View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevenbard wrote: | With the threat of $37,500 per day fine if you dig a ditch in your dry yard that some bureaucrat deems to be wetlands |
I WISH! Our neighborhood is up in arms over a nearby city which is threatening to run a sewer line, which includes a permanent 30-foot-wide road, through the canyon that runs through the area. Every foot of the canyon is private property that is part of ~60 residents' yards, but the city plans to use eminent domain to take it anyway. The city doesn't care that the canyon includes a full-time creek and extensive wildlife including deer, rare hawks, pheasant, owls, and MUCH more. Wetlands, schmetlands, the city says; WEWANNIT, so we're taking it ... with dynamite (its bedrock is solid basalt), bulldozers, and road graders.
They already did this to another, bigger, permanently flowing stream nearby, so wetlands means nothing inherently; it all apparently depends on local politics. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Fick-shun wrote: | ...including deer, rare hawks, pheasant, owls, and MUCH more. |
Ooooo........ Just imagine Palin there with her rifle!
Problem solved.
Mr. Fick-shun wrote: | They already did this to another, bigger, permanently flowing stream nearby, so wetlands means nothing inherently; it all apparently depends on local politics. |
Yes, Mikey, it's true. {sigh}
The world is out to get you.
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bard, I think that you're dodging my questions. Regarding the issue of regulations, they come from local, state and federal governments. To simply say that there is too much regulation is meaningless without getting into the details.
Really, any successful business depends on demand. If there is no increased demand, starting a new small business won't necessarily make it. In a town like Santa Barbara with hundreds of restaurants, starting a new one is no guarantee of success. Would you suggest throwing out regulations designed to ensure food safety? I think you know where I'm going with this.
From what you've said earlier, your main business focus is not very viable right now in day's economy. Maybe that's related to regulations and other requirements that are questionable, but without some credible details, I don't think that you will be able to make your point to any of us. If there are some specific regulations getting in your way, spell them out and make your point why they they should be eliminated. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011 Posts: 14892 Location: on earth
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
swchandler wrote: | Bard, I think that you're dodging my questions. Regarding the issue of regulations, they come from local, state and federal governments. To simply say that there is too much regulation is meaningless without getting into the details.
Really, any successful business depends on demand. If there is no increased demand, starting a new small business won't necessarily make it. In a town like Santa Barbara with hundreds of restaurants, starting a new one is no guarantee of success. Would you suggest throwing out regulations designed to ensure food safety? I think you know where I'm going with this.
From what you've said earlier, your main business focus is not very viable right now in day's economy. Maybe that's related to regulations and other requirements that are questionable, but without some credible details, I don't think that you will be able to make your point to any of us. If there are some specific regulations getting in your way, spell them out and make your point why they they should be eliminated. |
yep, businesses are being squashed by so much regulation surely they are not making record profits the last few years, that would be impossible....
as others said lets let the keating bankers just keep looting, wasn't one of the bush brothers in on that theft with silverado at the time the biggest bank job heist in the history of the USA. yep reagun get the government out of the way of them bankers, it works so well everything the right demand it. _________________ when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bajaDean wrote: |
as others said lets let the keating bankers just keep looting, wasn't one of the bush brothers in on that theft with silverado at the time the biggest bank job heist in the history of the USA. |
Close.
The Keating Five was (from Wikipedia) Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, John McCain, and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. They were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government.
Also from Wikipedia: Neil Bush was a member of the board of directors of Denver-based Silverado Savings and Loan during the 1980s' larger Savings and Loan crisis. As his father, George H.W. Bush, was Vice President of the United States, his role in Silverado's failure was a focal point of publicity. According to a piece in Salon, Silverado's collapse cost taxpayers $1.3 billion.
The US Office of Thrift Supervision investigated Silverado's failure and determined that Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement.
_____
Plenty of ethics blame to spread around. Most of the Keating senators were democrats (except McCain). Bush is, of course, republican.
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17748 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember it well. It led to election defeat for Cranston, who until that time was a well respected California Senator. How about that "no second acts" in politics line? I don't remember Obama bashing McCain with his role, do you? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011 Posts: 14892 Location: on earth
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pueno wrote: | bajaDean wrote: |
as others said lets let the keating bankers just keep looting, wasn't one of the bush brothers in on that theft with silverado at the time the biggest bank job heist in the history of the USA. |
Close.
The Keating Five was (from Wikipedia) Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, John McCain, and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. They were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government.
Also from Wikipedia: Neil Bush was a member of the board of directors of Denver-based Silverado Savings and Loan during the 1980s' larger Savings and Loan crisis. As his father, George H.W. Bush, was Vice President of the United States, his role in Silverado's failure was a focal point of publicity. According to a piece in Salon, Silverado's collapse cost taxpayers $1.3 billion.
The US Office of Thrift Supervision investigated Silverado's failure and determined that Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement.
_____
Plenty of ethics blame to spread around. Most of the Keating senators were democrats (except McCain). Bush is, of course, republican.
. |
as far as the senators, they did not steal the money, that was a false equvalancy to the point.
But again with this supreme court ruling today again it puts the same risk of having big business mandate to ALL elected officials that you only get elected if we put the money into your campaign. and then you are to remove the regulations from us. removing regulations from banks and more is the right wing platform. It is almost more important than apple pie itself.
The right wing party is all about giving the oligarchs anything they want which is removing the regulations from business. There is ONLY one party that fought citizens united and this present ruling and the one that says corporations are people.
So do not even put a false equivalency down like the right wingers do all the time of they are all bad or equal blame. It is not at all. _________________ when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bajaDean wrote: |
as far as the senators, they did not steal the money, that was a false equvalancy to the point. |
Again from Wikipedia:
Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions Keating had made to each of the senators, totaling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB's investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators Glenn and McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment."
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011 Posts: 14892 Location: on earth
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pueno wrote: | bajaDean wrote: |
as far as the senators, they did not steal the money, that was a false equvalancy to the point. |
Again from Wikipedia:
Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions Keating had made to each of the senators, totaling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB's investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators Glenn and McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment."
. |
Thanks for proving my point.... as I said the crime was committed by the savings and loan and cost taxpayers dearly. And as I said not one of the elected officials was charged with a crime and not one had anything to do with the crimes in the bank or had knowledge of the crimes. Yes they were asked by their constituent to see why the pesky government was investigating them which they got in trouble for but was not a jailable crime.
Again the reagan got government out of the way of business mentality that was passed and removing regulators from doing their job allowed this crime to occur.
And again Neil Bush on a bank board when he had zero banking experience was also what I consider criminal. And to add to it having reagan administration with Bush senior as VP and later president handle investigations well, we know why neil did not do any jail time. _________________ when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
bajaDean wrote: |
Thanks for proving my point.... as I said the crime was committed by the savings and loan and cost taxpayers dearly. |
I'm not arguing with you... I'm adding details to (clarify) your point. We're saying the same thing.
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|