extreme that is unhealthy to society in general and detrimental to the greater good.

I'm just needling the folks with who say "government motors" out of one side of their mouth and "the family farm is sacred!!!" out of the other.
 
2012-04-25 02:09:27 PM  
As someone who died in a grain elevator explosion when I was 15, I'm getting a kick out of all these replies.
 
2012-04-25 02:16:43 PM  

apoptotic: Is the US government currently allowing children to ride their bikes on federal highways?


Um... No, as far as I'm aware the US government does not currently allow children to ride their bikes on federal highways. It is, however, legal to ride your bicycle along any road as long as it is not a controlled access roadway, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not really sure what this has to do with my comment, though. What point were you trying to make?
 
2012-04-25 02:22:47 PM  
WTF?!!

What kind of busy-body buerocratic nonsense is THIS?

Who the fark asked for this kind of gevernment intrusion?

Don't we have more important things to be jacking around with?

Or is it part of the plan?

Q1 of election year - pick an avoidable and unecessary fight with religious people
Q2 of election year - pick an avoidable and unecessary fight with rural people and farmers

What's next?
 
2012-04-25 02:23:17 PM  

SenorPez: As someone who died in a grain elevator explosion when I was 15, I'm getting a kick out of all these replies.


Oh thank god, I was worried they wouldn't have the internet in hell.

I assume hell because you're on fark.
 
2012-04-25 02:25:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: WTF?!!

What kind of busy-body buerocratic nonsense is THIS?

Who the fark asked for this kind of gevernment intrusion?

Don't we have more important things to be jacking around with?

Or is it part of the plan?

Q1 of election year - pick an avoidable and unecessary fight with religious people
Q2 of election year - pick an avoidable and unecessary fight with rural people and farmers

What's next?


I encourage your efforts to bring the pro-child labor argument to the forefront this election year.
 
2012-04-25 02:36:32 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: WTF?!!

What kind of busy-body buerocratic nonsense is THIS?

Who the fark asked for this kind of gevernment intrusion?

Don't we have more important things to be jacking around with?

Or is it part of the plan?

Q1 of election year - pick an avoidable and unecessary fight with religious people
Q2 of election year - pick an avoidable and unecessary fight with rural people and farmers

What's next?


Oh yeah, Obama's gonna lose a lot of the child-labor vote with this.

/you dumbass.
 
2012-04-25 02:40:24 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Oh yeah, Obama's gonna lose a lot of the child-labor vote with this.


James!: I encourage your efforts to bring the pro-child labor argument to the forefront this election year.


Is that GENUINELY how you see this? As a valiant effort by the noble federal government to release children from an oppressive child-labor servitude?

You REALLY see it as a for child labor v. against child labor issue?
 
2012-04-25 02:40:28 PM  

James!: DIA doesn't see a need for the government to protect minor children from the sometimes fatal stupidity of their parents.


The herd needs culling*.

At what point would you say that you have given up enough parental decision making for your children? It's an honest question. Sure you'd be a farking moron if you put your 10-year old working at the oil refinery for Pokemon cards but this is nothing like my older brother in law who from the ages off 14 - 18 worked in the Lorenzo (Tx) Co-Op gin at harvest time for spending money or the friends of my younger brother in law who came out to work on our vineyard where we used quite a bit of heavy equipment. At what point will you say "Wait a minute! This is a little much!"?

*
 
2012-04-25 02:43:54 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: James!: DIA doesn't see a need for the government to protect minor children from the sometimes fatal stupidity of their parents.

The herd needs culling*.

At what point would you say that you have given up enough parental decision making for your children? It's an honest question. Sure you'd be a farking moron if you put your 10-year old working at the oil refinery for Pokemon cards but this is nothing like my older brother in law who from the ages off 14 - 18 worked in the Lorenzo (Tx) Co-Op gin at harvest time for spending money or the friends of my younger brother in law who came out to work on our vineyard where we used quite a bit of heavy equipment. At what point will you say "Wait a minute! This is a little much!"?

*


It's a broad statement and realistically there ought to be some wiggle room but I have no problem with an "If you're old enough to drive a car you're old enough to drive a thresher" rule.
 
2012-04-25 02:47:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: cameroncrazy1984: Oh yeah, Obama's gonna lose a lot of the child-labor vote with this.

James!: I encourage your efforts to bring the pro-child labor argument to the forefront this election year.

Is that GENUINELY how you see this? As a valiant effort by the noble federal government to release children from an oppressive child-labor servitude?

You REALLY see it as a for child labor v. against child labor issue?


It is exactly that. This rule prohibits children under the age of 16 from being employed in certain dangerous positions involved in farm work. Just like they're prohibited in textile factories and coal mines and pretty much every other industry where a significant health risk is involved. Parents can still exploit the shiat out of their own children because this is America. But you wouldn't be able to hire a 13 year old to work at your grain silo.
 
2012-04-25 02:50:39 PM  

James!: It is exactly that. This rule prohibits children under the age of 16 from being employed in certain dangerous positions involved in farm work. Just like they're prohibited in textile factories and coal mines and pretty much every other industry where a significant health risk is involved. Parents can still exploit the shiat out of their own children because this is America. But you wouldn't be able to hire a 13 year old to work at your grain silo.


Wow.

You know how I know you don't know anything about working on a farm?

Anywho.FTFA:
""They have said the number of injuries are higher for children than in non-ag industries," she said. But everyone in agriculture, Boswell insisted, "makes sure youth work in tasks that are age-appropriate."

The safety training requirements strike many in agriculture as particularly strange, given an injury rate among young people that is already falling rapidly.

According to a United States Department of Agriculture study, farm accidents among youth fell nearly 40 percent between 2001 and 2009, to 7.2 injuries per 1,000 farms.
"
 
2012-04-25 02:52:14 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: James!: It is exactly that. This rule prohibits children under the age of 16 from being employed in certain dangerous positions involved in farm work. Just like they're prohibited in textile factories and coal mines and pretty much every other industry where a significant health risk is involved. Parents can still exploit the shiat out of their own children because this is America. But you wouldn't be able to hire a 13 year old to work at your grain silo.

Wow.

You know how I know you don't know anything about working on a farm?

Anywho.FTFA:
""They have said the number of injuries are higher for children than in non-ag industries," she said. But everyone in agriculture, Boswell insisted, "makes sure youth work in tasks that are age-appropriate."

The safety training requirements strike many in agriculture as particularly strange, given an injury rate among young people that is already falling rapidly.

According to a United States Department of Agriculture study, farm accidents among youth fell nearly 40 percent between 2001 and 2009, to 7.2 injuries per 1,000 farms.
"


So you agree with these new rules. Awesome.
 
2012-04-25 02:53:21 PM  

James!: So you agree with these new rules. Awesome.


Ah. I see. You aren't actually READING anything.

As you were.
 
2012-04-25 02:53:35 PM  

James!: But everyone in agriculture, Boswell insisted, "makes sure youth work in tasks that are age-appropriate."


curious why you need new rules then?
 
2012-04-25 02:53:56 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: You REALLY see it as a for child labor v. against child labor issue


Yep. Because under this rule parents can have their own children work on farms, but they can't have their kids work on other farms or in feedlots until they are 16.

Do you actually have a problem with this other than OBAMA BAD?
 
2012-04-25 02:55:54 PM  

James!: realistically there ought to be some wiggle room


Who's call is it when it comes to YOUR kid?
 
2012-04-25 02:56:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Oh yeah, Obama's gonna lose a lot of the child-labor vote with this


It is not really the child-labor vote, but a dumb policy that will likely be turned into another 'only government knows best' and 'we need to save you from yourself' type thing by the rural folks.

From my personal experience, this would bascially outlaw branding parties that the rancers would hold every year (in a stockyard). The ranchers would employ all the kids go travel around for about 2 or 3 days branding, vaccinating, castrating, earmarking,ect all the calves that were born in the winter. Usually, we could make a couple hundred bucks in a few weekends. For a 15 year old kid 20 years ago, that was pretty good money.

/Always loved branding season
 
2012-04-25 02:58:48 PM  

Headso: James!: But everyone in agriculture, Boswell insisted, "makes sure youth work in tasks that are age-appropriate."

curious why you need new rules then?


Most people make sure not to fire guns into random houses, so WHY does there need to be a law against it?

Most people make sure to drive sober, so WHY does there need to be a law?

And so on.
 
2012-04-25 02:59:17 PM  

HeadLever: It is not really the child-labor vote, but a dumb policy that will likely be turned into another 'only government knows best' and 'we need to save you from yourself' type thing by the rural folks


Exactly how is "You can work on your parents' farm, but you can't work in a dangerous place like a mill or feedlot until you are 16" a dumb policy?
 
2012-04-25 02:59:36 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: James!: realistically there ought to be some wiggle room

Who's call is it when it comes to YOUR kid?


It out to be by the job, not by the kid.
 
2012-04-25 03:00:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: James!: So you agree with these new rules. Awesome.

Ah. I see. You aren't actually READING anything.

As you were.


I read everything. I read this article, I read what the DOJ said about it, I even read this whole thread. Maybe you should try doing some of that.
 
2012-04-25 03:02:18 PM  

TomMalory: I'm originally from rural Nebraska, and when I was in high school, a friend of mine was in a grain bin when it exploded. He was only 15, and he recovered, thankfully. I guess my point is that people are dismissing how much this could help save lives because they believe the BS from the right about "big gubmint." Yes, it is truly insidious of those nasty Democrats to try and keep children safe.


Exactly. We once thought this was okay too, but we've evolved as a society:
www.geardiary.com
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-04-25 03:03:35 PM  

James!: Headso: James!: But everyone in agriculture, Boswell insisted, "makes sure youth work in tasks that are age-appropriate."

curious why you need new rules then?

Most people make sure not to fire guns into random houses, so WHY does there need to be a law against it?

Most people make sure to drive sober, so WHY does there need to be a law?

And so on.


The current operating procedures have them getting safer and safer year over year. Why playing the if it ain't broke fix it till it is game?
 
2012-04-25 03:06:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: "You can work on your parents' farm, but you can't work in a dangerous place like a mill or feedlot until you are 16" a dumb policy?


My family did not own a farm. The ranchers in this case were relatives and friends. As I stated, this law is dumb because it would basically prohibit branding in the traditional way. And what is the danger of working around a feedlot? Just stay on the right side of the fence. If you do find yourself on the 'wrong side' I am pretty sure that manure and smell washes off pretty quickly with a little soap and elbow grease.
 
2012-04-25 03:08:26 PM  

Headso: James!: Headso: James!: But everyone in agriculture, Boswell insisted, "makes sure youth work in tasks that are age-appropriate."

curious why you need new rules then?

Most people make sure not to fire guns into random houses, so WHY does there need to be a law against it?

Most people make sure to drive sober, so WHY does there need to be a law?

And so on.

The current operating procedures have them getting safer and safer year over year. Why playing the if it ain't broke fix it till it is game?


If even the farmers themselves agree that the jobs aren't age-appropriate why not set that as a national standard? You know, give a little protection to the kids who aren't lucky enough to work for the ones doing it right.
 
2012-04-25 03:09:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Yep. Because under this rule parents can have their own children work on farms, but they can't have their kids work on other farms or in feedlots until they are 16.


Not according to the article:

"The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land."
 
2012-04-25 03:11:40 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: cameroncrazy1984: Yep. Because under this rule parents can have their own children work on farms, but they can't have their kids work on other farms or in feedlots until they are 16.

Not according to the article:

"The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land."


The article is wrong. Read the thread.
 
2012-04-25 03:11:51 PM  

spiderpaz: I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm a Democrat and I don't support curbing child labor laws or anything crazy teabaggers might say.

This country, incrementally is trying to legislate away an entire way of life by making it prohibitively expensive, and impossible to navigate all the regs and bureaucracy. Everybody is always talking about the phony wars on religion, Christmas, guns, church, blah blah, etc. But there is actually a real war on rural life as it has been for hundreds of years. The eventual result will be all American farms and ranches being heavy machined, large corporate operations, and a tremendous transfer of land from the middle class to the wealthy.


The family farm is, and frankly should be be doomed for the same reason the village blacksmith was when the steel mills started operating. Don't get me wrong, I love small fars and farmers, The local Farmer's market is a true jewel where I can buy everything from veggies to cheese to meat to wine that has been produced less than 15 miles from my house and that is all far better than I have acess to in the stores.

But the laws of economics are both cruel and immutable. Efficencies increase with scale. The more efficently you can make something, the cheaper you can sell it for. Price drives demand, and the lowest price wins, and inefficent compeitors are doomed to fail.
 
2012-04-25 03:14:18 PM  

James!: Headso: James!: Headso: James!: But everyone in agriculture, Boswell insisted, "makes sure youth work in tasks that are age-appropriate."

curious why you need new rules then?

Most people make sure not to fire guns into random houses, so WHY does there need to be a law against it?

Most people make sure to drive sober, so WHY does there need to be a law?

And so on.

The current operating procedures have them getting safer and safer year over year. Why playing the if it ain't broke fix it till it is game?

If even the farmers themselves agree that the jobs aren't age-appropriate why not set that as a national standard? You know, give a little protection to the kids who aren't lucky enough to work for the ones doing it right.


To fix something that isn't broken they are hindering 4-h programs and family farms.
 
2012-04-25 03:15:35 PM  

Crunch61: Anything that limits a right-winger's ability to exploit cheap labor is bad. We get it.


This is America. If I can't exploit and kill children doing cheap labor on my farm, what does FREEDOM mean???
 
2012-04-25 03:16:02 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: At what point will you say "Wait a minute! This is a little much!"?


I'm sure there is such a point. I'm just as sure that the proposed regulations are well on this side of that point.

In general, children working outside the family ought to be the exception rather than the rule. There are issues of judgment and in some cases even of physical strength which make many jobs entirely inappropriate for children. There are problems with safety in other respects as well (I can't volunteer at my child's school, for my child's Little League team, or for my child's Scout troop without passing a criminal background check - does the assistant shift manager closing up the Burger King with high school age employees have to pass such a check?). There are problems with the idea of entering into a direct economic relationship with someone who lacks the legal authority to enter into a contract. There are problems with intentionally deflating the value of labor by employing children. There are problems with poor school performance brought on by devoting time and attention to paying work rather than to coursework.

I have no problem whatsoever with imposing severe restrictions on child labor in any work environment, but especially where machinery and/or hazardous substances are necessarily involved, and where adult supervision is likely to be minimal. Apparently, you do.
 
2012-04-25 03:16:40 PM  

Headso: James!: Headso: James!: Headso: James!: But everyone in agriculture, Boswell insisted, "makes sure youth work in tasks that are age-appropriate."

curious why you need new rules then?

Most people make sure not to fire guns into random houses, so WHY does there need to be a law against it?

Most people make sure to drive sober, so WHY does there need to be a law?

And so on.

The current operating procedures have them getting safer and safer year over year. Why playing the if it ain't broke fix it till it is game?

If even the farmers themselves agree that the jobs aren't age-appropriate why not set that as a national standard? You know, give a little protection to the kids who aren't lucky enough to work for the ones doing it right.

To fix something that isn't broken they are hindering 4-h programs and family farms.


Hindering? They just aren't certified by the government anymore. That also has dick all to do with the child labor issue.
 
2012-04-25 03:17:23 PM  

Magorn: Efficencies increase with scale.


Typically, but with Ag, that can be a little bit misleading. Take a look at the amount of subsidies that are doled out to the Ag sector. Most of it does not go to the little guy. In fact, if you even this playing field out with regard to subsidies (maybe start by getting rid of about 50% of them) you may actually see the little guy start to do better.
 
2012-04-25 03:19:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: cameroncrazy1984: Yep. Because under this rule parents can have their own children work on farms, but they can't have their kids work on other farms or in feedlots until they are 16.

Not according to the article:

"The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land."


That's because the article is wrong, which you could've found out 200 posts ago if you had read the thread.
 
2012-04-25 03:22:23 PM  

Headso: they are hindering 4-h programs and family farms


Hindering 4H and FFA or freeing them from government interference? They are now free to do whatever they want without the burden of proving they are meeting strict requirements needed for government certification. Why do you want the govt to have their hands in local 4H and FFA programs?

Oh and you should look into that family farm thing. Rumor has it this thread has numerous links to proof that family farms are exempt from these regulations.
 
2012-04-25 03:25:30 PM  

TwoHead: Headso: they are hindering 4-h programs and family farms

Hindering 4H and FFA or freeing them from government interference? They are now free to do whatever they want without the burden of proving they are meeting strict requirements needed for government certification. Why do you want the govt to have their hands in local 4H and FFA programs?

Oh and you should look into that family farm thing. Rumor has it this thread has numerous links to proof that family farms are exempt from these regulations.


Well, they're exempt for their own kids. You still can't hire your cousin's 12 year old to run the tractor.
 
2012-04-25 03:27:04 PM  

TwoHead: Oh and you should look into that family farm thing. Rumor has it this thread has numerous links to proof that family farms are exempt from these regulations.


Not completely exempt. Just exempt from using thier children. Where I grew up, I worked some of my childhood for my relatives and friends family farms' moving sprinkler pipes and helping with the cattle. It appears that under this law, I would not be able to do that.

/Bought my first truck and gun from the money I made during these summers
 
2012-04-25 03:27:11 PM  

TwoHead: Headso: they are hindering 4-h programs and family farms

Hindering 4H and FFA or freeing them from government interference? They are now free to do whatever they want without the burden of proving they are meeting strict requirements needed for government certification. Why do you want the govt to have their hands in local 4H and FFA programs?

Oh and you should look into that family farm thing. Rumor has it this thread has numerous links to proof that family farms are exempt from these regulations.


not really, they might be exempt from employing their own children but they have hindered the family farm by not allowing relatives or family friends to work in the same capacity that has brought farming accidents among children down 40% in the past decade. People for some reason don't think them being safer than other industries is good enough, they must get involved and add unnecessary laws.
 
2012-04-25 03:30:11 PM  

HeadLever: TwoHead: Oh and you should look into that family farm thing. Rumor has it this thread has numerous links to proof that family farms are exempt from these regulations.

Not completely exempt. Just exempt from using thier children. Where I grew up, I worked some of my childhood for my relatives and friends family farms' moving sprinkler pipes and helping with the cattle. It appears that under this law, I would not be able to do that.

/Bought my first truck and gun from the money I made during these summers


So what you're saying is you were over 16 when you did that? Oddly enough, that's still legal!

Continue to fail more, it's hilarious.
 
2012-04-25 03:31:07 PM  

Headso: them being safer than other industries


Really? What's the child injury rate among truck drivers?
 
2012-04-25 03:31:49 PM  

James!: The article is wrong. Read the thread.


Why don't you point me to it? I see a lot of "Nuh-uh" posts, and your continued insistance that it doesn't, but I'm not seeing an actual cite.

I see that you post to the WHD News Release, but I must be missing the part where it makes an exemption for children working for their parents.

Be a huckleberry and show me what I am overlooking?
 
2012-04-25 03:33:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That's because the article is wrong, which you could've found out 200 posts ago if you had read the thread.


Why don't you point me to it? I see a lot of "Nuh-uh" posts, and your continued insistance that it doesn't, but I'm not seeing an actual cite.

I see that there have been posts to the WHD News Release, but I must be missing the part where it makes an exemption for children working for their parents.

Be a huckleberry and show me what I am overlooking?
 
2012-04-25 03:33:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So what you're saying is you were over 16 when you did that?


Nope. Started when I was 11. DL @ 14 and Hunting License @ 12. The truck took a couple of years of saving.

Good try though.
 
2012-04-25 03:34:08 PM  

BMulligan: I'm sure there is such a point. I'm just as sure that the proposed regulations are well on this side of that point.


How the children of America and the Republic as a whole survived over 200 years without this regulation (many of those as an agrarian society) in place is nothing short of a miracle.
 
2012-04-25 03:37:55 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: James!: The article is wrong. Read the thread.

Why don't you point me to it? I see a lot of "Nuh-uh" posts, and your continued insistance that it doesn't, but I'm not seeing an actual cite.

I see that you post to the WHD News Release, but I must be missing the part where it makes an exemption for children working for their parents.

Be a huckleberry and show me what I am overlooking?


Second paragraph last sentence.
 
2012-04-25 03:39:03 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: BMulligan: I'm sure there is such a point. I'm just as sure that the proposed regulations are well on this side of that point.

How the children of America and the Republic as a whole survived over 200 years without this regulation (many of those as an agrarian society) in place is nothing short of a miracle.


A lot didn't.
 
2012-04-25 03:40:16 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: BMulligan: I'm sure there is such a point. I'm just as sure that the proposed regulations are well on this side of that point.

How the children of America and the Republic as a whole survived over 200 years without this regulation (many of those as an agrarian society) in place is nothing short of a miracle.


As someone who is for regulation involved in pollution and the finnancial industry and plenty of other things this one makes no sense, you have a situation where people are already doing the correct thing, the unintended consequences are worse than the fixing of something that isn't even broken.
 
2012-04-25 03:41:05 PM  
Not all children died when there were no child labor laws. Therefore we don't need child labor laws.

Deep thoughts all over this thread.
 
2012-04-25 03:43:50 PM  
"Everybody dies, so dying isn't bad."
 
2012-04-25 03:43:55 PM  

James!: SenorPez: As someone who died in a grain elevator explosion when I was 15, I'm getting a kick out of all these replies.

Oh thank god, I was worried they wouldn't have the internet in hell.

I assume hell because you're on fark.


My guess is that he lives above a bowling alley and below another bowling alley.
 
2012-04-25 03:44:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: BojanglesPaladin: cameroncrazy1984: Yep. Because under this rule parents can have their own children work on farms, but they can't have their kids work on other farms or in feedlots until they are 16.

Not according to the article:

"The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land."

That's because the article is wrong, which you could've found out 200 posts ago if you had read the thread.


you would have found out that they're talking about a possible exemption
 
2012-04-25 03:44:49 PM  

Headso: the unintended consequences are worse than the fixing of something that isn't even broken.


What is even worse it that it is easy to flip this arguemnt into a 'Big Brother knows best' political ad just when the election is starting to ramp up. I may not be a democrat, but I thought that Obama had more sense than this. Why doesn't he attempt to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban while he is at it.
 
2012-04-25 03:48:41 PM  

HeadLever: Headso: the unintended consequences are worse than the fixing of something that isn't even broken.

What is even worse it that it is easy to flip this arguemnt into a 'Big Brother knows best' political ad just when the election is starting to ramp up. I may not be a democrat, but I thought that Obama had more sense than this. Why doesn't he attempt to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban while he is at it.


It bothers me as it further stacks the deck in favor of big ag, it's a constant battle these small family farms try to fight and lose.
 
2012-04-25 03:50:13 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: BMulligan: I'm sure there is such a point. I'm just as sure that the proposed regulations are well on this side of that point.

How the children of America and the Republic as a whole survived over 200 years without this regulation (many of those as an agrarian society) in place is nothing short of a miracle.


Behold the conservative mindset in a nutshell: "Human beings survived for millennia without regulating the purity and efficacy of pharmaceuticals! This country got along just fine for decades without a Voting Rights Act! In all our years of marriage, my wife has never suffered in any way due to my sexual ineptitude! Why should we change anything now?"
 
2012-04-25 03:50:31 PM  

James!: Second paragraph last sentence.


Man I DID overlook that!

The department is proposing updates based on the enforcement experiences of its Wage and Hour Division, recommendations made by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and a commitment to bring parity between the rules for young workers employed in agricultural jobs and the more stringent rules that apply to those employed in nonagricultural workplaces. The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents.

That being the case, I am not as opposed to this, though I think the revocation of 4H and FFA safety certification to be replaced by a Federal Training course should be struck.
 
2012-04-25 03:50:33 PM  

Headso: HeadLever: Headso: the unintended consequences are worse than the fixing of something that isn't even broken.

What is even worse it that it is easy to flip this arguemnt into a 'Big Brother knows best' political ad just when the election is starting to ramp up. I may not be a democrat, but I thought that Obama had more sense than this. Why doesn't he attempt to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban while he is at it.

It bothers me as it further stacks the deck in favor of big ag, it's a constant battle these small family farms try to fight and lose.


If child labor is the only thing standing between you and bankruptcy you've got bigger problems.
 
2012-04-25 03:51:18 PM  

James!: A lot didn't.


Most did. As did the Republic. Quite successfully I might add. So let's throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Headso: you have a situation where people are already doing the correct thing, the unintended consequences are worse than the fixing of something that isn't even broken.


Careful, son. You start agreeing with me they'll turn on you.
 
2012-04-25 03:51:54 PM  

James!: Headso: HeadLever: Headso: the unintended consequences are worse than the fixing of something that isn't even broken.

What is even worse it that it is easy to flip this arguemnt into a 'Big Brother knows best' political ad just when the election is starting to ramp up. I may not be a democrat, but I thought that Obama had more sense than this. Why doesn't he attempt to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban while he is at it.

It bothers me as it further stacks the deck in favor of big ag, it's a constant battle these small family farms try to fight and lose.

If child labor is the only thing standing between you and bankruptcy you've got bigger problems.


yes the small farm is in trouble, I know! let's pass laws that further it's demise! who needs variety, monsanto FTW!
 
2012-04-25 03:53:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: James!: Second paragraph last sentence.

Man I DID overlook that!

The department is proposing updates based on the enforcement experiences of its Wage and Hour Division, recommendations made by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and a commitment to bring parity between the rules for young workers employed in agricultural jobs and the more stringent rules that apply to those employed in nonagricultural workplaces. The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents.

That being the case, I am not as opposed to this, though I think the revocation of 4H and FFA safety certification to be replaced by a Federal Training course should be struck.


Or you could look at it as freeing the 4H and FFA people from government intrusion. I'm sure they could still prepare kids for the Federal Training or what have you.

Everyone knows 4H is just an underage orgy for farm kids anyway.
 
2012-04-25 03:53:26 PM  

Headso: It bothers me as it further stacks the deck in favor of big ag, it's a constant battle these small family farms try to fight and lose.


I'll agree with that, though where I grew up, the actual ranches/farms are way too small to be a target for 'Big Ag'. Still, it is a major pain in the arse to make a living, though.

That being said, the recent high commodity prices are helping some in that regard
 
2012-04-25 03:54:17 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Careful, son. You start agreeing with me they'll turn on you.


meh, they'll love me again in the next flat tax, social services or bankster thread.
 
2012-04-25 03:55:06 PM  

Headso: James!: Headso: HeadLever: Headso: the unintended consequences are worse than the fixing of something that isn't even broken.

What is even worse it that it is easy to flip this arguemnt into a 'Big Brother knows best' political ad just when the election is starting to ramp up. I may not be a democrat, but I thought that Obama had more sense than this. Why doesn't he attempt to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban while he is at it.

It bothers me as it further stacks the deck in favor of big ag, it's a constant battle these small family farms try to fight and lose.

If child labor is the only thing standing between you and bankruptcy you've got bigger problems.

yes the small farm is in trouble, I know! let's pass laws that further it's demise! who needs variety, monsanto FTW!


I CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT A 13 YEAR OLD DRIVING THIS TRACTOR!!! WOE IS MIDDLE AMERICA!! WOE IS US!!

What's the difference between paying a 16 year old minimum wage to do farm work and paying a 13 year old minimum wage to do farm work? If it's a 16 year old AMERICA WILL DIE!!
 
2012-04-25 03:55:28 PM  

BMulligan: Behold the conservative mindset in a nutshell: "Human beings survived for millennia without regulating the purity and efficacy of pharmaceuticals! This country got along just fine for decades without a Voting Rights Act! In all our years of marriage, my wife has never suffered in any way due to my sexual ineptitude! Why should we change anything now?"


You forgot to add that since I think this is a really farking stupid regulation that I am for smog and dirty drinking water too.

Behold the liberal drone mindset in a nutshell.
 
2012-04-25 03:56:08 PM  

Headso: meh, they'll love me again in the next flat tax, social services or bankster thread.


;)
 
2012-04-25 03:56:15 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I think the revocation of 4H and FFA safety certification to be replaced by a Federal Training course should be struck.


Why do you want Big Government to have their hands in local 4H and FFA programs? Shouldn't they be free to meet local needs without having to have their hands tied by the government?

Headso: It bothers me as it further stacks the deck in favor of big ag, it's a constant battle these small family farms try to fight and lose.


Big Ag is going to suffer a lot more from not being able to use child labor than family farms which can still use family labor as they always have.
 
2012-04-25 03:57:01 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Careful, son. You start agreeing with me they'll turn on you.


Yeah, I never thought that we'd see Headso agreeing with so many of us right-wing wackos.
 
2012-04-25 03:59:12 PM  
I want to hire 13-year-olds for my small pornography business.
 
2012-04-25 03:59:23 PM  

DozeNutz: Why does the Obama admin put out shiat like this? Literally banning farmers from having their kids work on the farm. Its hard enough for small farms to make it, but this will just make it harder. Wouldn't this encourage the farmer to hire people, making it more expensive for the farmer, thus increasing prices? I bet they would hire illegal immigrants to do the work too.

I thought this was a free country...


Because we Americans pride ourselves on safety standards, especially while you're young enough so that if a flaming chainsaw is coming at you it's a 50-50 chance on whether your brain will say 'get out of the way' or 'that looks like fun!'?

/You have no idea how retarded some kids are, and we as a society don't have the money for the ER bills.
 
2012-04-25 04:01:39 PM  

TwoHead: Big Ag is going to suffer a lot more from not being able to use child labor than family farms which can still use family labor as they always have.


Big Ag uses illegal labor at slave wages to attain an expense advantage, i doubt they'll suddenly be following these regulations when the workers they hire don't even have documentation to begin with, they all look 18 to me.
 
2012-04-25 04:01:43 PM  

TwoHead: Why do you want Big Government to have their hands in local 4H and FFA programs?


I want there NOT to be some new bueracracy program for child-farm safety training when there is already a local organization that does that.

I further think some of the these regs are asinine, and should be struck or better written, but I'm not opposed to the concept of better regs in principle.

TwoHead: Big Ag is going to suffer a lot more from not being able to use child labor than family farms which can still use family labor as they always have.


I keep seeing this point being made. Can anyone provide stats on how much under-age labor "Big Ag" uses?
 
2012-04-25 04:02:29 PM  

runin800m: apoptotic: Is the US government currently allowing children to ride their bikes on federal highways?

Um... No, as far as I'm aware the US government does not currently allow children to ride their bikes on federal highways. It is, however, legal to ride your bicycle along any road as long as it is not a controlled access roadway, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not really sure what this has to do with my comment, though. What point were you trying to make?


You asked why the federal government was regulating one (child labor on farms) but not the other (child bicycle safety). My point was that as far as they can, ie in circumstances that fall under federal oversight, they are regulating both, and the bicycle safety tangent was irrelevant.
 
2012-04-25 04:04:35 PM  

TwoHead: Big Ag is going to suffer a lot more from not being able to use child labor than family farms which can still use family labor as they always have.


I am not so sure about that. Big Ag usually has quite a bit more money and can easily hire those that don't have to spend 5 days a week, 8 hours a day at school. The family farms that I grew up around did not have that luxury. These farms and ranches hiring school aged kids during the summer and on weekends was a staple of how I grew up. Hell, many schools in Southeast Idaho still get a week off during school during the fall for potato harvest.
 
2012-04-25 04:06:39 PM  

HeadLever: I am not so sure about that. Big Ag usually has quite a bit more money and can easily hire those that don't have to spend 5 days a week, 8 hours a day at school.


Like the children of their illegal immigrant laborers perhaps?
 
2012-04-25 04:07:52 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You forgot to add that since I think this is a really farking stupid regulation that I am for smog and dirty drinking water too.


It's assumed.
 
2012-04-25 04:08:33 PM  

TwoHead: Like the children of their illegal immigrant laborers perhaps?


Perhaps.
Any cites or stats on that?

Or any indication that what is already an illegal activity would be affected by these regs?
 
2012-04-25 04:10:09 PM  

UCFRoadWarrior: Most of the corn grown in this country uses youth labor to de-tassle each stalk of corn


Know how I know that you have no farking idea what you're talking about?
 
2012-04-25 04:10:51 PM  

James!: BojanglesPaladin: James!: It is exactly that. This rule prohibits children under the age of 16 from being employed in certain dangerous positions involved in farm work. Just like they're prohibited in textile factories and coal mines and pretty much every other industry where a significant health risk is involved. Parents can still exploit the shiat out of their own children because this is America. But you wouldn't be able to hire a 13 year old to work at your grain silo.

Wow.

You know how I know you don't know anything about working on a farm?

Anywho.FTFA:
""They have said the number of injuries are higher for children than in non-ag industries," she said. But everyone in agriculture, Boswell insisted, "makes sure youth work in tasks that are age-appropriate."

The safety training requirements strike many in agriculture as particularly strange, given an injury rate among young people that is already falling rapidly.

According to a United States Department of Agriculture study, farm accidents among youth fell nearly 40 percent between 2001 and 2009, to 7.2 injuries per 1,000 farms.
"

So you agree with these new rules. Awesome.


I agree with what they hope to achieve with the new rules but not with the rules themselves. I obviously think that the youth should work in tasks that are appropriate for their age and maturity level, but that varies significantly from person to person/task to task and just setting an age limit at 18 or whatever, or even spelling out different age requirements for specific jobs/tasks, ignores this. I have known quite a few teenagers(ok, certainly a minority of them) who were definitely mature enough to be trusted to do any of those things as, or more, safely than the average adult. Some of them were totally trustworthy and reliable in some areas but not in others, for example maybe they can be trusted to be safe around the large livestock but are too young/reckless to appreciate the potential dangers of driving/operating large equipment and so one is appropriate for a given individual while the other isn't. The next kid might be very responsible and safe with equipment/machinery but be irresponsible or careless around large livestock in a way that is unsafe.

If it is a kid, or an adult for that matter, who you can't trust to recognize the potential dangers in what they're doing and act responsibly, then it's not something you should have them doing. Most people understand this, but there will always be a few people who don't act responsibly. This is true of so many things. As I posted earlier in the thread, on average only about 104 farm fatalities a year occur involving those 19 or younger, so if you separated out the fatalities of those who were 18 or 19 one would assume that the number would be a bit lower than the 104. Each year 600-700+ people are killed in bicycle related accidents, with those aged 5-14 having the highest risk of a bicycle related fatality. Does knowing this mean that you now would agree/support rules to make it illegal to ride a bicycle until the age of 18 since it would likely save as many or possibly more lives than the rules against children on farms? If not, what is the difference between the two, since a similar number of people die each year in each case? If the federal government should be making laws to prevent this then one would assume you must also believe that they should act in other instances where an even greater number of people die each year, correct? They should certainly look at pools, which are extremely dangerous. Each year 3,443 die from drowning(this number is all non boat related drownings, so not all were in a pool). In fact, an average of 280 children under the age of 5 drown in the US each year in swimming pools, far more young people than on farms. Should the federal government be making rules to ban those under 18 from pools or perhaps simply ban pools altogether?
 
2012-04-25 04:19:52 PM  

sweetmelissa31: I want to hire 13-year-olds for my small pornography business.


You are such a rugged job-creator. Pulling yourself up by your own boobstraps
 
2012-04-25 04:20:11 PM  

BMulligan: It's assumed.


Exactly.

runin800m: I agree with what they hope to achieve with the new rules but not with the rules themselves.


Well, there's your problem.
 
2012-04-25 04:20:44 PM  

TwoHead: Like the children of their illegal immigrant laborers perhaps?


Many children of illegal immigrants go to school as well. Some don't have children. Not really sure you point is very strong here. However, if you can provide some independent stats backing up you claims, I may just change my mind.
 
2012-04-25 04:23:34 PM  

sweetmelissa31: I want to hire 13-year-olds for my small pornography business.


Because sweeping grain out of a silo = pornography.

You betcha.
 
2012-04-25 04:25:41 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: sweetmelissa31: I want to hire 13-year-olds for my small pornography business.

Because sweeping grain out of a silo = pornography.

You betcha.


Rule 34.
 
2012-04-25 04:33:06 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: sweetmelissa31: I want to hire 13-year-olds for my small pornography business.

Because sweeping grain out of a silo = pornography.

You betcha.


Well, the explosions are a little different.
 
2012-04-25 04:33:10 PM  

James!: Rule 34.


Heh! You do have a point there.
 
2012-04-25 04:38:53 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: BMulligan: It's assumed.

Exactly.


I'm curious - can you cite even one example of a federal regulation limiting the conduct of any business, adopted during your lifetime, that you publicly favored prior to its enactment? I'm not trying to be snarky this time; it's a serious question.
 
2012-04-25 04:44:21 PM  
This is a propaganda piece that deliberately lies about the rule change. The rule change is to prevent minors from working in industrial ag processing facilities, or in the most dangerous farm positions dealing with the most dangerous devices, and it was pursued in response to a series of fatal accidents involving minors. This isn't about keeping Jimmy from driving the tractor every other morning; it's about making sure 16 year olds aren't getting close enough to grain processors or threshing machines to get their pants caught, be pulled in, and have their legs chopped off.

Whenever anyone proposes rule changes that would hurt large-scale Ag companies' bottom lines, they pull this mom-and-pop, family farm bullshiat out of their hat, but it isn't about that at all. Hell, the family farm itself is mostly a fiction; what people still live and work on farms these days are share-croppers, locked in unending debt to the Ag Corps who own the land, sell them the seed, and lend them the equipment. They may have all the political and speech rights of a citizen, but they've got less claim to their produce than 13th century English serfs, and if they dare to harvest some seeds for next season's planting instead of buying it all from their supplier year after year, they're not only liable to be taken to court, they're liable to lose. This is about preserving cheap, even unpaid, labor in industrial positions not terribly different than those found in meat packing plants or foundries. How is it more acceptable for a kid to be spraying down the walls of a highly explosive grain elevator than for that kid to to be handling the crucible in an iron-works?
 
2012-04-25 04:46:21 PM  

Heron: How is it more acceptable for a kid to be spraying down the walls of a highly explosive grain elevator than for that kid to to be handling the crucible in an iron-works?


Freedom, brother.

[sparklyeaglewithsingletear.jpg]
 
2012-04-25 04:47:19 PM  
Anyone who still uses the term family farm should have their ass kicked. The last true family farm was foreclosed on over 30 years ago.
All that's left today are agricultural corporations, hobby farms and hippie communes. If you don't know which category your farm falls under, ask your banker.

/Amish don't count
 
2012-04-25 04:50:39 PM  

BMulligan: can you cite even one example of a federal regulation limiting the conduct of any business, adopted during your lifetime, that you publicly favored prior to its enactment?


Yeah. The clean water act is solid. I have no problem with anti smog regulations. The problem is that the prevailing thought is, "well if it's good at inception, we need to add this and we need that" and next thing you know a milk spill is a hazmat incident or the city of Lubbock gets fined for high particulate air samples.

As I asked before, when is enough enough? When someone warming a chair in DC finally lands on something that YOU find ridiculous?
 
2012-04-25 04:50:46 PM  
Some of these are strictly about the children of illegals and some are about child labor in general. I know asking for citations is generally a ploy to distract, but I'm willing to play along since those who asked aren't known to me personally to ask for examples of things and then going on to ignore them:

In our own backyard

Nearly half a million children farm workers harvest almost 25 percent of our crops.

Child Labor and Illegal Immigration like Peas in a Pod

Feds Find Young Children on Strawberry Farms

The Blueberry Children
 
2012-04-25 04:55:26 PM  

Heron: This isn't about keeping Jimmy from driving the tractor every other morning; it's about making sure 16 year olds aren't getting close enough to grain processors or threshing machines to get their pants caught, be pulled in, and have their legs chopped off.


If that is the case, why are stockyards and feedlots included on the list? Not many moving parts in a stockyard or feedlot, especially when the cows are moved out. Or is your point that those Powder River gates are mean motherfarkers? I got a blood blister from one once.
 
2012-04-25 04:57:09 PM  

TwoHead: Some of these are strictly about the children of illegals and some are about child labor in general. I know asking for citations is generally a ploy to distract, but I'm willing to play along since those who asked aren't known to me personally to ask for examples of things and then going on to ignore them:

In our own backyard

Nearly half a million children farm workers harvest almost 25 percent of our crops.

Child Labor and Illegal Immigration like Peas in a Pod

Feds Find Young Children on Strawberry Farms

The Blueberry Children


You have a couple articles there about big ag farms breaking current labor laws. I don't understand why farms that are already using illegal labor are going to conform to these new regulations.
 
2012-04-25 05:00:23 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: BMulligan: can you cite even one example of a federal regulation limiting the conduct of any business, adopted during your lifetime, that you publicly favored prior to its enactment?

Yeah. The clean water act is solid. I have no problem with anti smog regulations. The problem is that the prevailing thought is, "well if it's good at inception, we need to add this and we need that" and next thing you know a milk spill is a hazmat incident or the city of Lubbock gets fined for high particulate air samples.

As I asked before, when is enough enough? When someone warming a chair in DC finally lands on something that YOU find ridiculous?


The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the Clean Water Act in 1972. So it seems that you have a hard time identifying any federal regulation enacted in the past 40 years that meet your approval.

By the way, you are aware that the Administrative Procedure Act imposes a strict procedural regime on federal administrative bodies, that in most cases public comment must be solicited and considered during the rulemaking process, and that an aggrieved party has an opportunity to seek a remedy, right? And that administrative bodies are empowered to regulate only pursuant to legislation duly passed by our elected representatives? I ask only because your "someone warming a chair in DC" comment seems to imply a certain level of capriciousness on the part of administrative staff which rarely exists (and which, when it does exist, is always legally sufficient to vacate the resulting regulation).
 
2012-04-25 05:05:28 PM  

trippdogg: Anyone who still uses the term family farm should have their ass kicked. The last true family farm was foreclosed on over 30 years ago.
All that's left today are agricultural corporations, hobby farms and hippie communes. If you don't know which category your farm falls under, ask your banker.

/Amish don't count


Ummm...bullshiat, my families farm is a couple thousand acres and livestock, and its my family and family friends that still work on it. By the way, we never hired any other children to work on it during the summer or any other time. I agree with these rule changes, hell with even some of the other farm kids that I knew, I wouldn't trust some of them running a tonka truck, let alone any real equipment. The parents that did usually ended up with some farked up farm equipment and in some cases, tragically, maimed or dead kids.
 
2012-04-25 05:07:35 PM  

BMulligan: The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the Clean Water Act in 1972. So it seems that you have a hard time identifying any federal regulation enacted in the past 40 years that meet your approval.


I was born in 63. And yes, I find the regulatory environment increasingly burdensome and detrimental to the American economy.

BMulligan: By the way, you are aware that the Administrative Procedure Act imposes a strict procedural regime on federal administrative bodies, that in most cases public comment must be solicited and considered during the rulemaking process, and that an aggrieved party has an opportunity to seek a remedy, right?


Yeah, well, I'm not too sure that Farmer John and his kids will have the opportunity to show up in DC when the rule making body sets forth on their quest to tell Farmer John what he can and can't allow his children to do.

But just keep fighting the good fight for those mindless drones that need to come up with something to justify their salary by coming up with reg after reg after reg after reg. It's for YOUR own good, citizen. Just STFU do as your told.
 
2012-04-25 05:13:52 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Just STFU do as your told.


Thank you so much for keeping the discussion productive.

/And learn the difference between "your" and "you're" some day.
 
2012-04-25 05:18:51 PM  

Headso: I don't understand why farms that are already using illegal labor are going to conform to these new regulations.


If you are calling for greater regulatory enforcement when it comes to Big Agra, or any Big business for that matter, you have my support. If you are saying that people break the rules so let's get rid of the rules I'll only agree when it comes to the war on drugs.

Dancin_In_Anson: I find the regulatory environment increasingly burdensome and detrimental to the American economy.


Now that is good comedy!
 
2012-04-25 05:22:54 PM  

TwoHead: Dancin_In_Anson: I find the regulatory environment increasingly burdensome and detrimental to the American economy.

Now that is good comedy!


Well, that certainly would explain why productivity and corporate profits have taken such a hit lately.
 
2012-04-25 05:28:38 PM  

TwoHead: Headso: I don't understand why farms that are already using illegal labor are going to conform to these new regulations.

If you are calling for greater regulatory enforcement when it comes to Big Agra, or any Big business for that matter, you have my support. If you are saying that people break the rules so let's get rid of the rules I'll only agree when it comes to the war on drugs.


I'm saying if you are interested in making these farms follow regulations then make them follow the existing regulations and the problems will already be solved. Adding new regulations that they are still not going to follow is not going to solve anything. The whole workforce is illegal, once you make them legal or get a legal workforce you can start enforcing the existing regs and if that still doesn't fix the problem then and only then should you add more.
 
2012-04-25 05:36:11 PM  

BMulligan: /And learn the difference between "your" and "you're" some day.


When all you have to rebut is spelling, you might want to rethink your position.

TwoHead: Now that is good comedy!


You beg to differ? Show your work.

BMulligan: Well, that certainly would explain why productivity and corporate profits have taken such a hit lately.


ibid
 
2012-04-25 05:38:50 PM  

TwoHead: Headso: I don't understand why farms that are already using illegal labor are going to conform to these new regulations.

If you are calling for greater regulatory enforcement when it comes to Big Agra, or any Big business for that matter, you have my support. If you are saying that people break the rules so let's get rid of the rules I'll only agree when it comes to the war on drugs.

Dancin_In_Anson: I find the regulatory environment increasingly burdensome and detrimental to the American economy.

Now that is good comedy!


What is good comedy is watching the EPA get biatchslapped by the US Supreme Court in the Sackett case and then a week later getting a wedgie by an Obama appointed Federal Judge for overstepping thier bounds by vetoing an already finalized permit.

The slippery slope argument is typically a logical fallacy, but just sometimes, it may have a kernel of truth to it.
 
2012-04-25 05:51:20 PM  
12,000 years of agriculture... I think normal people are tougher than liberals crying into their chai assume them to be.
 
2012-04-25 06:27:07 PM  

Headso: I'm saying if you are interested in making these farms follow regulations


Actually my primary interest in this discussion had nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with "journalistic integrity" or lack thereof. I found the article's blatant disregard for fact to be offensive enough to wade into the thread.

In general I believe regulations should be enforced or repealed, I'm against child labor outside of family enterprises and am not a fan of hiring undocumented laborers. On the actual topic of the supposed article I am OK with the proposed regulations as I believe them to have little impact on family farms and to be founded in reason. I understand the point you are making, don't necessarily disagree but don't really support it.

Dancin_In_Anson: TwoHead: Now that is good comedy!

You beg to differ? Show your work.


Differ? You mean am I disputing that you find the regulatory environment increasingly burdensome and detrimental to the American economy. ? Not at all.

What I was doing was pointing out how funny it was that you felt that way. When you consider what a lack of regulation did to our economy not to mention millions of innocent people just trying to live their lives and then factor in what some of our politicians have done to make sure the recovery was as weak as possible if they couldn't outright kill it, not to mention current productivity and profit numbers what you said was quite humorous to me.

Do you dispute that fact? Perhaps you can provide some examples of other things I think are funny that you feel I'm wrong about.
 
2012-04-25 06:40:31 PM  

TwoHead: What I was doing was pointing out how funny it was that you felt that way. When you consider what a lack of regulation did to our economy not to mention millions of innocent people just trying to live their lives and then factor in what some of our politicians have done to make sure the recovery was as weak as possible if they couldn't outright kill it, not to mention current productivity and profit numbers what you said was quite humorous to me.

Do you dispute that fact? Perhaps you can provide some examples of other things I think are funny that you feel I'm wrong about.



The funny thing is that the relaxing of "regulation" was more of an effort to put people who had no business buying homes into homes...the whole right to be a homeowner thing when some people just need to be happy as renters. Just like the whole "right to a secondary education thing" that will be our next big debt crisis.

So the answer was Dodd Frank who was "written" by two people who were the main culprits behind the mortgage bubble...The idea being to regulate lending so that we don't have another "too big to fail" situation arise.

Lets check the results and the burden.

(BTW, the big boys were all in favor of that stinking pile of legislation)
 
2012-04-25 06:50:48 PM  
I wrote a huge text about how my grandfather, father and I had different views as to defining and minimizing 'risk' in the workplace, but figured no one would bother to read it...

While I understand why the DoL wants to pass the law, it concerns me that the result will be the thinning of what is quite possibly the last small group of young kids who actually know how to do capital 'R' reality stuff.

Oh, and implementation seems pretty difficult w/o throwing gobs of money for little return.

I know it's been posted regarding 'own children' exemptions, but where I grew up, working at neighboring farms was a way to earn pocket money and save for school.

What about the Amish? their kids are working way younger than early teens (same when I was growing up), they work for no monetary compensation, and work on neighbors'/relatives' farms almost daily. (And yes, some of them get horribly mangled on the farm and sawmills).

/One of my favorite pictures of my Dad: he's bringing up a team of horses (Percherons, iirc), w/ a plow - maybe he's 12...
//OSHA told my Dad straight up that he'd shut his business down unless he gave his word forbidding me from loading/unloading tractor trailers with the forklift at the lumber mill until I was 18 - (he asked how old I was and like a dumbass told him I was 15 - been doing it off/on for two years -- great job).
 
2012-04-25 06:53:43 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: TwoHead: What I was doing was pointing out how funny it was that you felt that way. When you consider what a lack of regulation did to our economy not to mention millions of innocent people just trying to live their lives and then factor in what some of our politicians have done to make sure the recovery was as weak as possible if they couldn't outright kill it, not to mention current productivity and profit numbers what you said was quite humorous to me.

Do you dispute that fact? Perhaps you can provide some examples of other things I think are funny that you feel I'm wrong about.


The funny thing is that the relaxing of "regulation" was more of an effort to put people who had no business buying homes into homes...the whole right to be a homeowner thing when some people just need to be happy as renters. Just like the whole "right to a secondary education thing" that will be our next big debt crisis.

So the answer was Dodd Frank who was "written" by two people who were the main culprits behind the mortgage bubble...The idea being to regulate lending so that we don't have another "too big to fail" situation arise.

Lets check the results and the burden.

(BTW, the big boys were all in favor of that stinking pile of legislation)


Yup, that looks like a perfect example. Here you are dead serious and here I am laughing at what you've said. I guess we can only imagine how much better things would have turned out if there had been less regulation.
 
2012-04-25 07:13:41 PM  

TwoHead: Dancin_In_Anson: TwoHead: What I was doing was pointing out how funny it was that you felt that way. When you consider what a lack of regulation did to our economy not to mention millions of innocent people just trying to live their lives and then factor in what some of our politicians have done to make sure the recovery was as weak as possible if they couldn't outright kill it, not to mention current productivity and profit numbers what you said was quite humorous to me.

Do you dispute that fact? Perhaps you can provide some examples of other things I think are funny that you feel I'm wrong about.


The funny thing is that the relaxing of "regulation" was more of an effort to put people who had no business buying homes into homes...the whole right to be a homeowner thing when some people just need to be happy as renters. Just like the whole "right to a secondary education thing" that will be our next big debt crisis.

So the answer was Dodd Frank who was "written" by two people who were the main culprits behind the mortgage bubble...The idea being to regulate lending so that we don't have another "too big to fail" situation arise.

Lets check the results and the burden.

(BTW, the big boys were all in favor of that stinking pile of legislation)

Yup, that looks like a perfect example. Here you are dead serious and here I am laughing at what you've said. I guess we can only imagine how much better things would have turned out if there had been less regulation.


Make that two people laughing at him at how serious his post sounded.
 
2012-04-25 07:16:08 PM  
How else are we going to completely destroy local farmers to support corporate farming, if we don't make laws to prevent kids from learning a valuable and honest trade?
 
2012-04-25 09:08:00 PM  

RobertBruce: 12,000 years of agriculture... I think normal people are tougher than liberals crying into their chai assume them to be.


Yep, we've been using John Deere harvesters since 10,000 BC, right? I mean, nothing's changed since then. Nothing's even changed in the past 50 years, right?

Gig103: How else are we going to completely destroy local farmers to support corporate farming, if we don't make laws to prevent kids from learning a valuable and honest trade?


Well considering that this regulation doesn't do that, I have no idea what you're on about.
 
2012-04-25 09:21:00 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Yep, we've been using John Deere harvesters since 10,000 BC, right? I mean, nothing's changed since then. Nothing's even changed in the past 50 years, right?


We have been herding cattle just about that long. If you are not going to allow kids in the stockyard, might as well keep them in the basement with a flatscreen, XBox and a case off Cheetos.

Well considering that this regulation doesn't do that, I have no idea what you're on about.

Nope, but it is just another straw stem piled up on top of the camel.
 
2012-04-25 09:53:22 PM  

trippdogg: Anyone who still uses the term family farm should have their ass kicked. The last true family farm was foreclosed on over 30 years ago.
All that's left today are agricultural corporations, hobby farms and hippie communes. If you don't know which category your farm falls under, ask your banker.

/Amish don't count


Its often a combination of tragic and comic to hear people talk about farming. They don't seem to have any idea of the realities of farming. Take this prime example. Almost every farm in my area is a family farm Some are incorporated, some are sole proprierterships, some are partnerships.. The type of business doesn't change the fact that they are stil owned and operated by families. In my case it's me, and my dad. We're not incorporated, we're both fulltime, and we definitely not hippies. Or amish, my name notwithstanding
 
2012-04-25 09:58:08 PM  

amishkarl: Its often a combination of tragic and comic to hear people talk about farming. They don't seem to have any idea of the realities of farming. Take this prime example.


Hahah. Yer funny.

You think Farkers actually know ANYthing about what they talk about? At the VERY best some of us have some very specific piece of questionable knowledge about some topic.

And will STILL get shouted down by other less informed Farkers :)
 
2012-04-25 10:26:03 PM  

Tired_of_the_BS: I know it's been posted regarding 'own children' exemptions, but where I grew up, working at neighboring farms was a way to earn pocket money and save for school.


For me too. That's what puzzles me about the exemption for your own kids - it makes no logical sense from a safety perspective. I mean, either these tasks are safe for kids to do or they aren't.

One presumes that the thinking behind it is that a parent is naturally inclined to look after the safety of their offspring so can be trusted to take all necessary precautions, but the implication of this is that there is an achievable standard of adult supervision that can be provided in order for the government to be satisfied these tasks can be safely undertaken by children.

Consequently it seems odd to deprive kids whose parents don't own a farm of the same opportunities available to those kids whose parents do.

When I grew up I'd work summers with my best friend on his dad's farm and we'd get exactly the same instruction in what we had to do and how to work things. Strange to think a law like this would've stopped me from doing it but he'd have still been ok, given that I was never at any greater risk than he was.
 
2012-04-25 10:35:20 PM  

The Numbers: it makes no logical sense from a safety perspective.


Because it's NOT about a safety issue. After all, accidents rates are going DOWN.

It's about the unfortunate need of Federal beuracracies to continue to have things to DO to justify their existance and grow their budgets. I don;t mean this maliciously, but pragmaticly.

Look carefully at some of the rules changes regarding FFA and 4H where saftey courses will be taken away to be replaced by a 90-Hour Federal safety training course. That will need funding and money and personnell.

Now the current system is reducing accidents, so it's not likely that they need to replace a broken saftey training system.

But they DO need to expand their budget and their control. And since this isn't a likely voting constituancy, and they don't have the lobby strength of "big Ag'.... there is limited political downside. These people were unlikely to vote for them anyway.

Of course, this is not my bailiwick, so I'm open to more information.
 
2012-04-25 11:59:33 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: The Numbers: it makes no logical sense from a safety perspective.

Because it's NOT about a safety issue. After all, accidents rates are going DOWN.

It's about the unfortunate need of Federal beuracracies to continue to have things to DO to justify their existance and grow their budgets. I don;t mean this maliciously, but pragmaticly.

Look carefully at some of the rules changes regarding FFA and 4H where saftey courses will be taken away to be replaced by a 90-Hour Federal safety training course. That will need funding and money and personnell.

Now the current system is reducing accidents, so it's not likely that they need to replace a broken saftey training system.

But they DO need to expand their budget and their control. And since this isn't a likely voting constituancy, and they don't have the lobby strength of "big Ag'.... there is limited political downside. These people were unlikely to vote for them anyway.

Of course, this is not my bailiwick, so I'm open to more information.


I get what you're saying and it certainly isn't a far-fetched idea that a government department would act in order to justify its own existence, but again - why the exemption for the farm-owners kids?

There's no plausible reason for that exemption within the parameters of your scenario either. I mean, if the DoL was acting as per your ascribed intentions, the only reason you'd include an exemption rather than have a blanket ban is to create the need for a budget toward monitoring appropriate implementation of the law. But if you're trying to do this under the guise of 'safety' it'd be more plausible to make the exemption based on farm size (number of employees not acreage) rather than family since a farm with a number of FT adult employees could reasonably be expected to share out responsibilities in a manner that avoids getting kids to do some of the more dangerous tasks.
 
2012-04-26 12:18:27 AM  

The Numbers: I get what you're saying and it certainly isn't a far-fetched idea that a government department would act in order to justify its own existence, but again - why the exemption for the farm-owners kids?


Because they CAN'T. For a variety of well established reasons, the Federal government's jurisdiction does not extend to telling parents what they can and cannot have their kids do in their own homestead. Family members in family owned businesses are largely exempt from most labor laws across the board.

So long as the parents are not actively endangering their children, the federal government simply has no say. They did not CHOOSE to exempt kids from working on thier family farms, that exemption exists by superceding and ovverriding precedent.
 
2012-04-26 04:32:45 AM  
Why do RWers insist that the government is doing something wrong by not allowing children to do tasks around the family farm that are unsafe or not age appropriate?

This article is a hot mess.

I think I'll come down on the side of the Farkers who've actually worked on family farms who've read and seem okay with these new rules rather than others in this thread doing their best drunk Randy Marsh impression.

And why does everyone just seem to accept that Big Ag hires many illegals every year, many of them children, to do so much work for so little money?

People on the right are upset due to the fact that they are illegals, people on the left tend to care about the welfare of the illegals and their kids. It seems one of those situations where a bipartisan consensus should have already occurred but it hasn't.

How odd.

Personally I spent a few summers on farms baling and storing hay and it was probably the hottest, hardest, most grueling gig I've ever had.

But I never picked cotton.

/But my mother did and my brother did.
//And my sister did and my daddy died young.
///Working in a coalmine.
 
2012-04-26 05:34:19 AM  
Great. So now all those accidents will kill off the real farmers that know what they are doing, and all we're left with are a bunch of uneducated coddled snowflakes.

"The crops of the Heartland must be watered with the blood of children."
~ Eleanor Roosevelt
 
2012-04-26 09:26:47 AM  

quatchi: Why do RWers insist that the government is doing something wrong by not allowing children to do tasks around the family farm that are unsafe or not age appropriate?


Because there is really no statistical indication that working in a stockyard or feedlot is really all that dangerous. Hell, waking up can be considered an unsafe action - you just never know if you might actually fall out of bed. Trying to coddle the population by implementing vague and unfounded regulations on society is just another step down the 'Big Brother knows best' and 'we need to protect you from yourself' slope.
 
2012-04-26 10:22:41 AM  

TwoHead: Yup, that looks like a perfect example. Here you are dead serious and here I am laughing at what you've said. I guess we can only imagine how much better things would have turned out if there had been less regulation.


Mrtraveler01: Make that two people laughing at him at how serious his post sounded.


You guys are about two stupid mother farkers aren't you? The government encouraged risky activity AND bought it knowing good and well they they were buying shiat. Had they not been involved, my bet is that the housing bubble NEVER would have happened. In this case there was a double whammy....less regulation and direct manipulation of the market.

But keep laughing dipshiats. The same thing is going to happen with GSLs.
 
2012-04-26 10:43:57 AM  
This proposal is the sort of thing that gets people killed.

If it passes I suspect a number of government officials will be targeted for elimination.
 
2012-04-26 10:52:30 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: TwoHead: Yup, that looks like a perfect example. Here you are dead serious and here I am laughing at what you've said. I guess we can only imagine how much better things would have turned out if there had been less regulation.

Mrtraveler01: Make that two people laughing at him at how serious his post sounded.

You guys are about two stupid mother farkers aren't you? The government encouraged risky activity AND bought it knowing good and well they they were buying shiat. Had they not been involved, my bet is that the housing bubble NEVER would have happened. In this case there was a double whammy....less regulation and direct manipulation of the market.

But keep laughing dipshiats. The same thing is going to happen with GSLs.


So it wasn't the CDSs or the CDOs or the CDSs on the CDOs that could only be created either by a wide open unregulated financial industry or Satan himself that caused the problem? Those innocent Wall Street folks were taken advantage of by those pernicious poor folk and the evil government types who practically forced them to destroy our economy?

Maybe you can pile shiat like that down in TX but in Real America we'll stand up wind and laugh.
 
2012-04-26 11:01:15 AM  

HeadLever: quatchi: Why do RWers insist that the government is doing something wrong by not allowing children to do tasks around the family farm that are unsafe or not age appropriate?

Because there is really no statistical indication that working in a stockyard or feedlot is really all that dangerous. Hell, waking up can be considered an unsafe action - you just never know if you might actually fall out of bed. Trying to coddle the population by implementing vague and unfounded regulations on society is just another step down the 'Big Brother knows best' and 'we need to protect you from yourself' slope.


Anyone who's worked in a stockyard knows it's dangerous. I've been charged, I've been pinned, I've gotten my hand caught in a gate. I've had more scrapes, bruises and ankle/knee/wrist sprains than I can count, and that wasn't even when the yard was busy. My dad always had experienced adults in the yard, not kids, when shipping the cattle, because as he used to tell us "I can't watch what I'm doing and what you're doing at the same time" and our being there increased the risk for everyone.

That said, I don't see it as a case of "protect you from yourself" so much as "protect you from the neighbour (or their insurance company) who is going to sue you for everything you've got because their kid got hurt".
 
2012-04-26 11:31:27 AM  

apoptotic: Anyone who's worked in a stockyard knows it's dangerous.


I grew up working in a stockyard and the most dangerous thing in there was the Powder River gate. And if we need to have regulations and age restrictions on operating gates, my nanny state point is most certainly correct.

I've been charged, I've been pinned,

It is not a condition of a stockyard to have stock in it. Sounds like you are getting things mixed up. Restricting kids working at a stockyard is not the same as barring kids from working stock. Growing up, I have irrigated, fixed water troughs, fixed fence and all sorts of maintenance that had nothing to do with stock. It is beyond stupid that this regulation would 'protect' me from that that work. That is not to mention the branding parties that I have discussed in detail above.

I've gotten my hand caught in a gate.

So we need government regulations on how to operate a farking gate? Are you serious? I guess my point above is pretty much correct.

That said, I don't see it as a case of "protect you from yourself"

Sure it is. It assumes you don't have the ability to think for your self and that you need goverment regulations to protect you from your neighbor since he is a person who obviously can't be trusted and just wants to place you in in the most dangerous place possible. The goverment is your friend, not your neighbor, amiright?
 
2012-04-26 11:59:57 AM  

apoptotic: HeadLever: quatchi: Why do RWers insist that the government is doing something wrong by not allowing children to do tasks around the family farm that are unsafe or not age appropriate?

Because there is really no statistical indication that working in a stockyard or feedlot is really all that dangerous. Hell, waking up can be considered an unsafe action - you just never know if you might actually fall out of bed. Trying to coddle the population by implementing vague and unfounded regulations on society is just another step down the 'Big Brother knows best' and 'we need to protect you from yourself' slope.

Anyone who's worked in a stockyard knows it's dangerous. I've been charged, I've been pinned, I've gotten my hand caught in a gate. I've had more scrapes, bruises and ankle/knee/wrist sprains than I can count, and that wasn't even when the yard was busy. My dad always had experienced adults in the yard, not kids, when shipping the cattle, because as he used to tell us "I can't watch what I'm doing and what you're doing at the same time" and our being there increased the risk for everyone.

That said, I don't see it as a case of "protect you from yourself" so much as "protect you from the neighbour (or their insurance company) who is going to sue you for everything you've got because their kid got hurt".


So much this. Pretty much every job I have held in my adult life is more dangerous than being a policeman. I would never work in a stockyard. I've sprained wrists, been pinned, bruised ribs, found out how to jump a fence backwards etc just from the working them in corrals a few times a year. Kids should never be anywhere near one of these when they have livestock in them.

Considering that most of the chutes are welded, what reason is there for a kid to work in them when they are not loaded? Pretty sure that professional welder is one of the jobs restricted from kids under 16.
 
2012-04-26 04:57:53 PM  
Holy shiat. Just had a customer bring this up. This was something that I didn't know...

One of the things that would be lost by eliminating FFA and 4H programs would be the Ag Safety programs that are taught. They will be replaced by a standardized Federal program. Ain't that a peach?
 
2012-04-26 06:02:25 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Holy shiat. Just had a customer bring this up. This was something that I didn't know...

One of the things that would be lost by eliminating FFA and 4H programs would be the Ag Safety programs that are taught. They will be replaced by a standardized Federal program. Ain't that a peach?


rofl

The fact that we spent all day yesterday discussing that specific issue slipped right past your eagle eyes, huh? They aren't eliminating 4H and FFA. They are removing the burden of big government dictating course material and freeing the local programs to serve local needs.

Shiny faced 4Hers and freedom loving Future Farmers can now stop wasting time bowing to Washington's demands and devote their time with our precious children to learning more about the abundance of god's green earth and how to better exploit it to create tasty things for us to eat. Finally Big Government will stop dumping an unfunded mandate on these private programs and handle their own outrageous "educational" requirements. These groups can continue to teach anything they want including Ag Safety in any shape or form they believe best including exactly as they always have. The only difference is if you want the Federal Certificate you have to take the Federal Certificate Course.


Tell your customer to stop getting their news from sources that haven't made that clear so they don't look as stupid as other people spreading ill informed gossip as fact.
 
2012-04-26 06:27:01 PM  

TwoHead: The fact that we spent all day yesterday discussing that specific issue slipped right past your eagle eyes, huh?


As a matter of fact. I didn't notice. I really need to spend more of my work day Farking.

TwoHead: They aren't eliminating 4H and FFA


No shiat, Sherlock.

TwoHead: They are removing the burden of big government dictating course material and freeing the local programs to serve local needs.


Wrong again. They are removing programs that have been in place for over 75 years and replacing them with a federally managed program that runs (according to my customer) over 90 pages.

TwoHead: Shiny faced 4Hers and freedom loving Future Farmers can now stop wasting time bowing to Washington's demands and devote their time with our precious children to learning more about the abundance of god's green earth and how to better exploit it to create tasty things for us to eat.


And once again you have it all bass ackward.

TwoHead: These groups can continue to teach anything they want including Ag Safety in any shape or form they believe best including exactly as they always have. The only difference is if you want the Federal Certificate you have to take the Federal Certificate Course.


Let's say you don't get the federal certificate. What ramifications might one expect? None a-tall, right?

TwoHead: Tell your customer to stop getting their news from sources that haven't made that clear so they don't look as stupid as other people spreading ill informed gossip as fact.


Well, the person who told me this lives in Avoca, Texas where the last of 5 kids is graduating from Stamford HS to attend A&M majoring in Ag Ed...oh and all 5 of their kids were very active in both FFA and 4H...

I guess they're just a bunch of BACFs to such a well informed individual as yourself though.
 
2012-04-26 06:56:02 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: One of the things that would be lost by eliminating FFA and 4H programs


Dancin_In_Anson: TwoHead: They aren't eliminating 4H and FFA

No shiat, Sherlock.


My dear Watson have you been dipping into the 7% again? One minute you are saying they are eliminating these programs and the next you are shocked anyone would think that you thought that. Beyond the legalities involved you should consider the health ramifications, especially at your age.

I would think by now you'd know I have little tolerance for your lies, but from the looks of the rest of your post it appears you are about to lose your shiat so unless you have some other mendacious twaddle you'd like to post I'll let you move on to the frenzied masturbation portion of your evening.
 
2012-04-26 07:41:16 PM  

TwoHead: One minute you are saying they are eliminating these programs and the next you are shocked anyone would think that you thought that.


You said they aren't elimintating the FFA and 4H entirely. DIA was only talking about specific programs within these organizations. Quit trying to move the goalpost.
 
2012-04-26 08:53:31 PM  
Well, foks, That did not take long. Pretty much to be expected though. Took just about as much time as it took them to backpedal from the stuipid Assault Weapons Ban
 
2012-04-27 12:03:17 AM  
They just needed it to make headlines so they could tell everyone that Republicans want our children to die in unsafe businesses.

Even though Democrats vocally opposed it as well.

This had bipartisan opposition, and they new it already. But it gave them a great sound bite talking point.

Watch for it-

"Obama tried to save children from being killed, but the Republicans stopped him, and now more children will die! If you vote Republican, you are voting to kill children!!1!elevenses!!1!"

/think of the children!!!!
 
2012-04-27 09:14:04 AM  

TwoHead: My dear Watson have you been dipping into the 7% again? One minute you are saying they are eliminating these programs


They are eliminating some of the programs that these organizations have been providing for generations to be replaced with government mandated "Federal Certificate Course".

HeadLever: Well, foks, That did not take long. Pretty much to be expected though.


Oh shiat TwoHead! Who is going to watch over our chirren?!
 
Displayed 372 of 372 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report