CONS. - Another case of a big company hiding stuff from you
 

Big Companies are NOT looking out for our best interests and here is more proof of it. I wont go into statistics again with you but suffice to say for everyone caught there are a bunch more not caught that will continue to take advantage of me and you.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ucts_recall_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Graco Children's Products Inc., a unit of Newell Rubbermaid Inc., has been fined $4 million for failing to report hundreds of incidents, some fatal, involving products ranging from infant carriers to high chairs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (news - web sites) announced on Tuesday .


In addition, 1.2 million toddler beds made by Graco have been recalled because children's limbs can get trapped between the slats in the guard rails or footboard, resulting in broken bones or sprains, the commission and Graco said.

The CPSC, which said the $4 million fine marked its largest civil penalty ever, said Graco failed to report hundreds of incidents and injuries involving 16 different products from 1991 through 2002. The 12 million items involved were designed for young children and include infant carriers, high chairs, infant swings, strollers and toddler beds.

The injuries ranged from bruises and fractures to strangulation, including some deaths, the CPSC said.

The commission said Graco's failure to report the safety concerns related to the 1.2 million toddler beds subject to the recall was one of the violations leading to the $4 million provisional penalty.

Graco received reports of 77 entrapments related to the toddler beds, resulting in 13 broken arms and legs and one broken foot, the CPSC said.

The recalled beds were sold from 1994 through 2001 under the names "Cozy Toddler Bed," "Glow-in-the-Dark Toddler Bed," and "Classic Toddler Bed."

There is a label on the guard rail or leg containing one of the following model numbers: 8801, 8801WR, 8821, 8824, 8828, 8833, 30066, 34434 and 11030.

Consumers should remove the guard rails from the recalled beds and call the firm to receive a free retrofit kit.

Consumers can contact Graco at 800-837-4404 or go to the company Web site at www.gracobaby.com.

Eventually, people need to be put in jail for shit like this before it will stop.

Unfortunately, there is no way this administration would even consider such a thing.

From what I've read on this, there isn't enough evidence of malicious intent to allow anyone to bring criminal charges. Plus, it's not like the Bush administration would have the best shot at filing criminal charges here. The best chance would be by District Attorney's in states/cities where these deaths occurred and/or the "malpractice" by the company occurred. And, unless a vast majority of DAs in this country are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, they must not feel there is the evidence to prosecute. From a DA standpoint, this case is a dream and you would think they would bring charges if there was even a semblence of a case against them.

Also, the current Bush administration has done significantly more in regards to corporate fraud than either Clinton or the first Bush administration.

But if you really feel there is something here to prosecute from a criminal standpoint (and there very well may be - I kind of wish there was), then send a letter to your local city counsil and/or DA and ask them to look at the case.

Yup. Once again people fail to note that pretty much all this fraud occurred while Clinton was in office basking in the glow of the economy fueled by all the fraud.

Hello McFly! This is a State Issue. Not everything needs to be rubbed down by the Federal Government. Write you DA if you want to see criminal action

The past week shows that the politicians in Washington disagree with you. The parties of Big Government apparently think it's now their role to meddle in individual cases of state jurisdiction.

*now*? They have been doing this for years.

Examples? Just one? Do not give me Enron or Worldcomm either, the Bush administration did absolutely nothing in those cases and dont forget ole kenny boys private jet flying Bush to 60+ campaign stops in 1999 and Lay staying at the Whitehouse more than any other private citizen in HISTORY. Dont give me that crap that Bush is hard on corporate crime, the cheif corporate criminals are all TOP REPUBLICAN CONTRIBUTORS.

Do you know what other types of corporate crime there are? How about dumping mercury into our rivers? How about the Bush admin actually increasing the amount of mercury you can dump into our rivers? Sound tough too you? Sound like theyre really laying it to the corporations on that one?

Bush tough on corporations huh? Take a look at who works for him and tell me if there could be the slightest conflict of interest here...............
http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet.asp

Its amazing how anyone can be so blindly partisan, dont you ever question anything in your life? Im not a partisan person, i flatly do not like Bush, but that does not make me a democrat. It seems like every single thing i hear from you Arles is nothing but an echo of Rush Limbaugh, or as if you believe that republicans can do no wrong, ever. This "Republicans have done significantly more on corporate fraud" statement really takes the cake, this is so far from reality - it clearly shows your will say, or believe anything for "your side", instead of the correct side.

Actually, he said "Bush Jr has done more than Clinton or Bush Sr". Care to start naming off the number of corporate criminals put behind bars by either of those Administrations?

Ebbers might get some hard time....i wonder though.

Let me also point out that yet again the Administration is bashed for not being hard enough on the corporate crooks IN A THREAD ABOUT A STORY WHERE A CORPORATION WAS CAUGHT AND PUNISHED!

regardless of party...

Big Business does NOT look out for you and me, as someone put in another thread, they only look out for the bottom line and scruples go the wayside. Its crap and in the long run our country pays.

lmao! Good point.

its some kind of surprise that big business doesn't look out for you? wtf.

How do you write a thread about people who werent caught? If it isnt written about or KNOWLEDGE how do you write about it......you cant, you have to use STATISTICS. Statistics, with a +- for errors, work.

Yea he made that incredible step in giving Jr. props over Sr. Wow. That republican card is getting really really worn. and its bs anyways.

The point being, NO ADMINISTRATION puts "corporate criminals behind bars". Thats up to the states and federal prosecutors. But for Arles to sit there and actually tout someone as the best ever, when they have no basis for that claim, is incredibly disingenuous.

Whoever is better on corporate criminals is open for debate and its really not something you can gather quantitatively. If you had to defend Clinton or Bush Jr. on corporate favoritism, whos side would you pick? I dont think many would side up with Bush.

See my post above, and quit trying to toot your sides horn. You act like Bush himself kicked in the door of the crib maker and arrested these people. Bush Jr and his administration had nothing to do with this, in any way, nor did Clinton, or Bush Sr.

Regardless of administration in the white house, the CPSC is still going to be there, its still going to do the EXACT same job.

Then stop griping about the Administration's attitude towards corporations. Time and again the Administration gets bashed for not being tough on corporations (see your own post above), and when questioned you're now giving us "but it's the states job!"? If it's the state's job, what exactly are you expecting the Administration to do?

OK, where to begin:

Adelphia
Global Crossing
Fannie Mae/Freddie MAc
AOL Time Warner

Let's focus on Adelphia, as it is a great example of the change in policy from Clinton to Bush. Here's a story on how the founder (John Rigas) and his son Timothy were convicted on all 15 securities fraud charges. Both are currently facing up to 30 years in prison depending on how the sentencing goes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5396406

Could you site an example of where this was done illegally, evidence provided and was not prosecuted?

I know, the horror of it all. Putting people that were successful in the private sector involving these issues in charge of aspects of the government that deal directly with them. He should have been like Clinton and put in Rhodes scholars, Yale Law grads, and elite journalists with absolutely no real world experience and wonder years later why corporate crime was rampant and groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad grew in power around the world.

:D Of course not, you are an idealist working towards anti-business, pro-environment, pro-ACLU and anti-republican causes. But, you're much to open minded to be associated with one political party :rolleyes:

I certainly have no problem classifying myself as a conservative and have much more in common with the (albeit flawed) republican platform than the democrats. You certainly mention Limbaugh a lot. I take it you listen to him reliously? Maybe you could tell me what some of his ideas are as I haven't listened to him in a while.

There's been a lot of outrage in your tone, but not much substance. Here's hoping that changes at some point....

I got to see, I agree with Arlie here. Last time I checked, businesses exist to make money, not to look out for us. We have a choice over what we buy. Flasch, you seem pretty rooted to spend big money on furnishing your house, but yet gripe about big businesses. If you have problems with them, then why continue to give them your money?

Here's an interesting site on each scandal, what the current investigations are under the Bush administration and the donations by the company to each party. There's around 65 ongoing investigations listed on this page - hopefully that fulfills the "just one example" question above:

http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/corp-scandal.php

Some of you may want to look at this as the democrats came out very well in corp donations from many of these. They outgained the reps in many cases, including high profile groups like AOL Time Warner, Bear Sterns bank, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Global Crossing. Overall, I would say both sides profitted in a very similar manner. Of course, it doesn't seem to have impacted Bush's aggressiveness with these investigations.

Overall, the most striking difference was Citigroup (a main player in trying to sweep Enron under the rug), who gave a whopping $30.3 Million to the dems, and only $1.6 million to the republicans. You can bet they were wishing Gore would have gotten elected in 2000.

BTW, I tried to find a similar site for corporations prosecuted under Clinton and came up empty.

Bush asked for more jail time here (July 8, 2002):

http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/08/news/bush/

Then helped spur this (jan 8, 2003):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in535830.shtml
Seems like an odd action for someone seeking to profit off of illegal campaign donations and "gifts from his corporate buddies". And once again, I couldn't find similar efforts by Clinton in this area.

Youre missing the point, just because these scandals were revealed during a presidents term does not mean he's "the man!". So i guess Bush is the best at giving tsunami aid. good for him that this horrible tragedy happened while he was working?

What are you talking about?? Bush relaxed 20 years worth of EPA regulations. End of story. If you cant comprehend why he did that, then well, i guess you know why i went off on you for your blind partisanship.

Um what? This is complete trash. Seriously, where do you come from? Oil execs know whats best for the environment? Timber lobbyists should be writing the healthy forests act? There is a reason why those people are there, and it sure isnt because they know whats best for americans.


Im not associated with a political party in any way. But its funny you mention the ACLU, did you just recently take beef with them like all the other republicans? How does it feel having your so-called personal political beliefs prescribed to you via GOP talking points? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the ACLU? Im not pro-aclu, because i really dont know much about them as a whole, but i do know their sole existence is based off of helping people. So please give me some of that republican wisdom, and tell me why people who want to help others, are bad?


Point being wise guy, you come across like you really dont have any genuine thoughts, everything you say seems to come straight from the latest GOP talking points.


Its hard to not be anything else when half this country is full of people who cannot think for themselves. The lack of substance is our pop-culture, and the GOP is the political equivelant to that. Dont forget, Terry Schiavo will really rally the pro-lifers for '06.

I think that response pretty much refutes itself. To quote the immortal Sean Connery:

"Here endeth the lesson"

In the grand scheme of these I havnt bought much thats been too expensive...Im quite frugal.

I had to buy a fence
got some painting done
some lighting
a bed

I have dreams of getting nicer stuff but havnt been able to yet...so I guess the word BIG in big money is what threw me since I havnt spent BIG on anything...yet.

Im not communist, I just believe in corporate responsibility and morals. I hope you do to.

really weak.

Man, do I hope that the Democratic leadership keeps thinking like this. It's not that their policies or agendas are flawed, it's that us dumb, hick, conservatives are too stupid to figure out how great they are. :rolleyes:

ACLU's been (mostly) on the anti-conservative side for quite awhile now. don't you remember Dukakis being called a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" in 88?


Please please please let there be more of you out there. I know when I'm on the losing side of an issue (or in this case, elections), calling the other side a bunch of brainless morons always helps to turn things around.

It is always nice to see that people already know who they will vote for before they know who the candidates are.

I know, I wasnt being completely literal. Arles immediately threw me into the "pro-aclu" crowd for no reason, and since the ACLU is on the GOP talking point radar again since December, i made that comment.


Im not calling people brainless morons, but what i am saying is half this country just doesnt think. They choose not to be informed. They choose Fox News and actually think they are informed because theyre watching some sort of news program. They dont know any better. Its the same mentality of listening to only top 40 radio and thinking it has to be the "best" kind of music, since it sells the most.

I believe its my duty to find out every single truth on a subject, being careful to understand who is actually giving my information and their motives and then making solid informed decisions off of that. I dont see 75% of this country doing anything remotely like that and thats a crime.

in other words, you're just another fucking elitist? :D

No, this is weak:


[I provide 65 current cases being investigated by the SEC - some involving hard jail time and how Bush's efforts help increase penalties (and jailtime) for corp fraud]

Your response:

What? :confused:

You are first upset because Bush isn't hard on crime because "the cheif corporate criminals are all TOP REPUBLICAN CONTRIBUTORS". I show this to be completely false and prove that Bush has not only been tough on crime, but tougher than prior administrations and your response is essentially that he can't really impact these criminal investigations to begin with. You have argued in a complete circle and refuted your own argument. If Bush can't impact these investigations, how can he be soft on their prosecution?

I guess you could say Im deeper, now than I used to be, I dont care who is in office. The Corporations, in my heart, seem a bit "evil". I use the "evil" word with a light-speak. I just mean that they have lost their morals and have lost sight of the fact that they have a responsibility to the people, IMO. Anyways, Bush, Clinton, Nader, etc. Whoever is in, national or state should be more Vigilant, more heavy handed and hit these corps. where the sun dont shine IF they are in the wrong....the good corps. will shine and be better off for it.

I can see your view point, and atleast admire your passion. Of course, I think we are getting pretty close to the point where corporations face enough penalties to make such behavior not worthwhile, while still allowing them to stay in business and provide us with jobs.

After all, if the government goes too heavy on corporations, then we will lose a lot of jobs. In turn, this will cause people spend less on things like movies and concerts. This will cause hollywood to lose the ability to pay exorbitant salaries to actors which would cut out a significant amount of funding for many of these groups that protest the administration's soft stance on corporations. So, in the end, even the protesters need these corporations to be able to prosper and continue to hire workers ;)

***MODERATE SPEAKING****

The Bush administration does have it's faults (it's Social Security 'plan' for one thing) but corporate fraud and the environment are two areas where they have done EXTREMELY well. For liberals to attack them on those fronts weakens their position elsewhere.

And I am definitely *not* a Republican.

Go back to Rush Limbaugh you partisan nut... :p

Given your reaction to the evidence Arles posted, I find the above paragraph hypocritical.

How can you continue to miss this key point: BUSH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

You cannot praise him in any way just because the SEC is investigating these companies, where does that logic come into play? Since when did Bush himself say.."Hey SEC, i have a feeling Adelphia is up to no good, why dont you go take a look?". Wtf? Thats exactly how youre treating the situation. Now if Bush had actually said something like that, id be the first in line to shake his hand. But he didnt, in any way, so to praise him is just partisan bravado.

Also, from that same MSNBC article you want to bank on, this quote sticks out:

I am not being hard on Bush at all, I never once said he wasnt tough enough or wasnt doing enough. All i said was you cant praise a guy for conducting business as usual. The fact is, he himself has never in any way proposed legislation for tougher guidelines, where was the midnight bill signing when the WORLDS LARGEST CORPORATE SCANDAL was revealed? ENRON literally ruined the lives of 1000's of Americans. Where was the outrage from Bush? Why didnt we have an emergency session then to make sure nothing like that would ever happen again? Where was our savior DeLay & Bush then?

Regardless of the president, these companies would have been busted and prosecuted. Why cant you just accept that and realize you cant praise someone for being alive when something happens.

Another major point on your misguided thought that Bush had something to do with increasing fines for corporate violators. Fines were raised by a Justice Department Commission, by a panel of 3 dems and 2 republicans. Bush was not involved in any way. Also, once the fines were raised, the Justice Department condemned the new rules, so think about that.

You should read those articles he posted, then come back and tell me you still feel the same way. Those articles dont support Arles point even remotely. The Citizens Works site is a Ralph Nader owned corporate watchdog site, its a list of corporate scandals CURRENTLY being investigated. It does nothing to promote Arles assertion that Bush is responsible for bringing the corporate evil doers to their knees.

The CBS News article clearly shows Bush had nothing to do with increasing fines. The CCN/Money article clearly shows Bush weathering the storm of ENRON & WorldCom, but in fact he never followed thru on any of those talking points from that ONE press conference.

Who the hell lets these idiots in here? Bush has done EXTREMELY WELL on the ENVIRONMENT? *slams head on desk* GRRRRRRR.

Seriously, what? huh? If this is so evident, then please show me just one example that will clearly solidify Bush as a pro-environment president.

No, instead he shifted the focus of his administration to trying to aggressively pursue corp crime, increase the penalties for those found guilty and put significantly more resources into investigating and convicting this type of crime.

But yeah, outside of that, he didn't do much. :rolleyes:

Yeah, you'd have thought Bush and Cheney could have found a way to "sweep it under the rug" and protect their "oil buddies".

http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/08/news/bush/
(July, 2002) "A key to our economic development is consumer and investor confidence in the markets and in the integrity of Corporate America, and right now that confidence has been shaken," Bush said in a press conference. "I will outline tough new laws to punish abuses, restore investor confidence and protect the pensions of American workers."

He then went on to help pass these tougher measures six months later.

What exactly are you arguing here? That Bush should have quit the presidency, moved to Austin, Texas and became the DA? He became the first president to strongly speak out against corporate fraud, helped increase the penalties and provide more resources to investigating these types of crimes. What else should he have done? And, if this was "standard president stuff", why didn't Clinton do just one of them (while all this chicanery was going on).

No, he just advocated the following and was prepared to sign executive orders if congress dragged their feet:


He was instrumental in making sure a bill like this got passed. Maybe if Clinton would have shown the same passion for this issue, scandles like Enron and Global Crossing could have been avoided.

I agree with your last part. But with today's society of people, and the responsibility and morals, I'm more worried about them then corporations. I think (like I said, I think), we are stepping up the plate. If you guys disagree, then thats fine.

I think our American buying culture is a big problem. We all are "anti-Wal-Mart", and the outsourcing, yet we aren't willing to pay the higher prices (keeping jobs here, go to the higher stores), ect.

One thing I wont stand for and I think your ridiculous if you put it out there is:

"Look we caught another one!! see they get caught" woopee!!

That is flasifying and misleading the point. You and I both know the statistics and know that pretty much in EVERYTHING for everyone that is caught there is + or - X that are not.

You make it sound as if the one's caught are the ONLY one's committing these moral crimes, c'mon. you know better.


(if you reply to this, than, yes I was talking to you.)

Not sure how much I agree on this administration doing great on the enivironment issue. Some issues are double sided though, and can be seen different ways by different people.

Example - New laws that have been put into place to limit the amount of sulfur and othe pollutants into the air by commercial trucks (18 wheelers). Wow, that sure sounds spiffy and good for us all eh? That is the most common reaction I bet when someone here that, that it is a good thing.

Well, the people who don't like it have pretty good reasons. Uhm, the diesel engines that are being tested right now, suck fuel like a mofo! What is this going to do? Well, it is going to kill the small trucking companies even more then they are being raped of money right now. Even big companies are not liking this too much, except the oil companies. Oh yeah, and the RAILROAD guys are loving this. See, railroads still have a bunch of power. One of their own guys sit on Bush's cabinet. Railroad companies do A LOT to try and hurt the trucking companies so they can get the freight.

Anyways, I wrote this not to argue one side or the other, because there are good and bad parts of it, to many different people and groups. You can pick and choose any fuckin' angle you want. Bush is pro environment, Bush is pro railroad/anti-trucking. Bush is pro oil. You can argue the point of why it was passed all day, no one will ever know IMO. Was it because certian groups are imbedded into his cabinet? Was it because enviromentalists actually got something they fought for?

Different sides give different stories. In the end, both are usually right, but they focus on the side that looks best to them.

There are plenty of areas to go after Bush - this preposterous social security plan that gets a laughably soft treatment from all sides, for one, and his appalling communication skills (which impacted the Iraqi conflict) for another - but targeting him as anti-environment is just stupid. His record on the environment is better than Clinton's.

lol, um ok? Thats what you base Bush's entire environmental policy on? A 3 year article, based around a debate over a Doonesbury cartoon?

Just read the Bush record for 2005 alone.
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/

Get more facts than that, that link you posted is laughable in so many ways. Mainly, Easterbrook is a known dipshit.

NRDC - LOL. This is another "unbiased" source from you I gather. Here's something from their about page:

"But the second Bush administration will have to contend with an NRDC that is stronger than ever before. In the past year alone, we prevented the administration from giving 20,000 power plants and industrial facilities a green light to spew more pollution into the air."

Sounds like someone with an open mind and with the public's interest in mind. If it were up to them, we'd be living in caves with fire pits. Hard to think this group wouldn't like a republican administration. Quite shocking, in fact. And they certainly wouldn't cherry pick data to use against them. No, not at all. They are 100% unbiased and fair to the administration.

is that line a joke?

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/11103191.htm

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Thursday finalized a regulation for the eastern United States that would cut power plant pollutants that cause smog, acid rain and soot by about two-thirds over the next decade.

The rule - which will cost about $3.6 billion a year to implement but is expected to save $85 billion in annual health benefits - "will result in the biggest health benefit of any EPA rule in more than a decade," said Jeffrey Holmstead, the Environmental Protection Agency's assistant administrator.