Bail out of AIG unconsitutional

[Charles_Main]

The bail out of AIG gives the Federal Government an 80% controlling Share of the company. This is a clear violation of the constitution, and it is bad economics. Throwing good money after bad is never a good idea.

Our government is not suppose to be able to spend tax payer dollars to benefit the share holders of a cooperation, and end up owning a Company.

yes I know it is not the first time, but that does not mean we should ignore it.

This is the action of a Democrat Congress. Ignore the law and the constitution, and spend more money we do not have, on a company that made poor decisions and was failing.

Economics 101 people, do not throw good money after bad.

 

[Paulie]

The bail out of AIG gives the Federal Government an 80% controlling Share of the company. This is a clear violation of the constitution, and it is bad economics. Throwing good money after bad is never a good idea.

Our government is not suppose to be able to spend tax payer dollars to benefit the share holders of a cooperation, and end up owning a Company.

yes I know it is not the first time, but that does not mean we should ignore it.

This is the action of a Democrat Congress. Ignore the law and the constitution, and spend more money we do not have, on a company that made poor decisions and was failing.

Economics 101 people, do not throw good money after bad.

I can't believe you're going to try and pin this on only the democrats, as if the republicans aren't just as complicit.

 

[Charles_Main]

I can't believe you're going to try and pin this on only the democrats, as if the republicans aren't just as complicit.

Oh it is not only the Dems fault, but then Dems are the ones in control of congress right now. They damn sure could have stopped it.

This so called bail out is a clear violation of our constitution. Do you at least agree with that?

 

[sealybobo]

The bail out of AIG gives the Federal Government an 80% controlling Share of the company. This is a clear violation of the constitution, and it is bad economics. Throwing good money after bad is never a good idea.

Our government is not suppose to be able to spend tax payer dollars to benefit the share holders of a cooperation, and end up owning a Company.

yes I know it is not the first time, but that does not mean we should ignore it.

This is the action of a Democrat Congress. Ignore the law and the constitution, and spend more money we do not have, on a company that made poor decisions and was failing.

Economics 101 people, do not throw good money after bad.

this belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

get used to that comment next year when you sick ken starr on president obama.

 

[Charles_Main]

this belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

get used to that comment next year when you sick ken starr on president obama.

You need to read your Constitution numb nuts. I wait I forgot you would have to be able to comprehend what you read for it to make a difference.

Our government has no place, and no constitutional authority to be buying 80% stakes in failing companies.

 

[Ravi]

The bail out of AIG gives the Federal Government an 80% controlling Share of the company. This is a clear violation of the constitution, and it is bad economics. Throwing good money after bad is never a good idea.

Our government is not suppose to be able to spend tax payer dollars to benefit the share holders of a cooperation, and end up owning a Company.

yes I know it is not the first time, but that does not mean we should ignore it.

This is the action of a Democrat Congress. Ignore the law and the constitution, and spend more money we do not have, on a company that made poor decisions and was failing.

Economics 101 people, do not throw good money after bad.

Oh, Charles, you have turned into such a partisan hack. Show me where Bush didn't support this take over, and then explain to me how the economic viability of the country is unconstitutional.

 

[CA95380]

Oh it is not only the Dems fault, but then Dems are the ones in control of congress right now. They damn sure could have stopped it.

This so called bail out is a clear violation of our constitution. Do you at least agree with that?

As you said ... this is not the first time that it has happened. Probably will not be the last.

Thing's are a'changin in our country.

Uncle Sam taps piggy bank, borrows to aid market - Yahoo! News

 

[Chris]

oh It Is Not Only The Dems Fault, But Then Dems Are The Ones In Control Of Congress Right Now. They Damn Sure Could Have Stopped It.

This So Called Bail Out Is A Clear Violation Of Our Constitution. Do You At Least Agree With That?

Since When Did Bush Care About The Constitution?

Have You Been Asleep For The Last Eight Years???

 

[editec]

he AIG event was NOT a bailout.

They're calling it that, but it was not that at all.

The AIG event was a CONFISCATION of a privately held corporation.

The USA now owns 80% of the companies stocks.

They bought that 80% for $85 billion dollars.

They FORCED the sale, however, so calling it a purchase or a bailout is simply misleading.

You might be right about throwing good money after bad, though.

We cannot KNOW if the USA just bought a company at a good price or a bad one UNTIL WE CAN GET A REAL VALUATION OF THE REAL ESTATE BOND ASSETS AIG ARE INSURING.

Seriously folks.

This is some complex shit here, and most of you are approaching it like its a simply matter of supply and demand or something easy to figure out.

If it was easy to figure out, don't you think the best economists in the world would have already solved the problem?

Our ship of state is sailing completely uncharted waters here, folks.

 

[sealybobo]

The bail out of AIG gives the Federal Government an 80% controlling Share of the company. This is a clear violation of the constitution, and it is bad economics. Throwing good money after bad is never a good idea.

Our government is not suppose to be able to spend tax payer dollars to benefit the share holders of a cooperation, and end up owning a Company.

yes I know it is not the first time, but that does not mean we should ignore it.

This is the action of a Democrat Congress. Ignore the law and the constitution, and spend more money we do not have, on a company that made poor decisions and was failing.

Economics 101 people, do not throw good money after bad.

Bush did how many unconstitutional things and you didn't care? Now you care about the constitution?

 

[Charles_Main]

Since When Did Bush Care About The Constitution?

Have You Been Asleep For The Last Eight Years???

Did I say anything about Bush pal?

 

[Charles_Main]

Bush did how many unconstitutional things and you didn't care? Now you care about the constitution?

Why do you assume I didn't care jackass?

 

[sealybobo]

You need to read your Constitution numb nuts. I wait I forgot you would have to be able to comprehend what you read for it to make a difference.

Our government has no place, and no constitutional authority to be buying 80% stakes in failing companies.

Can you back up that claim? Show me where it says that in the constitution.

The government has the right to protect its citizens.

I don't agree with bailouts either Charlie. If the GOP didn't deregulate the industry, maybe we wouldn't be there. Did you not think Corporations would push their limits to maximize profits?

This is why Republicans should not be trusted with power.

Here, I found this today and wanted you to see it:

What these numbers show almost beyond doubt is that Democrats are better at virtually every economic task that is important to Republicans.



If you find the Republican mantra of lower taxes and smaller government appealing, and if you care only about how fast the economy is growing, not how that growth is shared, you should vote Democratic. Of course, if you do care about things like economic inequality and children's health, you should vote Democratic as well.





When the president is a Democrat, the economy grows faster; inflation is lower; fewer people can't find a job; the federal government spends a smaller share of GDP, whether or not you include defense spending; and the deficit is lower (or—sweet Clinton-years memory—the surplus is higher).





The numbers don't lie: Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans. - By Michael Kinsley - Slate Magazine

 

[sealybobo]

Since When Did Bush Care About The Constitution?

Have You Been Asleep For The Last Eight Years???

Chris, welcome to my nightmare of dealing with Charles. He is the only guy who really makes me angry. He's a smart guy who doesn't have a clue. He's the brainwashed guy who says you are brainwashed.

He tried to pretend he was going to vote for the Libertarian, but I told him long ago that he was just a Republican in denial.

He's mad at the GOP for not keeping their word on ANYTHING but is one of those suckers who believes McCain is the exception to the rule.

He argues for every GOP talking point. Global warming, Iraq, tax breaks to the rich, deregulations, gay marriage, stem cell, abortion.

And get this. He's a truck driver making less than $50K and he has a family. His wife doesn't work. He's getting fucked harder than all of us, but he won't give the Democrats a chance. He's convinced they are evil and the Republicans are better, even though every fact suggests the Democrats are better. Only the GOP master the rhetoric. Plus Charles is too proud to admit that after all these years, he is WRONG.

 

[Ravi]

What happened to Charles? This guy sounds too bitter to be him.

 

[sealybobo]

What happened to Charles? This guy sounds too bitter to be him.

The GOP were still denying anything was wrong the last time we talked to Charles. Charles is a truck driver. He went on a short little trip on the road and by the time he got back, the entire country fell apart.

So Charles is regrouping. He was all prepared to argue that what this economy needs is less regulations and more tax breaks. He had that argument down cold.

But now McCain is saying we need more regulations. Charles knows if he tries to flip flop, we can go back and find where he said the opposite. So he's going to let this story die down.

He's basically waiting to talk about the pig with lipstick again. Any story that actually matters and Charles is lost.

 

[Paulie]

Oh it is not only the Dems fault, but then Dems are the ones in control of congress right now. They damn sure could have stopped it.

This so called bail out is a clear violation of our constitution. Do you at least agree with that?

It probably is, without researching to figure out for sure. What it basically is, is our government just nationalized AIG, the largest insurance company in the world. Our government now owns an 80% share.

It's fucking scary, Charles. We're turning into a communist state right before our very eyes, and no one seems to care enough. I know that no one cares enough, because come election day, we'll be re-electing the communists, and adding a bunch more.

Everyone that's connected to the establishment needs to go. It's probably the only way to stop the madness.

 

[I Missthe North]

Everyone that's connected to the establishment needs to go. It's probably the only way to stop the madness.

Sadly its true. I honestly believe the whole system is too backwards and corrupt as it is to be fixed without a major overhaul of the system. Another revolution may be just the thing the country needs. Sad thing is...I'm serious.

 

[Paulie]

Sadly its true. I honestly believe the whole system is too backwards and corrupt as it is to be fixed without a major overhaul of the system. Another revolution may be just the thing the country needs. Sad thing is...I'm serious.

Probably. But it need not be a partisan revolution, though. It shouldn't be to get more conservatism, or get more liberalism. What needs to happen first and formost, is for our government to be fiscally responsible. Forget the social issues. They are so petty compared to what's is most important right now.

There needs to be a balancing of the budget through spending cuts where IN THE LEAST, both sides can agree. Then there needs to be a scale back of our military escapdes, and finally a pay-down of our debt.

I can't fathom how anyone could argue with that, given our current financial situation in this country.

 

[editec]

A revolution? It would not be a revolution it would be civil war. You all haven't noticed that this nation is divided philosophically?


A civil war, yeah, that's just what we need.

The nation already isn't working, let's burn it down kill everyone we don't like and then start over.

Yeah, that'll fix it.

This is what happens when you feed people a line of bullshit about watering the tree of liberty with blood.

They haven't a clue what revolution really means.

Try THINKING revolutionary for a change, that might help.

We won't find your liberty at the end of a gun barrel, we'll find it when we stop thinking like slaves.

You want to know the BIG LIE that keeps them going?

The myth of shortage.

This world is so damned wealthy, but we've allowed our masters to convince us it isn't so we work like slaves and some of us kiss the hands of the masters who allow us the previlage of working for them.

Fucking tools.