Are Democrats for The Middle Class?

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Judges are wise to frivolous claims usually. Tort reform was about protecting big corporations from legitimate lawsuits.

Like the woman that spilled hot coffee on herself and sued for millions?

 

[Jarhead]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Correction...they "should" have insurance.

I was a business owner....several times over.
Most of my CLIENTS asked for proof of my insurances before they signed contracts with me.....in NYS, the state requires proof of insurances to maintain ones license to operate a business in NYS....
Most who do not have insurance is usually a result of them allowing the insurance to lapse due to non payment....but at the anniversary, they need to produce valid insurance.

 

[Jarhead]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Judges are wise to frivolous claims usually. Tort reform was about protecting big corporations from legitimate lawsuits.

you assume the insurance companies (those that pay the claims) allow all of the cases to reach court. Most do not. They find it less expensive to settle than to spend time in court. And if an insurance company wins and are awarded punitive damages, what are the chances they will collect damages from a father of 4 who earns 30K a year?

Tort reform was about protecting ALL AMERICANS from frivolous lawsuits.

(You can tell who has and who has never been in a high position in business before by their posts on this board)

 

[BULLDOG]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

There are lots of laws that protect companies from damage, but that one is crap. If there is a danger to surrounding vehicles, they have to have a permit, and an escort to drive behind them keeping other traffic a safe distance away. A broken windshield from driving behind a big truck might be hard to prove, but if a sign like that keeps you from even trying, that is so much better for them.

 

[zeke]

Who gets laws to help them, the rich and the poor, not the middle class.

We live in a plutocracy and of course the plutocrats will write laws in their favor. It is what they do.
The poor get some laws written for their situation because their situation sucks so bad and it is better for the plutocrats to have a rather quite poor class as opposed to them protesting and rioting in the streets.

So us in the middle are working, raising our families and trying to do the right thing for the most part. And I think that MOST middle class people don't want ANYONE but ourselves looking out for us.

No matter how many laws are written for the poor, I wouldn't change places for anything.

Now IF somehow I could get my hands on 100 million dollars, I would gladly be a rich plutocrat.
But I ain't holding my breath on that happening.

So yea, a little bit of populism would really help the middle out. But if that don't happen, we will still find a way to keep from being poor. Even if we aren't filthy rich.

Then how can you say the Democrats are for the middle class? They are not, neither are the Republicans.

I said we needed a populist to represent the middle. Now the only party that I know of currently that has any politicians that lean towards a populists ideals would be the Democrats. So that would be why I think the Democrats might be a party to watch for a populist movement.

If you can think of any Republican politicians that you think lean towards populism, who are they?




as an aside; Hey jarhead, fuck off.

 

[Jarhead]

Who gets laws to help them, the rich and the poor, not the middle class.

We live in a plutocracy and of course the plutocrats will write laws in their favor. It is what they do.
The poor get some laws written for their situation because their situation sucks so bad and it is better for the plutocrats to have a rather quite poor class as opposed to them protesting and rioting in the streets.

So us in the middle are working, raising our families and trying to do the right thing for the most part. And I think that MOST middle class people don't want ANYONE but ourselves looking out for us.

No matter how many laws are written for the poor, I wouldn't change places for anything.

Now IF somehow I could get my hands on 100 million dollars, I would gladly be a rich plutocrat.
But I ain't holding my breath on that happening.

So yea, a little bit of populism would really help the middle out. But if that don't happen, we will still find a way to keep from being poor. Even if we aren't filthy rich.

Then how can you say the Democrats are for the middle class? They are not, neither are the Republicans.

I said we needed a populist to represent the middle. Now the only party that I know of currently that has any politicians that lean towards a populists ideals would be the Democrats. So that would be why I think the Democrats might be a party to watch for a populist movement.

If you can think of any Republican politicians that you think lean towards populism, who are they?




as an aside; Hey jarhead, fuck off.

having another bad day I see, Zeke.

 

[BluesLegend]

Ignore what he Democrats say, pay attention to what the Democrats do.

These champions of the poor and middle class repeatedly crap all over the poor and middle class. Gas prices fall 50% no thanks to Democrats putting billions of dollars back into the pockets of the poor and middle class so what do Democrats do? Yes they propose a gas tax hike on them. A sneaky underhanded tax hike they thought they could get away with while prices are low.

That's one of my biggest problems with Democrats is they are gutless cowards, they sneak around and lie and don't have the stones to come right out and put their proposals in front of the American people in an honest way.

 

[zeke]

having another bad day I see, Zeke.

Nah dude. But I don't much care for motherfuckers like yourself that call me a liar.
But hell, I work so I can't fuck around with assholes like you as much as I want. So I'll just fuck with you when I get the chance. But for now it's back to work. Carry on with your bullshit dude.

 

[Jarhead]

having another bad day I see, Zeke.

Nah dude. But I don't much care for motherfuckers like yourself that call me a liar.
But hell, I work so I can't fuck around with assholes like you as much as I want. So I'll just fuck with you when I get the chance. But for now it's back to work. Carry on with your bullshit dude.

Hey...either you are a liar about what you do or you don't know a basic fact about the industry you claim to be in. If, in fact, it is the latter, then I apologize for calling you a liar.
But all people I know in the lending industry are well aware that Fannie Mae does not "write loans". I am surprised you did not know that.

 

[Papageorgio]

Who gets laws to help them, the rich and the poor, not the middle class.

We live in a plutocracy and of course the plutocrats will write laws in their favor. It is what they do.
The poor get some laws written for their situation because their situation sucks so bad and it is better for the plutocrats to have a rather quite poor class as opposed to them protesting and rioting in the streets.

So us in the middle are working, raising our families and trying to do the right thing for the most part. And I think that MOST middle class people don't want ANYONE but ourselves looking out for us.

No matter how many laws are written for the poor, I wouldn't change places for anything.

Now IF somehow I could get my hands on 100 million dollars, I would gladly be a rich plutocrat.
But I ain't holding my breath on that happening.

So yea, a little bit of populism would really help the middle out. But if that don't happen, we will still find a way to keep from being poor. Even if we aren't filthy rich.

Then how can you say the Democrats are for the middle class? They are not, neither are the Republicans.

I said we needed a populist to represent the middle. Now the only party that I know of currently that has any politicians that lean towards a populists ideals would be the Democrats. So that would be why I think the Democrats might be a party to watch for a populist movement.

If you can think of any Republican politicians that you think lean towards populism, who are they?

I can't think of any politician that is for the middle class, I think they are to far removed.

 

[BULLDOG]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Insurance just pays the bill. It doesn't relieve the truck from liability. This is about a dumb sign that trucks have to try to trick people out of demanding repairs caused by the truck.

 

[jasonnfree]

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Judges are wise to frivolous claims usually. Tort reform was about protecting big corporations from legitimate lawsuits.

Like the woman that spilled hot coffee on herself and sued for millions?

Exactly, that's who. There were many complaints about McDonald's scalding hot coffee but they ignored this. The original settlement was knocked down quite a bit also. Usually is and the plaintiff many times can't divulge the settlement. The little guy needs money right away, especially if he's been physically injured, while major corporations can stonewall for decades by appeal. This is common, but the public doesn't know this.

 

[Jarhead]

The truth is, there is no ideological reason for policies that directly affect the middle class. The GOP believes that the business owners are the backbone of the economy and therefore policies should make it easier on them, giving them the ability to thrive and thus employ people. The democrats believe the consumer is the backbone of the economy, so the more free stuff they can give them, the more they will be able to spend, allowing companies to thrive and employ more people.

The middle class, in the eyes of both parties, is along for the ride.

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Insurance just pays the bill. It doesn't relieve the truck from liability. This is about a dumb sign that trucks have to try to trick people out of demanding repairs caused by the truck.

the liability IS the bill....don't really understand why you said that.
But the bottom line is...that sign is not a result of Republican legislation that was designed to help business owners as Candycorn said may be the case. (I emphasize "may be the case"...she did not say IS the case)

 

[BULLDOG]

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Judges are wise to frivolous claims usually. Tort reform was about protecting big corporations from legitimate lawsuits.

Like the woman that spilled hot coffee on herself and sued for millions?

You realize the old woman had to have plastic surgery, and only filed suit after McDonalds refused to even help her wit the emergency room and surgery bills don't you

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Judges are wise to frivolous claims usually. Tort reform was about protecting big corporations from legitimate lawsuits.

Like the woman that spilled hot coffee on herself and sued for millions?

Exactly, that's who. There were many complaints about McDonald's scalding hot coffee but they ignored this. The original settlement was knocked down quite a bit also. Usually is and the plaintiff many times can't divulge the settlement. The little guy needs money right away, especially if he's been physically injured, while major corporations can stonewall for decades by appeal. This is common, but the public doesn't know this.

So personal responsibility is not a requirement when there's a large corporation to sue for your stupidity?

 

[jasonnfree]

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Judges are wise to frivolous claims usually. Tort reform was about protecting big corporations from legitimate lawsuits.

Like the woman that spilled hot coffee on herself and sued for millions?

You realize the old woman had to have plastic surgery, and only filed suit after McDonalds refused to even help her wit the emergency room and surgery bills don't you

This was not reported in the major media because the major media is not allowed to report the real news harmful to the one percent and corporations.

 

[BULLDOG]

Good post.

The rather obvious disconnect is that as the GOP wants to make things "easier" on business owners, the effect is often that it makes things more onerous on everyone else.

I'm not certain if there is a law behind the signs I see around town but this one catches my eye:

You find these on trucks full of rocks...barreling down the highway at 70mph....you're supposed to stay back because rocks will damage your windshield and the company that owns the truck is stating that its not responsible for securing it's load.

Sometimes you have to get within 200 feet to read the sign.

Anyway, in an attempt to be friendly to business by not forcing them to secure their loads or make more trips to haul the gravel, the guy who gets his windshield/hood/headlights/tires damaged is getting screwed.

They put those signs there in hopes of fooling the people with broken windshields. A sign that said " Watch closely at red lights. Not responsible for damage when I run one." would be just as truthful.

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Insurance just pays the bill. It doesn't relieve the truck from liability. This is about a dumb sign that trucks have to try to trick people out of demanding repairs caused by the truck.

the liability IS the bill....don't really understand why you said that.
But the bottom line is...that sign is not a result of Republican legislation that was designed to help business owners as Candycorn said may be the case. (I emphasize "may be the case"...she did not say IS the case)

The liability belongs to the truck owner. If he has insurance to deal with it for him, then that's better for him, but it's his problem to deal with if he has insurance or not.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Are Democrats for The Middle Class?


No. They're just for the middle class's money.

 

[jasonnfree]

Are you certain that there are no laws that protect companies from damage? I ask because it sound precisely like something a republican would do in this climate of being "business friendly".

I recall back when I worked in Texas, we had this thing called a "vaxi pak". A "Vaxi Pak" stores vaccine that needs to be frozen. The way it does this is by an, admittedly genius, system of ice bricks and thermal walls that end up looking something like this:

Anyway, as you can tell the "payload" was 10% of the space where as these bricks were the majority of the load. The State magically mandated that we had to buy these things to transport vaccine to and from the freezer out to satellite facilities. Each set (cooler and 5 bricks) costs about $300.00. You could get about 50 vials in one Pak.

To absolutely no-one's suprise, when we received VFC (Vaccines for Children) varicella, the State sent the vaccine to us in a styrofoam cooler with nothing but wet ice bricks around them...thus avoiding the costs..

I disagree. I completely disagree and I will assume you have not put thought into what you said as I see you way too "in the know" to not realize that whether or not the truck has the right to do it, if they were to be hit with a damage claim, the company would pay nothing for they have (by law) insurance that covers things like that. There is E and O insurance, liability insurance, and basic auto insurance....
So to say "it sounds like something the republicans would do to be business friendly" is way off base. Republicans are not in the business of passing legislation to make business exempt from legitimate claims. They are more wrapped up in the populace not being able to capitalize on businesses with frivolous claims.
Albeit, that battle has been lost....people nowadays sue and usually get a settlement for just about any mistakes that are their own fault.

Judges are wise to frivolous claims usually. Tort reform was about protecting big corporations from legitimate lawsuits.

Like the woman that spilled hot coffee on herself and sued for millions?

Exactly, that's who. There were many complaints about McDonald's scalding hot coffee but they ignored this. The original settlement was knocked down quite a bit also. Usually is and the plaintiff many times can't divulge the settlement. The little guy needs money right away, especially if he's been physically injured, while major corporations can stonewall for decades by appeal. This is common, but the public doesn't know this.

So personal responsibility is not a requirement when there's a large corporation to sue for your stupidity?

When a company like McDonalds serves billions, safety should be the utmost in their minds. There were many complaints about scalding hot coffee previous to this woman's injury, nothing was done about it. If memory serves me correctly, she only filed suit after McDonalds refused to help with her medical bills.

 

[jasonnfree]

Are Democrats for The Middle Class?


No. They're just for the middle class's money.

The middle class is broke. God bless America.