Republicans give Santa the boot

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Aug 4, 2009
281,151
140,588
2,615
New York's Suffolk County sacks Santa to save $660 | News | National Post

NEW YORK — Faced with the difficult task of balancing a budget in austere times, officials in New York’s Suffolk County said on Friday they had no choice: they had to sack Santa Claus.

The county executive said he could not justify carving out $660 from his US$2.7-billion budget to pay David McKell, 83, a World War II veteran and former homicide detective, to don his Santa suit for the tenth year running and greet children on Long Island.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes:

And if they paid the guy, rightwinger would have started a thread about republicans violating the establishment clause.

What a hack. :thup:
 
New York's Suffolk County sacks Santa to save $660 | News | National Post

NEW YORK — Faced with the difficult task of balancing a budget in austere times, officials in New York’s Suffolk County said on Friday they had no choice: they had to sack Santa Claus.

The county executive said he could not justify carving out $660 from his US$2.7-billion budget to pay David McKell, 83, a World War II veteran and former homicide detective, to don his Santa suit for the tenth year running and greet children on Long Island.

The county executive, Republican (Democrat until 2010), could certainly found a more amiable way out of the problem...such as asking community organizations to pay the $600...

...but, pols are not the usual source of innovation.
 
The outrage is the republicans caused this world wide crash

No they didn't. It was a concerted, collaborative effort between both parties to ruin this country.

Actually.... if we're talking the 'world wide crash'... then, shockingly, we should also factor in some really stupid decisions made by other countries. I know this might be above the intellectually paygrade of posters like TruthMocker... but.... the world does not revolve around the United States.... and our political parties are not responsible for the ills or successes of the rest of the world.
 
SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

In addition, the Commission also voted to issue a second release concerning certain bank dealer activities and other related matters.

"A customer should be able to walk into a financial institution and get any financial product he or she needs — securities, insurance, banking or trust services," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "But Congress recognized those benefits couldn't be achieved without new ways to safeguard investors that would be consistent with continued innovation. Today's historic action, coming eight years after the passage of the law, is long overdue but welcome news for investors who will now begin to see the benefits of broader services and lower costs that the law intended."

An important provision of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act amended the definition of "broker" in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 so that banks would no longer be completely excluded from the broker-dealer registration requirements. At the same time, the new law created specific exceptions from those requirements. Proposed Regulation R would give effect to these bank broker exceptions, in a way that accommodates the traditional business practices of banks, and at the same time furthers our goal of better protecting investors.
 
Sept. 19, 2007

the law was passed in 1999.


they gamed the protections in the law so they could do whatever they wanted
 
they instated the rules right before they lost the house to dems.

Funny that one huh?
 
Another thread hijacked by Turdsplatters.

But since it was a pretty stupid ass partisan thread to begin with... meh.

Whatcha gonna do? :dunno:
 

Forum List

Back
Top