Rush Limbaugh to be a Miss America Judge ..

[Hawk]

Section 8 Article 1. Implied Powers.

EDIT: Where are you from if it's not in YOUR constitution ?
EDIT AGAIN: Alexander Hamilton was for expanding powers of the Federal Government. So one can't always quote Jefferson's interpretation as to only one. Jefferson was against adding the "implied powers" clause UNTIL even HE USED IT. That's right, Jefferson found it to be a good thing when he was President. Cool ! Kind of like saying, I was wrong about necessary federal powers, but now I understand the necessity of implied powers.

You still don't have this implied powers thing down quite right. Its not "carte blanche" as even Jefferson so eloquently stated.

The 1st test of an implied power is:

Did (place subject here) exist when the Constitution was written?

If the answer is "yes"...STOP! No special powers are implied.

For instance:

Did (private manufacturing corporations) exist when the Constitution was written?

The answer is "yes"... STOP! There is no special power implied for Congress to purchase the majority share in a private manufacturing corporation.

Since our currency system is distributed by the Federal Reserve banks by loaning money to the moneycenter banks and Congress has the explicit power "To coin money, regulate the value thereof", one could argue that loaning money to bail out banks was, in fact, Constitutional.

GM would be much better off had the government stayed out and they would have gone into Chapter 11 restructuring.

Without researching it, I believe you to be wrong. The whiskey tax came after the constitution UNDER THE IMPLIED POWERS CLAUSE, as researched by Hamilton for Washington. I believe the reason for the tax was to pay bills that already existed before the constitution was written.

[Hawk]

Some you guys are so naive it's scary.

If the financial system collapses there is NO GOVT. We aren't talking about saving "mom & pop's" diner here. Goldman, AIG, Lehman they ARE half the GOVT. Like it or not. It's a fact. If they go down, we go down. Sometimes you must bite the bullet and do what is necessary despite the bad taste .

Please get a brain check up, you never seem to use it. Those poorly run companies would have been replaced by better companies. The survival of the fittest. Those companies received TARP funds because they are friends of powerful people in the corrupt federal government.

It's a good thing that they don't listen to you. Those poorly run companies were going under because of GREED. Unregulated GREED. Selling off bad mortgages in packages with good ones. In a way that they could not be separated. With deregulation insurance companies like AIG were buying them up. Then everything nearly exploded. Thanks to Obama, he kept it from total failure. I think only shepherds like Limbaugh and Beck agree with you

[Banned]

7 Months After Stimulus 49 of 50 States Have Lost Jobs

http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.hou ... tID=150826


Great job B. Hussein.

[lonewolf]

Section 8 Article 1. Implied Powers.

EDIT: Where are you from if it's not in YOUR constitution ?
EDIT AGAIN: Alexander Hamilton was for expanding powers of the Federal Government. So one can't always quote Jefferson's interpretation as to only one. Jefferson was against adding the "implied powers" clause UNTIL even HE USED IT. That's right, Jefferson found it to be a good thing when he was President. Cool ! Kind of like saying, I was wrong about necessary federal powers, but now I understand the necessity of implied powers.

You still don't have this implied powers thing down quite right. Its not "carte blanche" as even Jefferson so eloquently stated.

The 1st test of an implied power is:

Did (place subject here) exist when the Constitution was written?

If the answer is "yes"...STOP! No special powers are implied.

For instance:

Did (private manufacturing corporations) exist when the Constitution was written?

The answer is "yes"... STOP! There is no special power implied for Congress to purchase the majority share in a private manufacturing corporation.

Since our currency system is distributed by the Federal Reserve banks by loaning money to the moneycenter banks and Congress has the explicit power "To coin money, regulate the value thereof", one could argue that loaning money to bail out banks was, in fact, Constitutional.

GM would be much better off had the government stayed out and they would have gone into Chapter 11 restructuring.

Without researching it, I believe you to be wrong. The whiskey tax came after the constitution UNDER THE IMPLIED POWERS CLAUSE, as researched by Hamilton for Washington. I believe the reason for the tax was to pay bills that already existed before the constitution was written.

Sorry Bill, you are wrong--you don't have even the slightest grasp of the concept of implied powers. The first line of 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;"

This pretty much covers a whiskey tax. Show me where it even vaguely says that Congress has the power to buy private businesses.

[Hawk]

Section 8 Article 1. Implied Powers.

EDIT: Where are you from if it's not in YOUR constitution ?
EDIT AGAIN: Alexander Hamilton was for expanding powers of the Federal Government. So one can't always quote Jefferson's interpretation as to only one. Jefferson was against adding the "implied powers" clause UNTIL even HE USED IT. That's right, Jefferson found it to be a good thing when he was President. Cool ! Kind of like saying, I was wrong about necessary federal powers, but now I understand the necessity of implied powers.

You still don't have this implied powers thing down quite right. Its not "carte blanche" as even Jefferson so eloquently stated.

The 1st test of an implied power is:

Did (place subject here) exist when the Constitution was written?

If the answer is "yes"...STOP! No special powers are implied.

For instance:

Did (private manufacturing corporations) exist when the Constitution was written?

The answer is "yes"... STOP! There is no special power implied for Congress to purchase the majority share in a private manufacturing corporation.

Since our currency system is distributed by the Federal Reserve banks by loaning money to the moneycenter banks and Congress has the explicit power "To coin money, regulate the value thereof", one could argue that loaning money to bail out banks was, in fact, Constitutional.

GM would be much better off had the government stayed out and they would have gone into Chapter 11 restructuring.

EDIT: I can show you where Section 8 explicitly makes the GM bankruptcy unconstitutional:

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

The GM bailout and subsequent bankruptcy was in no way shape or form "according to the uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States."

It doesn't read that way at all.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Implied powers covers "the general welfare" (welfare means well being) of the country.

The "Air Force" reference is mentioned as something the writers couldn't have conceived when they wrote the constitution. But the point is that anything the writer could not conceive back then can still qualify today. They could never have conceived our complex computer driven, Wall Street economy of today.

Under the circumstances, implied powers in the constitution did cover the bailout.\

Edit for spelling.

[Hawk]

7 Months After Stimulus 49 of 50 States Have Lost Jobs

http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.hou ... tID=150826


Great job B. Hussein.

Yeah, Bush set us in a great downward spiral. Thank God we had someone to slow it down or you and I would be discussing this in a bread line right now.

Why is it that everytime a Republican becomes president, people say it will take four years to straighten out the mess ?

Yet they forget their logic when a Democrat is president?

[Banned]

I want a brand new Jaguar XJ. This is for my welfare. Does the implied powers provide for my sports car? Some on here think it can be used for any expenditure of this bloated corrupt government.

[lonewolf]

It doesn't read that way at all.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Implied powers covers "the general welfare" (welfare means well being) of the country.

The "Air Force" reference is mentioned as something the writers couldn't have conceived when they rote the constitution. But the point is that anything the writer could not conceive back then can still qualify today. They could never have conceived our complex computer driven, Wall Street economy of today.

Under the circumstances, implied powers in the constitution did cover the bailout.

Except that, where does it even vaguely say anywhere in the Constitution that Congress has any power over Wall Street" in the 1st place?

The Air Force example is based on the paragraph:

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"

Where is the paragraph that supports purchasing private businesses?

[Hawk]

I want a brand new Jaguar XJ. This is for my welfare. Does the implied powers provide for my sports car? Some on here think it can be used for any expenditure of this bloated corrupt government.

sillyjoe. The "General well being" (The word "welfare" in the days of the constitution meant well being - educate yourself) of the country is not the same as the general well being of undercoverjoe.

[Hawk]

It doesn't read that way at all.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Implied powers covers "the general welfare" (welfare means well being) of the country.

The "Air Force" reference is mentioned as something the writers couldn't have conceived when they rote the constitution. But the point is that anything the writer could not conceive back then can still qualify today. They could never have conceived our complex computer driven, Wall Street economy of today.

Under the circumstances, implied powers in the constitution did cover the bailout.

Except that, where does it even vaguely say anywhere in the Constitution that Congress has any power over Wall Street" in the 1st place?

The Air Force example is based on the paragraph:

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"

Where is the paragraph that supports purchasing private businesses?

General Welfare (well being) means to take what ever means are necessary to defend our economy (us) from collapse.

[Hawk]

The Congress...shall have the power...to provide...for the General Welfare (WELL BEING)...

It's right there in your face.

Having a blast but gotta leave for band practice. Catch you guys later.

[lonewolf]

General Welfare (well being) means to take what ever means are necessary to defend our economy (us) from collapse.

The general welfare clause by itself is NOT grounds to justify any implied powers...it only establishes the concept of implied powers. Implied powers must be based on the explictly enumerated powers that the Constitution grants Congress.

In other words, the general welfare clause in and of itself is simply the establishment of implied powers and is not a justification for any given application.

Implied powers can only be topics related to the explicitly enumerated powers in Section 8. For instance, the implied power to buy land, i.e. the Louisiana Purchase, comes from this paragraph:

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings"

Here is Jefferson's take on the clause:

“The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

[lonewolf]

The Congress...shall have the power...to provide...for the General Welfare (WELL BEING)...

It's right there in your face.

Having a blast but gotta leave for band practice. Catch you guys later.

Although I don't want to lend any creedence to your universal view of general welfare, I'd also like to tear apart this whole liberal "general welfare" concept.

You already defined the welfare part and I'll go along with that.

I assume that "general" means "for all law abiding citizens", correct? Everybody. Nobody left behind. 100%, not 99.44%. Right? If the Constitution has any merit, it cannot mean anything else.

One of my bond funds lost 2% of its net asset value because the government took over GM and gave the boot to the bondholders in the ensuing bankruptcy. Aside from that, GM has no direct or indirect impact on my life and that goes for whatever would have happened to the economy as a result of them going belly up (which they wouldn't have done anyway). Multiply that by millions of people.

How is this GENERAL welfare? It is not. It is simply welfare for some at the expense of others. From now on, when you bring this up, please refer to it only as the "welfare" clause because you always ignore the word "general" in its true definition.

[songsmith]

Incidentally, do people have a right to be liberal or progressive in your world?--->JMS

Yes, I even think that they have a right to own NFL teams. We need a few liberals to keep in museums to remind us how horribly twisted their views were.

Again, can you provide evidence that Rush is racist?

Not taking the bait, Joe. I listen to talk radio, I know by tone when someone is asking a question they already "know" the answer to, even when that tone is written. Rush mentions race quite frequently, you can tell he's very uncomfortable with it, but he has to keep bringing it up so people don't think he's avoiding it. He makes wide, sweeping generalizations about race, like most fat white talkshow hosts. Rush is sexist, as well, hell, he looks down on everyone, even you, his trusting, slack-jawed Dittoheads. Tomorrow, listen to how many times he says, "Let me translate this for you..." He "translates" because he feels his listeners couldn't possibly understand. Most of the time, he's right. The Dittoheads find it much easier to just let Fearless Leader tell them how it is.
He did an entire week last spring on why AIG execs should get their multi-million-dollar bonuses. People really got educated to how capitalism works... if you bankrupt the country, you get a million dollars, because the govt shouldn't have given your bank money in the first place. Makes perfect sense.
America's Moral Compass is just getting some well-deserved sh*t from the people he pours his over-valued opinion on every day for 3 hours. The biggest bully on the playground always hates it when the kids gang up on him..."That's unfair!" He and Beck are like the Head Crybabies now. Awesome.--->JMS

[Hawk]

General Welfare (well being) means to take what ever means are necessary to defend our economy (us) from collapse.

The general welfare clause by itself is NOT grounds to justify any implied powers...it only establishes the concept of implied powers. Implied powers must be based on the explictly enumerated powers that the Constitution grants Congress.

In other words, the general welfare clause in and of itself is simply the establishment of implied powers and is not a justification for any given application.

Implied powers can only be topics related to the explicitly enumerated powers in Section 8. For instance, the implied power to buy land, i.e. the Louisiana Purchase, comes from this paragraph:

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings"

Here is Jefferson's take on the clause:

“The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

The general welfare clause (well being of the US) IS the end result that DOES justify the means.

[lonewolf]

General Welfare (well being) means to take what ever means are necessary to defend our economy (us) from collapse.

The general welfare clause by itself is NOT grounds to justify any implied powers...it only establishes the concept of implied powers. Implied powers must be based on the explictly enumerated powers that the Constitution grants Congress.

In other words, the general welfare clause in and of itself is simply the establishment of implied powers and is not a justification for any given application.

Implied powers can only be topics related to the explicitly enumerated powers in Section 8. For instance, the implied power to buy land, i.e. the Louisiana Purchase, comes from this paragraph:

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings"

Here is Jefferson's take on the clause:

“The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

The general welfare clause (well being of the US) IS the end result that DOES justify the means.

And it is that flaming liberal viewpoint that has brought us to the brink of insolvency with more than a $trillion$ annual deficit and more than $11 trillion of debt with a cash burn of a half a $trillion$ per year just paying interest on the debt.

All that, and the government still can't even manage to do the basic things that are specifically enumerated, such as protect the borders or effectively regulate commerce.

[Hawk]

The general welfare clause by itself is NOT grounds to justify any implied powers...it only establishes the concept of implied powers. Implied powers must be based on the explictly enumerated powers that the Constitution grants Congress.

In other words, the general welfare clause in and of itself is simply the establishment of implied powers and is not a justification for any given application.

Implied powers can only be topics related to the explicitly enumerated powers in Section 8. For instance, the implied power to buy land, i.e. the Louisiana Purchase, comes from this paragraph:

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings"

Here is Jefferson's take on the clause:

“The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

The general welfare clause (well being of the US) IS the end result that DOES justify the means.

And it is that flaming liberal viewpoint that has brought us to the brink of insolvency with more than a $trillion$ annual deficit and more than $11 trillion of debt with a cash burn of a half a $trillion$ per year just paying interest on the debt.

All that, and the government still can't even manage to do the basic things that are specifically enumerated, such as protect the borders or effectively regulate commerce.

Yes, you are right. The fact remains that the bailouts were in the constitution.

However, the Greatest liberal spending administrations of all, Reagan, Bush ad GW caused the majority of the deficit. And the elected Congress is to blame as well for going along with them.

Come on lonewolf, you know the Mexican border is a joke because big business wants cheap labor. And now that their here, the Democrats want their votes.

"effectively regulate commerce" LOL...The Republicans deregulated too much, that's was a major contributing factor to our near depression.

[lonewolf]

Yes, you are right. The fact remains that the bailouts were in the constitution.

However, the Greatest liberal spending administrations of all, Reagan, Bush ad GW caused the majority of the deficit. And the elected Congress is to blame as well for going along with them.

Come on lonewolf, you know the Mexican border is a joke because big business wants cheap labor. And now that their here, the Democrats want their votes.

The ONLY balanced budgets in modern times were done with the combination of a strong-willed republican Congress and a somewhat moderate lame-duck democrat President. Neither party ever produced a balanced budget when they held both branches of government and I guarantee that you will never, ever see a balanced budget when there is a democrat Congress in power.

Actually, as it is Congress's Constitutional duty to legislate the budget, you can blame the Presidents for going along with Congress. Either way, my statement above tells it like it is.

As far as the border...thank you for illustrating that neither major party is worth two shits in a bucket.

[Banned]

Yes, you are right. The fact remains that the bailouts were in the constitution.

However, the Greatest liberal spending administrations of all, Reagan, Bush ad GW caused the majority of the deficit. And the elected Congress is to blame as well for going along with them.

Come on lonewolf, you know the Mexican border is a joke because big business wants cheap labor. And now that their here, the Democrats want their votes.

The ONLY balanced budgets in modern times were done with the combination of a strong-willed republican Congress and a somewhat moderate lame-duck democrat President. Neither party ever produced a balanced budget when they held both branches of government and I guarantee that you will never, ever see a balanced budget when there is a democrat Congress in power.

Actually, as it is Congress's Constitutional duty to legislate the budget, you can blame the Presidents for going along with Congress. Either way, my statement above tells it like it is.

As far as the border...thank you for illustrating that neither major party is worth two shits in a bucket.

Republicans,party of fiscal responsibility ????? ROFL

Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, ALL FIVE were under DEMOCRATIC Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

try getting the facts right, at least try

here's some more reality:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/presid ... nal-budget

[JackANSI]

Yes, you are right. The fact remains that the bailouts were in the constitution.

However, the Greatest liberal spending administrations of all, Reagan, Bush ad GW caused the majority of the deficit. And the elected Congress is to blame as well for going along with them.

Come on lonewolf, you know the Mexican border is a joke because big business wants cheap labor. And now that their here, the Democrats want their votes.

The ONLY balanced budgets in modern times were done with the combination of a strong-willed republican Congress and a somewhat moderate lame-duck democrat President. Neither party ever produced a balanced budget when they held both branches of government and I guarantee that you will never, ever see a balanced budget when there is a democrat Congress in power.

Actually, as it is Congress's Constitutional duty to legislate the budget, you can blame the Presidents for going along with Congress. Either way, my statement above tells it like it is.

As far as the border...thank you for illustrating that neither major party is worth two shits in a bucket.

Republicans,party of fiscal responsibility ????? ROFL

Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, ALL FIVE were under DEMOCRATIC Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

try getting the facts right, at least try

I don't believe that Lonewolf said anything about republicans being a fiscal responsible party (the part about "neither party ever produced a balanced budget when they held the two elected branches" kinda gives that away).

I highly doubt he is wrong about the democratic congress either, sadly...

[lonewolf]

Yes, you are right. The fact remains that the bailouts were in the constitution.

However, the Greatest liberal spending administrations of all, Reagan, Bush ad GW caused the majority of the deficit. And the elected Congress is to blame as well for going along with them.

Come on lonewolf, you know the Mexican border is a joke because big business wants cheap labor. And now that their here, the Democrats want their votes.

The ONLY balanced budgets in modern times were done with the combination of a strong-willed republican Congress and a somewhat moderate lame-duck democrat President. Neither party ever produced a balanced budget when they held both branches of government and I guarantee that you will never, ever see a balanced budget when there is a democrat Congress in power.

Actually, as it is Congress's Constitutional duty to legislate the budget, you can blame the Presidents for going along with Congress. Either way, my statement above tells it like it is.

As far as the border...thank you for illustrating that neither major party is worth two shits in a bucket.

Republicans,party of fiscal responsibility ????? ROFL

Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, ALL FIVE were under DEMOCRATIC Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

try getting the facts right, at least try

here's some more reality:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/presid ... nal-budget

I never said anything about either party being fiscally responsible--in fact, I implied just the opposite.

On another note, I don't consider 1969 to be the modern era for budgets. Because of the really screwed up fiscal and tax mess caused by the war, I consider budgetary modern times as the post-Vietnam era. Sorry, I should have been more specific about the timeline. In this era, the republican Congress and democrat President that I stated describes those 4 years from 1998 thru 2001. Check the 105th and 106th Congress.

Remember though, the budget for one year is passed by the previous year's Congress & administration...otherwise, you'd have to give credit to Nixon for 1969 and Bush for 2001, which I don't.

While the President may propose a budget outline, it is Congress's Constitutional duty to legislate and pass the budget. They do the nitty gritty, not the administration. Everybody seems to forget this little detail.

[nakedtwister]

So you would have preferred that the banks collapsed ? That GM collapsed along with all it's suppliers ? Let Wall Street collapse ?




The thing that pisses me off is that if the employees of GM would have taken concessions, even slight pay cuts, GM could have bailed themselves out. Remember, Ford took no bailout and they seem to be doing fine without our tax money. Why should American citizens pay to bailout GM and Chrysler. Just so Joe F. Blow doesn't think he can make it on $75k instead of $73k per year. No wonder this country is going to the bottom of the shit pool. We refuse to help ourselves.

[JackANSI]

So you would have preferred that the banks collapsed ? That GM collapsed along with all it's suppliers ? Let Wall Street collapse ?




The thing that pisses me off is that if the employees of GM would have taken concessions, even slight pay cuts, GM could have bailed themselves out. Remember, Ford took no bailout and they seem to be doing fine without our tax money. Why should American citizens pay to bailout GM and Chrysler. Just so Joe F. Blow doesn't think he can make it on $75k instead of $73k per year. No wonder this country is going to the bottom of the shit pool. We refuse to help ourselves.

Ford is a bit bigger and well liked in europe. Their market was just bigger. Thats why I think ford made it without help.

[lonewolf]

So you would have preferred that the banks collapsed ? That GM collapsed along with all it's suppliers ? Let Wall Street collapse ?




The thing that pisses me off is that if the employees of GM would have taken concessions, even slight pay cuts, GM could have bailed themselves out. Remember, Ford took no bailout and they seem to be doing fine without our tax money. Why should American citizens pay to bailout GM and Chrysler. Just so Joe F. Blow doesn't think he can make it on $75k instead of $73k per year. No wonder this country is going to the bottom of the shit pool. We refuse to help ourselves.

Although it needed done, I didn't like the way they handled the bank bailouts...there is a quasi-Constitutional way to handle that without going thru Treasury.

GM is another story. They were going to go bankrupt no matter what happened.

They should not have received one penny from the government and should have been allowed to enter chapter 11 restructuring on their own. The courts would have determined the new equity structure starting with the bondholders and other senior debt, then the union & lender suppliers and finally the shareholders. The shareholders' interest would have been wiped out and the bondholders would have ended up as majority shareholders. The unions and lender suppliers would have a minority position. The assets would have moved from weak hands to strong hands, they'd be debt-free and car-making would go on.

Instead, the government poured $billions$ into GM and they went bankrupt anyway. The government took the majority position and the assets moved from weak hands into incompetent hands.

[lonewolf]

"effectively regulate commerce" LOL...The Republicans deregulated too much, that's was a major contributing factor to our near depression.

Yes, that's what I said...the government failed to effectively regulate commerce. They still do. Nothing has changed.

By deregulation, you must be talking about that bill the 2000 republican Congress passed and that the notorious republican President Bill Clinton signed into law that allowed investment banks to buy sub-prime loans and pack them into mortgage backed securities and sell them to other banks.

Or maybe you are talking about the easing of loan requirments for low-income homebuyers that created the "toxic assets" in the 1st place. That effort was led by another notorious republican, Barney Frank and his associates and was allowed to happen by the Bush administration.

Don't try to feed me this bullshit that the democrats are any better than the republicans...it doesn't wash and every free-thinking non-partisan knows it.