Skip to main content

Another Democrat admits the truth: 

 

"It was supposed to be the White House’s latest make-nice session with corporate America — a visit by Chief of Staff William M. Daley to a meeting with hundreds of manufacturing executives in town to press lawmakers for looser regulations.

But the outreach soon turned into a rare public dressing down of the president’s policies with his highest-ranking aide.

 

One by one, exasperated executives stood to air their grievances on environmental regulations and stalled free-trade deals. And Daley, the former banker tasked with building ties with industry, found himself looking for the right balance between empathy and defending his boss.

 

At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts manufacturing executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government “throws sand into the gears of progress.”

 

Daley said he did not have many good answers, appearing to throw up his hands in frustration at what he called “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”

 

“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” he said.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-houses-daley-seeks-balance-in-outreach-meeting-with-manufacturers/2011/06/16/AG177yXH_story.html
To defeat Democrats, just quote them.

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Starrett already spent a few million to update a power plant that is for the sole use of his manufacturing operation.  The cost of litigation is probably far higher than the $180,000 cost of the proposed additional equipment the FERC is specifying.  Starrett want to be absolved from conforming with the FERC and a federal judges determination that the FERC does have jurisdiction. 

 

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pd...ons/10-1470P-01A.pdf

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Starrett already spent a few million to update a power plant that is for the sole use of his manufacturing operation.  The cost of litigation is probably far higher than the $180,000 cost of the proposed additional equipment the FERC is specifying.  Starrett want to be absolved from conforming with the FERC and a federal judges determination that the FERC does have jurisdiction. 

 

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pd...ons/10-1470P-01A.pdf

That someone would voluntarily spend millions in litigation to avoid a $180,000 cost is not logical.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Starrett already spent a few million to update a power plant that is for the sole use of his manufacturing operation.  The cost of litigation is probably far higher than the $180,000 cost of the proposed additional equipment the FERC is specifying.  Starrett want to be absolved from conforming with the FERC and a federal judges determination that the FERC does have jurisdiction. 

 

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pd...ons/10-1470P-01A.pdf

That someone would voluntarily spend millions in litigation to avoid a $180,000 cost is not logical.

"Logical"? That is a subject about which you know nothing.

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Starrett already spent a few million to update a power plant that is for the sole use of his manufacturing operation.  The cost of litigation is probably far higher than the $180,000 cost of the proposed additional equipment the FERC is specifying.  Starrett want to be absolved from conforming with the FERC and a federal judges determination that the FERC does have jurisdiction. 

 

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pd...ons/10-1470P-01A.pdf

That someone would voluntarily spend millions in litigation to avoid a $180,000 cost is not logical.

"Logical"? That is a subject about which you know nothing.

bump

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×