Bail out of AIG unconsitutional

[xsited1]

It's called 'virtual Nationalization' of AIG since the US Government now has a 79.9% stake in the company. I wonder how many other companies will be nationalized by the US government? Perhaps Hugo Chavez is providing them pointers.

 

[sealybobo]

The problem presented by your question is: is standing on the principle of law more important than the end justifying the means? It isn't like this is the first time our government has stepped in.

We're between a rock and a hard place. Conservatives are, that is. We're caught between the government becoming more and more involved in free enterprise; which, IMO is a slippery slope that leads to some bastardized version of socialism, and rampant, unchecked capitalism led by unscupulous people driven by individual, personal and/or corporate greed destroying our economy so they can get rich and get out.

This isn't the fault of Democrats nor Republicans. It's EVERYONE's fault. The unscrupulous greedy and the people who have for the past 30+ years been living n credit and/or at or beyond their means.

When all the prices jacked up 6 or so months ago, who DIDN'T see this coming? We lasted just about as long as extended lines of credit could be used up.

The govrnment needs to step in and get this shit under control, and not by bailing everyone out. This is a national crisis and I would hope that for once people could put their petty partisan politics aside and come up with a plan to straighten this shit out without bleeding the middle class closer to death than we already are.

This doesn't affect just Republicans, nor Democrats ... it's affecting us all.

Good post, except this isn't the fault of the socialist democrats. This is the fault of the free market gop.

You have come as close as I can hope on admitting the deregulating gop caused this.

Ps. We did see this coming. I yelled and screamed and you called me a nut job. Start listening to views different from your own. You might learn something.

 

[sealybobo]

It has to do with your accusation that congress bailed out the AIG. It did not. Not even the president bailed them out. The Federal Reserve acted on its own.

You've turned into an idiot. Who the hell is doing your thinking for you these days?

So if Charles is DEAD WRONG about this, imagine what else he is wrong about.

And he replied in agreement with the guy who said the fed is run by socialists. As if he has a clue on the subject.

I just love that charles is as dumb as he thinks I am. He's a projector, that's for sure.

 

[sealybobo]

It's called 'virtual Nationalization' of AIG since the US Government now has a 79.9% stake in the company. I wonder how many other companies will be nationalized by the US government? Perhaps Hugo Chavez is providing them pointers.

The oil companies were screwing venesuela so they kicked them out. That is something we should consider, but the same people that own the oil companies also own the federal reserve, so that won't happen. Instead od stopping the oil companies from gouging us, they subsodized them.

Anyways, we won't have to nationalize anythin else, just regulate. The gop were clearly wrong about industries being overregulated. And they tok out regulations that were important. So lets stop playing theoverregulations vs free market game. There is no such thing as completely free markets. Government makes the rules. The gop just happen to horrible making the rules.

In 2007 the gop said the economy was strong. We said they were wrong. In january 08 Romney said Michigan was in a one state recession. we said he was wrong. This week McCain said the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and he has been proven wrong. Now Mccain after 30 yrs of being a deregulator, he is now saying he wil regulate more.

The gop have been wrong, we were right. Time to vote for Obama. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

If Mccain wins, there will be gridlock and he will blame the dems and they will blame him. We need to give the dems 2 yrs to clean up this mess. If they suck, then you can vote them out in the 2010 midterms. Otherwise, mccain wil continue to protect the rich who are ruining america for the rest of us.

 

[gonegolfin]

Show me that JP Morgan, Carnege and Rockafellor were socialists. They were the farthest thing from it.

The only thing they socialize are the losses.

I'm calling bullshit on your revisionist history Brian.

I did not think you would have a clue. You do not understand socialism and the elite. I will give you some text to review ...

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212]Amazon.com: The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve: G. Edward Griffin: Books[/ame]

Cecil Rhodes helped pave the way for what was later the Federal Reserve. His elitist goal was nothing less than world domination and the establishment of a modern feudalist society controlled by like-minded individuals through the world's central banks.

Checkout out some of these other extremely key characters ...
Edward Mandell House (House was the key figure in getting the FRA passed)
Paul Warburg and the Warburg family (banking dynasty in Europe)
Lord Alfred Milner
Lord Nathan Rothschild (banking dynasty in Europe)

In later years ...
Harry Dexter White
John Maynard Keynes

There are many more ... but these yielded considerable power and influence of both the formation of and growth of Central Banks.

Brian

 

[Care4all]

I did not think you would have a clue. You do not understand socialism and the elite. I will give you some text to review ...

Amazon.com: The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve: G. Edward Griffin: Books

Cecil Rhodes helped pave the way for what was later the Federal Reserve. His elitist goal was nothing less than world domination and the establishment of a modern feudalist society controlled by like-minded individuals through the world's central banks.

Checkout out some of these other extremely key characters ...
Edward Mandell House (House was the key figure in getting the FRA passed)
Paul Warburg and the Warburg family (banking dynasty in Europe)
Lord Alfred Milner
Lord Nathan Rothschild (banking dynasty in Europe)

In later years ...
Harry Dexter White
John Maynard Keynes

There are many more ... but these yielded considerable power and influence of both the formation of and growth of Central Banks.

Brian

isn't jekyll island off florida, remember reading somewhere in my past that the very elite often met there to determine our future....? And YES, i am going to buy the book and read it....

 

[editec]

isn't jekyll island off florida, remember reading somewhere in my past that the very elite often met there to determine our future....? And YES, i am going to buy the book and read it....

Georgia.

I see we're still debating the meaning of the word socialist.


Seeley, when Brian B uses the word socialist, he is correct if one accepts the notion that government control is socialist.

IN this frame of reference it does NOT mean, liberal, or democrat, it merely describes that animal as being of the government.

Of course even that gets hard to handle since we all know that the FED is neither animal or vegetable, possible its some sort of mineral..maybe krypton since it's killing a superpower nation.

Is it public or is it private?

.It's a breathe mint, it's a candy mint, Somebody please stop me before I metaphor again.

It is the smoking gun which proves to us paying close attention, that the concept that we lived in a representational form of government was a cruel hoax, a mass delusion, a lovely dream from which we are all about to abruptly woken.

Say goodbye to the republic, folks.

We're about to enter a brave new world come Monday.

 

[Paulie]

O.K., I lied. I was in the mood to read it, as I've done several times before.

I can't find anything in the U.S. Consttution that directly states that this AIG takeover is illegal.

I don't believe that there is anything about the Constituion that prohibits this type of thing.

I think the reason you answered the way you did is because you can't find anything in the Constitution that prohibits this and just didn't want to admit it.

If there is some clause, article or amendment, please post it.

Otherwise, SHUTUP!

If you've read it, you would know there is no power given to the federal government to buy up companies. What is not listed as a power of the federal government is relegated to the individual states.

There is also the issue of taxation without representation. When the Federal Reserve buys up a company, and bills the US government for it, we as taxpayers are responsible for that tax burden. There was no representation of the people in the Federal Reserve's actions during this mess. Congress did not authorize the Fed to bail out Bear Stearns, AIG, Merrill Lynch, etc. We will have the burden of added taxation placed upon us, and we had no representation in the process.

I'm not sure if you remember basic history, but there was a little war fought in the 1700's for that very reason, which ultimately provided you with a Republic in which to tell me to shut up on the internet.

 

[Paulie]

This is the one big point that the media and politicians simply will not elaborate on. the REAL fault of all of this lies with the AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE, not Bush, not Congress, not the Federal Reserve, not the Treasury, not Wall St.....but WE did it ALL TO OURSELVES.

We elected and re-elected the fools who appointed officials and policies that either over de-regulated, or encouraged or outright forced lenders to extend loans to people who could NEVER pay them back. And then WE borrowed the money to buy houses we couldn't afford or we bought the financial stocks or 401k Mutual funds that invested in these.....

WE did this TO OURSELVES.

For me, I'd have NO regulation, let the greed run its course and let the whole thing simply COLLAPSE. SO what? We are a free people, and if we want to crucify ourselves, we should be allowed to do just that!

But I suppose Ron Paul was a kook when you had the opportunity to vote for him, right? You know, that guy who says the same things that you just said? Did you see any other politicians saying those things when you had other choices?

 

[Hum Dinger]

If you've read it, you would know there is no power given to the federal government to buy up companies. What is not listed as a power of the federal government is relegated to the individual states.

There is also the issue of taxation without representation. When the Federal Reserve buys up a company, and bills the US government for it, we as taxpayers are responsible for that tax burden. There was no representation of the people in the Federal Reserve's actions during this mess. Congress did not authorize the Fed to bail out Bear Stearns, AIG, Merrill Lynch, etc. We will have the burden of added taxation placed upon us, and we had no representation in the process.

I'm not sure if you remember basic history, but there was a little war fought in the 1700's for that very reason, which ultimately provided you with a Republic in which to tell me to shut up on the internet.

Try this on for size:

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;



ADMENDMENT XIII

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

Learn to Read!

 

[Ravi]

I don't see how it's unconstitutional, either.

What I do see, quite clearly, is that Bush never made a promise that he kept, that the boneheaded deregulation has finally made it possible for the USA to become a communist state, and that we all might possibly be in for a world of hurt.

 

[Paulie]

Try this on for size:

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;



ADMENDMENT XIII

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

Learn to Read!

Youn want to tell me where in ANY of that it authorizes the federal government to use tax dollars to buy failing companies? Where in there does it say that a private banking cartel can print money out of thin air, buy up companies, and bill the US government without congress representing the people on the subsequent tax burden?

Why don't YOU learn to read, bud.

 

[Charles_Main]

I don't see how it's unconstitutional, either.

Simple our Government is not suppose to be able to spend tax payer dollars to help out the share holders of a company that made poor decisions. It is also not suppose to be able to own a company like AIG. which this bail out in effect does.

I admit this is not new, but that does not make it any less unconstitutional.

 

[Paulie]

Simple our Government is not suppose to be able to spend tax payer dollars to help out the share holders of a company that made poor decisions. It is also not suppose to be able to own a company like AIG. which this bail out in effect does.

I admit this is not new, but that does not make it any less unconstitutional.

For the ones who want to use the "general welfare" argument, the general welfare can not possibly be construed to mean "share holders" of a company.

The general welfare of the US would include EVERYONE. Bailing out failing companies, using newly printed money which is going to cause higher inflation, and more taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, is not in the best interest of the general welfare of the United States.

You can not use that clause to justify buying up anything you want, just because you think it gives you justification. There needs to be certain things that are just not considered in the US's best interest. Buying up companies is one of those things. It helps no one but shareholders and board members. It only delays an imminant collapse.

How is 700 billion dollars of newly printed money, which is to be coming Monday probably, in the US's best interest? How is all that inflation in our best interest?

Where do you draw the line on something so vague as "general welfare of the United States"?

 

[Ravi]

Yes, but Pauli, unless we are being lied to...and of course that is a possibility...avoiding the collapse of the economy is in the best interests of the general welfare.

 

[Paulie]

Yes, but Pauli, unless we are being lied to...and of course that is a possibility...avoiding the collapse of the economy is in the best interests of the general welfare.

Why don't you explain to the rest of us here how this is going to avoid a collapse, instead of create an even larger one down the road.

 

[Ravi]

Why don't you explain to the rest of us here how this is going to avoid a collapse, instead of create an even larger one down the road.

I can't explain that. I don't think anyone can. More than likely, that's exactly what will happen...it will create an even larger one down the road.

But what's the alternative and why do you think it is a better choice.

 

[Charles_Main]

I can't explain that. I don't think anyone can. More than likely, that's exactly what will happen...it will create an even larger one down the road.

But what's the alternative and why do you think it is a better choice.

If you admit it will only create a larger collapse down the road, the answer is simple. Let the collapse happen now. Let market forces rule. It is not like AIG will collapse and all will be lost. It will hurt, but in the end other companies will step in and pick up the pieces, and even make some money doing it.

 

[Ravi]

If you admit it will only create a larger collapse down the road, the answer is simple. Let the collapse happen now. Let market forces rule. It is not like AIG will collapse and all will be lost. It will hurt, but in the end other companies will step in and pick up the pieces, and even make some money doing it.

No offense, Charles, but you really don't know what you are talking about so I'm not interested in your opinion on this. Pauli, at least, has a clue.

 

[Charles_Main]

No offense, Charles, but you really don't know what you are talking about so I'm not interested in your opinion on this. Pauli, at least, has a clue.

Oh sure and you do.

You said it yourself RAVI this will most likely only delay the collapse and make it worse later on.

So it is simple, we would be better off to let it happen now.

It makes no sense to just delay the inevitable and make things even worse later, thats not a plan it is just plain stupid.

Oh and I would be willing to bet I know a lot more about this than you do.