U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms

[Ravi]

Except that the powers of the federal government are stated in the Constitution, and only those powers listed are legitimate powers of the federal government. The general welfare clause gave no powers to the government. No where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can regulate or take over financial institutions.

It doesn't state it but the commerce clause and the neccesary and proper clause taken together mean that yes they can. I'm pretty sure SCOTUS decided this back in the 1800s...and how else do you think the Federal Reserve exists?

Like I said, I don't think we'll agree on this.

Wait... You mean the federal government decided that these "clauses" in the Constitution allows the federal government to have more power? I'm shocked.

The Federal Reserve exists unconstitutionally.

lol...I knew you'd say that. SCOTUS has a job...interpret the law. Once they make a decision on the constitutionality of an issue it is constitutional. Until that time when someone rechallenges and we get a new ruling. As far as I know that hasn't happened. I'm not saying SCOTUS is always right, I disagree with them often. But rules are rules.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It doesn't state it but the commerce clause and the neccesary and proper clause taken together mean that yes they can. I'm pretty sure SCOTUS decided this back in the 1800s...and how else do you think the Federal Reserve exists?

Like I said, I don't think we'll agree on this.

Wait... You mean the federal government decided that these "clauses" in the Constitution allows the federal government to have more power? I'm shocked.

The Federal Reserve exists unconstitutionally.

lol...I knew you'd say that. SCOTUS has a job...interpret the law. Once they make a decision on the constitutionality of an issue it is constitutional. Until that time when someone rechallenges and we get a new ruling. As far as I know that hasn't happened. I'm not saying SCOTUS is always right, I disagree with them often. But rules are rules.

I disagree. The Supreme Court interprets "Constitutional Law," which often has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution itself.

But I may just be arguing semantics with that one.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Agree with Annie:

They are fascists, not communists. The reality will sink in too late.

First let me say that I agree with Annie and YOU...

What I want you to consider is that Fascism FEEDS credence to SOCIALISM... where one generation embraces Fascism, which amounts to nothing more than what Moderates LOVE to describe as a 'mixed economy'... the next generation must accept socialism.

Do you not agree that where economic problems arise, that the fascist is RARELY if EVER finding fault with the State's element of that equation?

Use the present scenario... make a list of those you recognize as the fascist players... pick up your list, pin it to the wall, walk back 10 feet, pick up your darts... throw the darts at the list and examine the names which the dart struck... research their public statements and count up the ones who have lamented the role which congress has played in this fiasco...

I can tell you, it's not there... examine the comments of the fascists in THIS BOARD... find ONE which has lamented the eggregeous abuse of power initiated by Bawney Fwank, and the Congressional Leftist Caucus, which just happen to be Black.

THOSE PEOPLE ARE AT THE ROOT OF THIS PROBLEM AND ARE DRIVING THIS CATASTROPHICALLY ABSURD "Solution."

Yet not a word from the fascists condemning fascism... the problem is where, as far as they're concerned? It's with capitalism... The GREEDY CORPORATIONS! Not the Greedy Fascists... NO no... and that has ALWAYS been their position; and that will ALWAYS BE their solution.

With each 'crisis' they demand GREATER CONTROL... MORE POWER... and with every greater acculuation of each, Capitalism slides farther and farther from being able to operate.

At some point friend... Fascism IS Socialism... At BEST fascism is nothing BUT socialism with a nationalist bent; make no mistake, the fascist path is the socialist path, the only point which you'll find a fascist and a socialist in stark disagreement is the DEGREE to which the socialism effects the cultural heritage and the depth which Central Economic Control is set.

But leftism is not static... it's fluid and when you here them using the word "Progressive" they do not mean "the advocacy to Modernize..." that Title was advanced to imply those that seek to advocate the ADVANCEMENT OF SOCIALISM... and if you read my piece above, you'll see how they intended it to work... you'll see how socialism PROGRESSES... how, like a virus, it infects that to which it is connected until it consumes the host...

Granted the "progressives" of the late 19th and early 20th century thought it would go a lot faster... but their pace was slowed by the innate understanding which Americans have that their system is subversive to the unalienable human rights, on which this great nation is founded.

We're being suckered, friend; we're being played for fools... and that would all be fine and dandy IF they were as smart as they think they are and actually COULD build a Workers paradise where the state provides for our every needs... and where each individual was willing to provide to the extent of their means for those who lack the means... BUT THAT IS NOT HOW NATURE IS DESIGNED AND THEY'RE NO WHERE NEAR CAPABLE OF REDESIGNING NATURE.

I mean come on... do you really think that Bobo is of such an intellect to pull that off? She can't even comprehend the meaning of simple thoughts expressed in her own common language...

I mean sure, she's every BIT as bright as President Hussein and Hillary... and let me say that it is a mistake to believe that Hussein, Bubba, Hill, Bawny, Maxine and/or the whole of the Congressional Leftist Caucus that just happen to be Black would do ANY better in these debates thant do these other imbeciles... because they would not.

So, yes, it's fascism... But in the final analysis, fascism is socialism... and its all VERY PROGRESSIVE, which is why it is imperative to avoid tolerating it in the first place.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh no, the sky is still falling!!! Listen folks dictator Dick and his trusty sidekick Georgie are gone, no need to worry about false imprisonment and taking money from the poor to give to the rich any longer. Relax, take two aspirins and you'll be fine in the morning.

The Conservative Nanny State

"The reality is that conservatives have been quite actively using the power of the government to shape market outcomes in ways that redistribute income upward. However, conservatives have been clever enough to not own up to their role in this process, pretending all along that everything is just the natural working of the market. And, progressives have been foolish enough to go along with this view. "

ROFLMNAO...

I tell ya friends, the left is the gift that just keeps on givin'...

What a thoroughly intentional misrepresentation of the facts, for NO OTHER PURPOSE than that of DECIEPT... (Bobo... that means that Midcan is a LYIN' sack of shit. And this is because she wants to imply that something that is NOT TRUE, is, through the use of fatally flawed reasonining... Oh my, those are big words... Well bobo... just hold on; basically Midcan is a foolish liar and about to be publicly humiliated... er... embarassed... made to feel bad... Midcan is ... well you just sit still Bobo and maybe I'll figure out a way to make this clear to the stupid.)

First, I'd like to ask Midcan by what process does Capitalism force the poor to give their meager sums over to the rich?

I'd further ask that she state a SPECIFIC CONSERVATIVE policy that forces the innocent poor, to transfer their money over to the 'RICH'! (Bobo, I'm asking Midcan to provide some evidence which might help us to agree with her. She won't be able to produce that evidence, which, to be honest is why I asked it... because my goal here is to make her feel bad and prove that she's not very smart and that her most closely held beliefs are a fools paradise... Oh my... I want Midcan to embarass herself when she tries to tell us how she came to her stated understanding... Er... uh... When Midcan tries to explain how the Poor are made poorer by the rich, she will do what YOU do, and well, you know how much that hurts... I want her to hurt the way I make you hurt.)

Then I'd ask Midcan to provide us with examples of SPECIFIC... CONSERVATIVE policy which 'shapes market outcomes...' because I frankly want to get me some of THAT! (Bobo that means pretty much the same as the stuff above, its just about different stuff... and since I know that you're 'understanding challenged' I'll cut you some slack and won't make you feel bad about not being able to understand THAT. And you're welcome.)

Anywho.. Midcan... as usual, you're inability to support your now discredited argument, in a reasonable period of time will constitute, AGAIN, your concession that you're in point of fact: FULL OF SHIT!

(BOBO... that just means that I know that Midcan can't tell us why she believes what she said and that she's a bad person for having tried to make us believe something she can't explain... don't worry about it, you wouldn't understand anyway.)

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

LOL... What a ROUTE!

And THAT kids is all there is to shutting the ideological left DOWN!

Cool huh?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There can be NO better sign that the left realizes that their collective clock has been cleaned than their sudden disintertest in a thread...

Well done friends... you shut them done on this one.

 

[Ravi]

Wait... You mean the federal government decided that these "clauses" in the Constitution allows the federal government to have more power? I'm shocked.

The Federal Reserve exists unconstitutionally.

lol...I knew you'd say that. SCOTUS has a job...interpret the law. Once they make a decision on the constitutionality of an issue it is constitutional. Until that time when someone rechallenges and we get a new ruling. As far as I know that hasn't happened. I'm not saying SCOTUS is always right, I disagree with them often. But rules are rules.

I disagree. The Supreme Court interprets "Constitutional Law," which often has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution itself.

But I may just be arguing semantics with that one.

Maybe, but semantics are usually the basis of most constitutional disagreements, no?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

lol...I knew you'd say that. SCOTUS has a job...interpret the law. Once they make a decision on the constitutionality of an issue it is constitutional. Until that time when someone rechallenges and we get a new ruling. As far as I know that hasn't happened. I'm not saying SCOTUS is always right, I disagree with them often. But rules are rules.

I disagree. The Supreme Court interprets "Constitutional Law," which often has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution itself.

But I may just be arguing semantics with that one.

Maybe, but semantics are usually the basis of most constitutional disagreements, no?

SCOTUS decisions are relevant to the ideological bent of the members which issued the majority.

It's an error to look at a Majority ruling and claim it valid in terms of reasoning, based upon the majority status. ROE is a perfect, if thread bear, example of an irrational ruling by a majority. It's no more morally valid than was that which upheld slavery as a right... yet, unlike THAT decision ROE remains ... The day will come when Roe goes the way of wind... cast into history as an eggregeous violation of everything from common sense to sound jurisprudence