CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Seriously? What on God's green earth has shown us they have any interest in safeguarding taxpayer dollars or the more prevelant borrowed Chinese money or providing oversight? Congress has fallen down in every way imaginable and yet you want to expand their ineptitude? Is it just that you're more comfortable with their long-standing incompetence than with the recent rise in private business failings? How can anyone argue that our government effectively solves problems while the near entirety of its resume reaks of dismal and expensive failure? Simply stunning. Again, i'm not arguing whether we should have interfered in the first place. We're long past that. I'm saying if we're going to be spending the money, which is a foregone conclusion, then we should have some oversight in how it is spent. Kind of the opposite of flying in pallet loads of cash and just handing it out haphazardly as happened in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Again, i'm not arguing whether we should have interfered in the first place. We're long past that. I'm saying if we're going to be spending the money, which is a foregone conclusion, then we should have some oversight in how it is spent. Kind of the opposite of flying in pallet loads of cash and just handing it out haphazardly as happened in Iraq. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 1-2-3-4 i declare a thumb war! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) The Constitution grants specific powers to the Federal Government. Any powers not granted specifically to the Federal Government by the Constitution fall to States' rights. Could you provide the Article and Section of the Constitution that specifies where the Federal Government has been granted the power to buy interest in privately owned companies? I'll let you tackle that for a while before we go into more complex arguments like the function of the three branches of the Federal Government and the checks and balances. GM was given the option of getting rid of Wagoner for additional federal bailout funds, GM had every right to keep him onboard. Edited March 31, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 If you put off the principle of being stubbornly opposed to any kind of govt. intervention, there is nothing weak about what Capn and Atomic are saying. It seemed the overwhelming opinion, amongst private industry analysts and other experts, was that a shake up at GM was needed awhile ago...probably before the first handout. The administration said, "We need to see A,B,C, D and E completed within the next X days if you want more money. Huh...you guys didn't meet any off these objectives.Well, if you want more money, get rid of the guy responsible for not meeting any of these." Whatever you think off the bailout, there are apparently completely rational and pragmatic reasons for the administration doing this. perhaps they seem rational and pragmatic if you believe barney frank and barack obama know how to run a business and/or have any business trying to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Seriously? What on God's green earth has shown us they have any interest in safeguarding taxpayer dollars or the more prevelant borrowed Chinese money or providing oversight? Congress has fallen down in every way imaginable and yet you want to expand their ineptitude? Is it just that you're more comfortable with their long-standing incompetence than with the recent rise in private business failings? How can anyone argue that our government effectively solves problems while the near entirety of its resume reaks of dismal and expensive failure? Simply stunning. This is an effective argument in not initiating a federal bailout in the first place. As far as completely turning a blind eye toward what is happening with federal funds.....not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 perhaps they seem rational and pragmatic if you believe barney frank and barack obama know how to run a business and/or have any business trying to do so. This is an effective argument in not initiating a federal bailout in the first place. As far as completely turning a blind eye toward what is happening with federal funds.....not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Bushwacked, if you refer to it as an economic "surge" they'll be on board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Dearest BO, Our sensitivity training sessions told us to never use the word "rape" to a fellow employee. I'd like to know what I should call the past few months. Another co-worker suggested the word "surge", as in "I surged your ass when I stole your money to give to my insurance and banker friends", but it really doesn't have the same ring to it. As my new supervisor, I request your guidance through these troubling times. Thanks, Tim C"onfused but still willing" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 GM was given the option of getting rid of Wagoner for additional federal bailout funds, GM had every right to keep him onboard. That's true. Now, if we can get back to the question I asked of you. Please provide the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that grants the Federal Government the right to participate in private enterprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Again, i'm not arguing whether we should have interfered in the first place. We're long past that. I'm saying if we're going to be spending the money, which is a foregone conclusion, then we should have some oversight in how it is spent. Kind of the opposite of flying in pallet loads of cash and just handing it out haphazardly as happened in Iraq. This is another hugh beef of mine. We no longer have representatives. Lots of folks are against these bailouts, yet we continue to throw away borrowed money. Why is there no serious consideration that we simply stop and work to sure up more promising businesses that will produce jobs and goods going forard? The banking and auto industries need to die as they exist today. We're keeping them on extended life support, despite the fact that there is little chance they will rise and return to health. The government should simply stop writing checks. They have no business running car manufacturers or banks. The government has been responsible for taxation and social programs for decades - how is that going? They are powerful and incompetent - something I really though a lot of you would be a little weary of after Bush and his administration. All I've been trying to point out in recent weeks is that Obama and the dem congress is just more of the same dangerous and irresponsible expansion of government we had with Bush. We are being extremely short-sighted as a nation right now and I fear the consequences will be worse than any of us imagine when the true cost of the decisions being made now become know somewhere down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) This is an effective argument in not initiating a federal bailout in the first place. As far as completely turning a blind eye toward what is happening with federal funds.....not so much. yes, it is an effective argument against bailout loans in the first place. it is also an effective argument against subsequent steps on the path toward total government control of private industry. there is a big difference between, on one hand, giving a business a loan because economic conditions have put them on the brink of collapse and their collapse would hurt the economy as a whole; and on the other, using the fact that they are going to collapse without a loan as leverage to come in gordon gecko takeover style and start reshaping the entire business as you see fit. the second step is not necessarily a logical continuation of the first, unless the first step was just pretense to set the stage for the second. in the case of the auto industry, I have been pretty strongly opposed to BOTH steps. but it would not be at all unreasonable for someone to be OK with loans, but not OK with the government taking over business decisions. Edited March 31, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Bushwacked, if you refer to it as an economic "surge" they'll be on board. quite desperate to change the subject, aren't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Please provide the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that grants the Federal Government the right to participate in private enterprise. So you are arguing that a federal bailout of private enterprise, is in itself, unconstitutional. Gotcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) yes, it is an effective argument against bailout loans in the first place. it is also an effective argument against subsequent steps on the path toward total government control of private industry. there is a big difference between, on one hand, giving a business a loan because economic conditions have put them on the brink of collapse and their collapse would hurt the economy as a whole; and on the other, using the fact that they are going to collapse without a loan as leverage to come in gordon gecko takeover style and start reshaping the entire business as you see fit. the second step is not necessarily a logical continuation of the first, unless the first step was just pretense to set the stage for the second. in the case of the auto industry, I have been pretty strongly opposed to BOTH steps. but it would not be at all unreasonable for someone to be OK with loans, but not OK with the government taking over business decisions. You're not going to get an argument from me....but I think the opposite of the last sentence is also true. Edited March 31, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 You're not going to get an argument from me....but I think the opposite of the last sentence is also true. yes, but again, you would have to believe that barney frank and barack obama know how to run a business and/or have any business trying to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 So you are arguing that a federal bailout of private enterprise, is in itself, unconstitutional. Gotcha. Okay, so we can both agree that you can't find the language in the Constitution, which means that the Federal Government has not been granted the right to participate in private enterprise. That means it's unconstitutional. That really wasn't that hard, was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 yes, but again, you would have to believe that barney frank and barack obama know how to run a business and/or have any business trying to do so. If you really want to try some Kevin Bacon degrees of connection yea....what you really need to believe, is that for this particular unique instance, the guy who took over for Wagoner can run GM better than Wagoner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Well, bailing out private corporations with taxpayers money is thesignificant issue. No, it's not THE significant issue. Okay, so we can both agree that you can't find the language in the Constitution, which means that the Federal Government has not been granted the right to participate in private enterprise. Yes it's okay for you to now agree with me after you disagreed with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Yes it's okay for you to now agree with me after you disagreed with me. Okay, so now that you admit that the bailouts are unconstitutional, we can move forward. Let's discuss the 3 branches of Federal Government and why it is important for the Legislature to legislate and not the Executive branch (that's the President, bw). Do you understand the basic concept of checks & balances, and that Obama has created legislation through what he has done with GM & Chrysler? Edited March 31, 2009 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Okay, so now that you admit that the bailouts are unconstitutional, we can move forward. Let's discuss the 3 branches of Federal Government and why it is important for the Legislature to legislate and not the Executive branch (that's the President, bw). Do you understand the basic concept of checks & balances, and that Obama has created legislation through what he has done with GM & Chrysler? Where was this discussion 8 years ago? Convenient to bring this up NOW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Where was this discussion 8 years ago? Convenient to bring this up NOW. It was just as bad when Bush did it. It's just that Obama has taken the game to a whole new level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Come on, bw. We need to explore the differences in government when one person is at the top making unilateral decisions and when the decision making process goes through the steps provided for in the Constitution as the fundamnetal basis of our system of government. Don't give up yet. You have learned so much already. Edited March 31, 2009 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Don't give up yet. You have learned so much already. You stumbled into agreeing with me and are now ignoring your original claim. We all learned you are a long ways away form a constitutional scholar, but we already knew that anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Um...Presidents send legislation to Congress ALL THE TIME. There's a real disconnect in any argument that wants to ignore that fact. TARP was sent up by the Admin, and Congress passed it into law. It could arguably, although probably challenged, as falling under To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; Portion of section 8. "Powers of Congress" We haven't seen a presidential firing of employees since the air traffic controllers, so it does happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.