|
|
|
|
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/25/2009 7:04:53 PM |
But if you still think you're right, Paul K, then file suit in Federal Court against the actions that irk you. I'm sure you could find people in the Republican Party that would fund such a suit.
I heard Oily Taitt is available. I think she gave up the ghost on the birther lawsuits after she got sanctioned $20k. She'll take it on I'm sure.
big brother grows stronger
Bit brother had to step in since little brother (wall street) was leading us over a cliff. Want to keep going in that direction? | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/25/2009 7:38:36 PM | Rococco, The sad truth is prior to the bail outs the American people were the owners of these companies. These Americans out of free will and choice bought common stock in these companies; effectively making an owner.
Wall street wasn't leading us off a cliff. It was a cascade of current events that lead to the breakers. Now, does Wall Street have a part in this of course. But so does the FTC, FHA, SEC, DOJ, Congress (which said there was no problem when evidence was pointing to the contrary) The last 3 Presidents, and our current one, and of course FINRA (NASDQ) Regan did some messed up stuff, but this wasn't his doing.
If you want to blame someone there is plenty to go around. Now is the fix consitutional? Is this an over-reach of our government? This isn't a partisan issue remember W. started this bailout buy out business, Obama just isn't wasting a good crisis to increase his power. I do fear the man, as a tryrant. All tryants take little steps at first. Remember the Hitler, was popularly elected to the government, and that it was Parliment that made him sole leader and dictator. I just don't want to see history repeat itself. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 12:25:25 PM | ^ statements that bring up Hitler in relation to Obama are showing very bad taste and very poor judgment and prejudice as well as a poor grasp of history.
I am not too impressed by a lot of "advisors and think tanks",especially the ones that say that the govt. needs to run private enterprise.
and I'm sure they are not impressed by you ... especially since they are not running private industry .... they are governing it.
as for show me ... the onis is on you who thinks it is against the constitution to prove it.
| |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 12:30:52 PM | ^ yes, but statements about Hitler do add an air of ominousness to it, doesn't it.
You can almost hear that music...DUNH dunh duuunnnhhh!!
Edit: You have to admit though, Thorb, we in Ontario don't have to look very far in order to see government-owned business run poorly, i.e. Hydro. And the LCBO. Etc. But then, we don't have to look far to see privately-owned business run poorly. i.e. Wall Street.
Let's face it...the crazies are running the asylum. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 12:38:25 PM | Yes ... I definately recommend every pro business person watch
The Corporation [ a 2003 Canadian documentary film written by Joel Bakan]
if that doesn't open their eyes to the negative aspect of big business then they are lost to some major personal greed and delusions of grandure. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 2:11:32 PM | Hey thorb
I guess you must be in the majority of people who have never even been in the same room as a copy of the US Consititution. The US Consititution is a document that gives the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT what powers it has. NOWHERE does it say that the executive branch, that would be the president, can hire and fire and set salaries for private enterprise. In the Bill of Rights, which was concomitant to the Constitution, the 10th amnedment gives all powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, to the states, or to the people. Article 2 of the Constitution lays out what powers the president has. Notice that the Consititution is a document that gives certain entities power, and if they are not enumerated in the Constitution..... THEY AREN'T THERE.
That is about as far as I want to dispell ignorance today.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 2:33:44 PM | Thorb,
I have a pretty good grasp of history. Hitler was elected in 1934. He didn't ride into power on a tank. He even had the endorsement of the Chancelor. The German Parliement did elect to disband itself and give total control to Hitler. This is after they passed some racist laws.
I did not say Obama is Hitler. I don't (at least hope) that he is going to round up people and send them to work/death camps. The point that I was making is that all tyrants take liberties with the law, using baby steps at first. It is my belief that all humans if given enough oppertunity are capable of tryanny.
As far a prejudice, that doesn't pass. I am looking at the mans actions and deeds. Not his color. That is a strawman leave him in the field to chase crows. I also listen closely to what our President has said. This is why I fear the worst. He surounds himself with advisors that who says Mao was a good man, and that power is at the barrel of a gun. Wouldn't you be a bit concerned if your PM had advisors like that? | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 3:40:18 PM |
As far a prejudice, that doesn't pass.
It certainly does pass. Nobody made a peep when the previous administration wadded up the constitution and used it for toilet paper.
These bailouts were supposed to be loans, more or less. Stock was simply a crappy form of collateral. Well, read your credit card agreement. It will say "we reserve the right to change terms and conditions at our discretion". Guess what ......Barack just changed the terms and conditions of the bailout loans. So either pay up or shut up. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 3:50:37 PM | The Tarp had no such languge. Therefore, it can't be done just as a point of law. Now as far as No one screaming about W.'s abuses, I've heard nothing from the media and others for 8 years. They didn't point out the true abuses, but that's another discussion. Credit Cards: we reserve the right to change terms and conditions at our discretion is no more. That is why they are going to charge the good payers a annual service fee. It was changed durring the transtion. So, I will give W. one good point.
Barrack Obama isn't a King! He isn't above the law and can't change it at will. His job is to enforce the law! When those that can't argue on points presented out, resort to ad homin arguements. I also blame W. on this abuse of power too, remember he was the frist audiocrat using the Treasury as a piggy bank. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 3:51:34 PM | Hey islade
You must have been on the moon to think that nobody made a peep, while the previous administration wadded up the consititution and used it for TP............ according to you.........
You calling gadget a racist holds no water whatsoever...... NONE. Just because it is the EASIEST charge to level on anyone, and it is being done all the time does not mean it is true. Just because the current president is half black does not give him a pass when he makes stupid moves..............
Racism is always what is leveled at people when you have nothing intelligent to say. If Gadget were to call the president names and make racially charged statements about him, that would be a different thing, but he hasn't.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 4:29:27 PM | Credit Cards: we reserve the right to change terms and conditions at our discretion is no more.
Wrong.It is still very much in effect.
I assume you have read ALL of the TARP agreement ?
've heard nothing from the media and others for 8 years.
No, FOX said nothing (and still says nothing) about W's abuses. Others did. Remember the Dixie Chicks episode ? That wasn't media, that was just regular folks speaking out...look what happened to them.
Refer back a page or two and read the quotes from the constitution about what gubmint can and cannot do.
Basics of the Bill
Limiting CEO Compensation
The bill allows the Treasury to establish rules limiting executive compensation, bonuses, "golden parachutes" and other incentives at institutions participating in TARP.
Participating institutions will also lose certain tax benefits related to compensation. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 4:45:48 PM | Hey Slade
Did you read all of the TARP bill? I didn't, but I do see its effect when you have howdy doody in office, and he is by his pronouncement changing CEO's in private enterprise, limiting pay, etc......... Just because this turd was passed by congress does not mean that it would pass Constitutional muster.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the executive has grabbed way too much power, and I can't believe that there hasn't been a consititutional lawsuit against his powergrab. The only thing I can think of is that ALL of the politicians are happy because they all got money for their districts...... It seems that not only do we now have over 51% of the populace in the cart instead of pulling it, we also have ALL of the politicians in the cart too. I, for one, am getting tired of pulling it.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 5:56:28 PM | I read TARP, TARP II, Omnibus, and ARRA, I struggled with them and it wasn't in either tarp.
source
http://www.loc.gov/thomas.
BTW Tarp I and II were signed by W. So I go with both are guilty as sin.
Is Fox the only news source? That doesn't pass muster. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC talked about he abuses. NPR did too. I heard all the cries in the media, when the Patriot Act was passed, and continued since. I can read and think. I never just look at one side of an issue, I think for myself. I don't let any political party do the thinking for me. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 7:11:55 PM | I've heard nothing from the media and others for 8 years.
That's YOUR quote !
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC talked about he abuses. NPR did too. I heard all the cries in the media, when the Patriot Act was passed, and continued since.
That's YOUR quote !
Which is it ? Did you or did you not hear anything from the media ???
I can read and think.
That's your quote too. I think you're lying. Read below.
Executive Compensation
All types of funding get same treatment. For any new receipt of TARP funds (except those by small financial institutions as defined below), applies the most stringent non-tax executive compensation restrictions (see note) from EESA across the board:
1) requires Treasury to prohibit incentives that encourage excessive risks,
2) provides for claw-back of compensation received based on materially inaccurate statements
3)prohibits all golden parachute payment for the duration of the investment
Stricter auto bill rules apply. Also applies the executive compensation requirements included in auto bill to any new receipt of TARP funds:
1) prohibits paying or accruing any bonus or incentive compensation to the 25 most highly compensated employees;
2) prohibits any compensation plan that would encourage manipulation of earnings to enhance compensation; and
3). requires divestment of private aircraft or leases.
Authority retroactive. Provides authority to Treasury to apply these expanded executive compensation provisions retroactively to existing recipients of direct assistance.
Removes de minimus exception. Prospectively removes de minimus exception under which institutions smaller than $300 million in assets are not subject to the golden parachute limitations in auction purchases of troubled assets. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 7:42:37 PM | Clarification: I heard such remarks as to W. Bush abusing the constution from those outlets as well as some other non-traditonal ones. My first quote was in the context of a response to your previous post that nobody was upset when W. Bush used the Consitution as toliet tissue.
Which was written in the Omnibus bill. Which is a bill of Attainer. You can't make law retroactive. This is why people have Grandfather clauses on zoning etc. Sorry that is clearly prohibited by the Consitution. It was submitted as an Admendment. The Constiution also clearly states that the Government shall not have the right to remove or deprive property of over $20 without a jury trial. I will allow for the Rate of Inflation between now and 1789. This means that the Government is breaking the Constitution in two places.
What about the companies that have paid back their TARP funds. They are still being punished under this dercoinan (sp) measure.
Note: I have no problem in re-reading the laws. If I was in error I will admit so. That is why I gave my source material. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 8:27:09 PM | Where exactly were you looking? I've pulled up the (EESA) Emergency Economic Stabliton Act of 2008. Which admends public law 110-343 of the Federal Reserve Act. Which itself is U.S. C. 12 1817 (a). Which was written in the 110 Congress. The (TARP)Troubled Assets Relief Program was introduced to the Senate on 12/10/08 As Senate Resloultion 3698.
Or were you looking at the 111 congress and did you pull up H.R. 384 which had two adjoining admendments that were introduced to the Senate on 1/22/09? Neither of which did I find the languge that you quoted. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 8:40:28 PM |
The Constiution also clearly states that the Government shall not have the right to remove or deprive property of over $20 without a jury trial. I will allow for the Rate of Inflation between now and 1789. This means that the Government is breaking the Constitution in two places.
And yet government does it all the time.They call it eminent domain.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press0109093.shtml
read that,maybe two or three times. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 9:42:18 PM | That is about as far as I want to dispel ignorance today.
then you should stop showing it too.
when the constitutional lawyers prove their case ... then you can puff your chest.
at this point your are just more hot air spewing the same republican crap with no real proof. They want their bonuses then they have to pay back the money. Its that simple. Not running a company ... just looking after an investment by the people for the people.
I did not say Obama is Hitler.
well you inferred .... same thing or are you showing what the above quote is talking about.
there is absolutely no need to refer to anything done by Hitler in relation to Obama unless you are prejudiced and ignorant of real history. Your continuing in the reference only digs yourself a bigger hole and less respect.
your strawman doesn't float | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/26/2009 9:56:28 PM |
Which is a bill of Attainer. You can't make law retroactive.
It's a bill of "attainder" not attainer but that has nothing to do with retroactivity. That refers to ex post facto laws. You really are a wealth of misinformation.
The Constiution also clearly states that the Government shall not have the right to remove or deprive property of over $20 without a jury trial.
What nonsense. Please quote the part of the constitution that says that. Ever heard of eminent domain? Duhhhh. Probably not. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/27/2009 3:24:22 AM | Article I of the Consititution. However, I do think that I might have misquoted the line. To prevent it I've used actual copy paste in the interest of accuracy.
This wouldn't fall under the Eminent domanin clause of Art I section 8 covers the Eminent Domain Clause.
What of Article I section 9 No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
or No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
I would like to point out Art I section 10 Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
JSlade, I'm not ignoring your post. I just don't have the time to read your source and give it the consideration it deserves. I will respond after work.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
However, I would like to quote the 5th Admendment. I copied this directly:
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Was there due process of law
As far as the dictator bit, I could've used another elected dictator such as Chavez of Venezula, but it would've obscured the point. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/27/2009 4:06:33 AM |
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
What happened to the twenty bucks and the jury trial that you quoted?
They are still being punished under this dercoinan (sp) measure.
Oh my. Requiring some of these greedy wall street pigs to take only a 5 million dollar bonus instead of 25. I truly pity them.
How ironic that "companies" have been ripping off an uninformed, vastly uneducated public to the point of absurdity and now you're crying because of a little retribution? Payback is a b.i.t.c.h ain't. When I see these lying, cheating, greedy, thieving crooks on wall street do the perp walk I get a really warm fuzzy feeling inside. That's YOUR side. When I see the "Humanas" of the world get their wrists slapped publicly, it warms me all over.
No one twisted corporate arms to take all that tax payer money. No one. Like the pigs they are the sucked it in like vacuum cleaners. Now they're crying because the public is absolutely livid? To them I'd simply say course feces. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/27/2009 4:21:44 AM | | Don't agree with Bluesman on many things, but on this one, we're sympatico. If the Wall Street boys aren't careful, they could be first up against the wall when the revolution comes, as the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/27/2009 7:54:14 AM | stargazer...hydro was sold years ago to private enterprise. The LCBO seems ok. No beef there with the way things are run.
The used to own petro-can too...but sold that off.
Canadian gov't might get into businesses...but often sell them off. Take a look at Chalk River....making radioactive isotopes for medical purposes...they are going to get out of that too.
What worries me is the bailout being asked for by the tv companies. CBC, CTV, Global, etc. CBC is already heavily subsidized by the gov't, as are the French stations.
Like the commerical says "If they can't run their businesses let them fold. " Something else will step up and take over and actually make money at it. Not as much as some,,,but the "greed" factor will be eliminated. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/27/2009 8:53:41 AM | In respectful response to Paul K's statement:
"I guess you must be in the majority of people who have never even been in the same room as a copy of the US Consititution. The US Consititution is a document that gives the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT what powers it has. NOWHERE does it say that the executive branch, that would be the president, can hire and fire and set salaries for private enterprise. In the Bill of Rights, which was concomitant to the Constitution, the 10th amnedment gives all powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, to the states, or to the people. Article 2 of the Constitution lays out what powers the president has. Notice that the Consititution is a document that gives certain entities power, and if they are not enumerated in the Constitution..... THEY AREN'T THERE."
Permit me to reiterate and paraphrase.
1. The Supreme Court of the U.S. happens to be in what you describe as the minority of people who spend a considerable amount of time in the same room as a copy of the U.S. Constitution-- offhand, roughly, almost every single one of their working days since their individual appointments.
2. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 gives the Federal Congress the power to pass laws regulating commerce. Article II, Section 3 gives the President the *duty* to execute those laws.
3. United States v. Lopez, rendered by a U.S. Supreme Court bench dominated by, yes, Republican appointees, clearly stated that Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce.
I have not read on this forum any response to refute this argument. Permit me the egotism of believing that the absence of refutation is due to the fact that this argument is correct. Again, if you disagree, feel free to follow the link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/) to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and challenge Obama's actions yourself.
What Obama is doing is legal, and F.D.R.'s New Deal even demonstrates past precedent for this sort of action.
I do not particularly agree with many actions he has taken. Failed corporations do not deserve bailouts at the taxpayers' expense. It encourages moral hazard: act as recklessly as you like. If you fail, the public will foot the bill. But my disapproval is not writ of law. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/27/2009 1:05:29 PM | Hey sly
Nice to see that some people actully have read the Constitution, however, I have to disagree with your interpertation.
First, when I said that most people have never been in the same room as a copy of the Constitution, I meant that most people have never read it, and almost all have a skewed view of it.
Second, Article 1 is the article that gives Congress its power. The "regulating commerce" clause gives CONGRESS the power to pass laws etc..... Please show me where CONGRESS passed a law firing the former CEO of GM. That happened as a result of pressure from the EXECUTIVE, which is not the subject of Article 1
Third. Article 2, section 3 refers, in the first 31 words, to the executive branch initiating legislation. Where was the legislation that fired the CEO of GM?
While just about everything that can be thought of has been found in the Constitution, nowhere has there been found that the executive branch has the power to hire/fire in private enterprise; which was the original issue posed. With all due respect, please feel free to feel refuted.
I do agree with you as to the bailouts being a very bad idea, and that their implementation is doing nothing but lengthening our fiscal morass. However, bringing up the New Deal as a precedent, is in my mind, and many others, showing what NOT to do. There was no end in sight for the depression, and our participation in WW2 is what jump started our economy, but that is not on point here either.
Paul K | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
