Is Regulation the Solution?

[PrometheusMFD]

...

Ok, that was a little pointless as it does not take into account the fact that citizens would have to vote on it, and most are against the "Murder is no longer a crime" ballot.

 

 

What about it?

That still doesn't say that the government has to ignore the constitution' date=' which is exactly what this bailout (as well as every appointee in Obama's cabinet) is doing

[/quote']

 

I'm sorry. I'm a little rusty on my constitution. Can you point out where in the constitution it says bailouts are illegal?

 

Because I'm really tired of saying the same old spiel about the bailout, and having it ignored by you.

 

Sorry for ignoring this post, I got sidetracked, ok?

 

The tenth ammendment says the US government is still limited to what the Constitution says it can. And if it doesn't say anything about it, the government can't do it. As you have said, "Can you point out where in the constitution it says bailouts are illegal?"

 

It does not cover bailouts, therefore the gov't can't do it, therefore actions in that nature are illegal if done by the US gov't, rather than State gov't.

So if, let's say Nebraska, decides to do a similar program, then I can say absolutely nothing about it.

Essentially, it is ok to steal money from citizens as long as it remains in that state.

[OMGAKITTY]

Let me, once again, point you toward the Necessary and Proper Clause...

[Lemniscate]

The Constitution also says that the President would have control over matters of national security. I would say that still having a nation to run falls under national security.

[PrometheusMFD]

Let me' date=' once again, point you toward the Necessary and Proper Clause...

[/quote']

 

~.~

Don't you see? The elastic clause is pointless if it conflicts with anything in the constitution, as the constitution is the final, definitive law.

 

This bailout is bad for the economy, as it takes money from tax payers that could be spent, therefore stimulating the economy, and then it goes to companies who waste it on their CEO's, making the economy even worse. The gov't won't stop until we are back into a depression and in desperate need of another World War to bail us out.

[OMGAKITTY]

Let me' date=' once again, point you toward the Necessary and Proper Clause...

[/quote']

 

~.~

Don't you see? The elastic clause is pointless if it conflicts with anything in the constitution, as the constitution is the final, definitive law.

 

This bailout is bad for the economy, as it takes money from tax payers that could be spent, therefore stimulating the economy, and then it goes to companies who waste it on their CEO's, making the economy even worse. The gov't won't stop until we are back into a depression and in desperate need of another World War to bail us out.

 

But it doesn't conflict. You said so yourself, the bailouts are nowhere mentioned in the constitution.

 

And just because something ended badly for the country doesn't mean that it isn't constitutional...Just that some politicians made some stupid mistakes.

 

Really, all you've done during this entire debate is squawk about how much you hate the bailout.

[PrometheusMFD]

Let me' date=' once again, point you toward the Necessary and Proper Clause...

[/quote']

 

~.~

Don't you see? The elastic clause is pointless if it conflicts with anything in the constitution, as the constitution is the final, definitive law.

 

This bailout is bad for the economy, as it takes money from tax payers that could be spent, therefore stimulating the economy, and then it goes to companies who waste it on their CEO's, making the economy even worse. The gov't won't stop until we are back into a depression and in desperate need of another World War to bail us out.

 

But it doesn't conflict. You said so yourself, the bailouts are nowhere mentioned in the constitution.

 

And just because something ended badly for the country doesn't mean that it isn't constitutional...Just that some politicians made some stupid mistakes.

 

Really, all you've done during this entire debate is squawk about how much you hate the bailout.

 

Italicized: therefore, the gov't can't enact upon them (for or against) and these bailouts are illegal, just as a federal law bassing banning the bailout action would be illegal.

[OMGAKITTY]

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Lemniscate]

NOTE: Even though I have left YCM. I will still post in the debate section.

 

I would say that though the Bailout may not be illegal, it is certainly immoral.

 

I believe that Congress had every right to bailout the companies.

 

I would like to point everyone to a classic quote, "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin.

 

Congress has infringed upon the basis of our nation, that the movement of the government be the will of the people, and that a nation is strongest when the citizens control it.

I do not believe in absolute democracry, I believe in the Republic, and I believe that Socialism is where this country is currently headed.

I don't believe it is fair, I don't believe it is right, but it is what is happening.

The bailout is all part of a larger national movement, and should be treated within the context of that movement.

[PrometheusMFD]

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers' date=' and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[/quote']

 

But do you really think that this is a time for the gov't to take actions like this?

[OMGAKITTY]

Yeah, I do. What's going to happen to their jobs if these giant companies, which are providing millions of jobs, start going under, and they don't do anything about it?

They'll be out of their job come next election.

 

I'm not saying it was the best course of action. I'm certainly not saying it worked. I am saying, however, that I understand why it happened, and agree with the fact that something did have to happen.

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

To be frank, I'd much rather have the bailout than Herbert Hoover-style economic intervention. The bailout itself was fine; what was done with it, not so much.

 

Note that the businesses themselves are composed of taxpayers.

 

If your workplace received a bailout, would you be quite so critical of it?

 

ONTOPIC: Again, I'd rather have Obama or FDR than Hoover.

[Lemniscate]

Yeah, until Russia pushes through the Caucases, then you wet yourself.

 

Really, a Baillout to the Consumers is called a "Tax Break" (which is an and of itself a misnomer), and it is exactly what the Democrat controlled Congress does NOT want to happen, they don't trust the Consumers and the free-market to solve anything.

That's where everything goes bad.

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

Yeah' date=' until Russia pushes through the Caucases, then you wet yourself.

 

Really, a Baillout to the Consumers is called a "Tax Break" (which is an and of itself a misnomer), and it is exactly what the Democrat controlled Congress does NOT want to happen, they don't trust the Consumers and the free-market to solve anything.

That's where everything goes bad.

[/quote']

 

I am worried about Russia why...?

 

It's basic economics and game theory. Survival instincts drive humans to live to the fullest extent of their means, or beyond it; were we still unsettled, these instincts would allow us to gorge ourselves during boon times and brace against bad times, but to civilized humanity, it does the economic opposite. While intelligent consumers and economists may have the willpower to overcome these instincts, the majority of American humanity will not. Hence, people will over-reach their means, cut spending once their money runs out, and withdraw from the economy. When this happens often enough during boon times, businesses will be forced to lower prices in order to encourage any spending, also forcing wage cuts to workers and removing yet more from the economy.

 

Note that all businesses are composed of consumers.

[Lemniscate]

The Russia comment was a commentary on Barack Obama's lack of a backbone.

 

Update to the thread:

Ben Bernake stated that the recession can be over by the end of '09.

Discuss (within confines of original topic)

[PrometheusMFD]

How does he say it will end?

If the bailout system continues, we have another New Deal situation.

[ZeroG]

The New Deal was a pathetic attempt to salvage a broken system, like carrying your comrade to safety after he is already dead.

It seems to me that this statement is less an actual belief and more of a futile attempt to increase the confidence of a group of consumers who's only spending right now is the gas to get to Goodwill.

Really, it seems a bit heartless to say something as blatantly untrue as "everything is fine".

 

But back to the topic:

Through the lens of regulation, it seems to me that "removal of bad assets", as the Obama administration would like to do, is an increase in regulation so extreme, it rivals the rise of communism in eastern europe during the late 1940's (okay, maybe that's a bit extreme).

One movement within that larger idea is the repossession of the "bonuses" given by AIG to their workers. The government say that is mis-handling of government funds, but in reality, those "bonuses" are the workers' paychecks. AIG calls them bonuses so that they are tax deductable. They were trying to be fiscally responsible, by finding a way to get the greatest output from their government funds, but instead they (meaning the individual workers), are going to lose all of the money they recieved from their hard work.

In an effort to punish big business, the government instead launches thermo-nuclear war on he pocketbooks of the American citizen.

 

God bless America.

[PrometheusMFD]

Epic.

 

I agree with you about everything there, except for the fact that the New Deal is on topic.

[ZeroG]

I said that the New Deal was off topic, that's why I said "Back to the Topic".

 

But thank you.

I do not understand the "removal of bad assets" idea, if the problem were the assets, then the problem would be fixed by now, the problem isn't fixed, therefore, the bad assets are not the problem.

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

I do not understand the "removal of bad assets" idea' date=' if the problem were the assets, then the problem would be fixed by now, the problem isn't fixed, therefore, the bad assets are not the problem.

[/quote']

Assets which have ceased function cannot be easily sold, and are often huge drains of money. You cannot claim something isn't problematic if you don't understand that thing to begin with.

[PrometheusMFD]

I do not understand the "removal of bad assets" idea' date=' if the problem were the assets, then the problem would be fixed by now, the problem isn't fixed, therefore, the bad assets are not the problem.

[/quote']

Assets which have ceased function cannot be easily sold, and are often huge drains of money. You cannot claim something isn't problematic if you don't understand that thing to begin with.

 

Taking money from citizens is detrimental to the economy, taking money from citizens to help pay for assests that don't work, but the money goes somewhere else is even worse.

[ZeroG]

I do not understand the "removal of bad assets" idea' date=' if the problem were the assets, then the problem would be fixed by now, the problem isn't fixed, therefore, the bad assets are not the problem.

[/quote']

Assets which have ceased function cannot be easily sold, and are often huge drains of money. You cannot claim something isn't problematic if you don't understand that thing to begin with.

 

So, then the solution to fixing the economy is to spend more money to remove the drain on money?

 

Ahhh, D.C. logic.

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

I do not understand the "removal of bad assets" idea' date=' if the problem were the assets, then the problem would be fixed by now, the problem isn't fixed, therefore, the bad assets are not the problem.

[/quote']

Assets which have ceased function cannot be easily sold, and are often huge drains of money. You cannot claim something isn't problematic if you don't understand that thing to begin with.

 

So, then the solution to fixing the economy is to spend more money to remove the drain on money?

 

Ahhh, D.C. logic.

 

The government is spending the money; hence, we get more for ourselves, and the government suffers.

[Lemniscate]

Ahhh, but where does the government get the money?

All government money comes from consumers.

Sooo, government spending money to fix reccession = bad for everyone

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

Ahhh' date=' but where does the government get the money?

All government money comes from consumers.

Sooo, government spending money to fix reccession = bad for everyone

[/quote']

 

The government is spending money by buying from us. The actual amount of cash in the system doesn't change, but the flow is accelerated by our consumerist society and human instinct.

[Lemniscate]

They are not buying from us, they are buying from the banks, which are technically under the control of the Federal Reserve, and so are the government as well.