Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/washington/30labor.html?hp" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11....html?hp</a> Or, he probably just never cared. From the article: >>The Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job. The rule, which has strong support from business groups, says that in assessing the risk from a particular substance, federal agencies should gather and analyze “industry-by-industry evidence” of employees’ exposure to it during their working lives. The proposal would, in many cases, add a step to the lengthy process of developing standards to protect workers’ health. Public health officials and labor unions said the rule would delay needed protections for workers, resulting in additional deaths and illnesses.<< Who cares about workers health, after all? Not Mr. 25% Approval Ratings. Mark my words: top 5 worst Presidents of all-time.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Mark my words: top 5 worst Presidents of all-time.<<< As in, Top Five Worst Presidents Of All-Time: 1. George W. Bush 2. George W. Bush 3. George W. Bush 4. George W. Bush 5. George W. Bush Or as in, among the top five? If so, who are the other four, in your opinion? I don't like Andrew Jackson, we have a lot of Cherokee in us. But I think Bush is even worse!!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The proposal would, in many cases, add a step to the lengthy process of developing standards to protect workers’ health.> This just to show you that in many cases, conservatives and business, though they usually claim to be anti-regulation and anti-bureaucracy, in reality do not disapprove of those things if they serve to protect businesses, rather than employees.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< This just to show you that in many cases, conservatives and business, though they usually claim to be anti-regulation and anti-bureaucracy, in reality do not disapprove of those things if they serve to protect businesses, rather than employees. >>> It's been well-documented that there's been a wholesale shift in the regulatory mentality of federal agencies under W: instead of the public at large being the customer, the "customer" of each agency is now seen as being the industry that they regulate. So for example, the FDA's mentality is now that they exist to promote an efficient and profitable drug industry, rather than representing the public that buys and consumes the medication.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Or as in, among the top five? If so, who are the other four, in your opinion? I don't like Andrew Jackson, we have a lot of Cherokee in us. But I think Bush is even worse!!<< Jackson did some terrible stuff to the natives, that's for sure. But historians seem willing to, not necessarily overlook it, but to put it in the context of his times, compared to some of his other achievements. Ron Meacham's new book on Jackson is supposed to be superb. I'd say you've definitely got James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce in the top 5 worst. Warren G. Harding, who's similar to Bush in that he was just a fairly weak guy surrounded by ugly people, is probably in there too. But Teapot Dome is no Iraq. Nixon is something of an enigma. In some ways he was a talented President who did some good things. But when you enlarge the office of the Executive the way he did, probably more so even than Bush, and just abuse power so remorselessly, it's hard not to include him. There's other poor and bad Presidents, but these are people that did harm to our nation and, in the case of Bush and Nixon, to our Constitution and values. And others did some of that too (alien and sedition acts, anyone?) but they seem to be offset by competence and accomplishment.
