You’ve Been Warned
by Derek BroesOver the past three months we have witnessed some truly amazing movements by the Obama administration. He has proposed more spending than all Presidents in history combined; he has trampled the Constitution by allowing the Treasury to take on a dictator style infringement on private companies, and now the democratically lead Congress has proposed the “Pay for Performance Act” which passed Thursday with even some Republican Congressman voted for it.
This bill essentially allows the Treasury to define “fair pay” for all employees, at any level. Worse, the Treasury would like to be able to take over any company it deemed as important enough to take over regardless of whether or not it had accepted bailout funds. Worse still, the Serve Act proposes to make volunteering for the government mandatory (with pay, of course). Last time I looked, working for pay was called A JOB.
The scariest part of the bill is that while you’re serving as a “volunteer,” you’re prohibited from participating in worship and church activities, political rallies and being involved in a union. In short, your essential freedoms are gone. I keep hearing about Obama being a socialist but, I have to disagree. Based on these measures he appears to more like a person pursuing Communism or Fascism.
Let’s face it; if you wanted to tear down the Republic and install a Communist Oligarchy you would first have to take over all major industries where corporate power resides, then you must get the wealth away from the rich — but how would you do that? Well, you create an even larger economic crisis so the country thinks your massive debt spending is a way to help the country when your real plan is to incur so much debt that the only way to prevent the country from bankruptcy is to impose a tax system that depletes the wealth of the top 1% until we’re all equally “wealthy.” …Well, except for those wealthy people who helped you get there. You know the ones I’m talking about. I don’t mean to HARPO on the subject, but we seemed to have forgotten what we’re protecting. What about the Republic? Is it already gone?
When the government ignores legal contractual obligations because they judge someone’s bonus as unfair the law has been ignored, which means it was violated and this violation occurred at the highest level of government. I’m not saying the AIG bonuses weren’t excessive. My point is, we don’t know what these people did to deserve or NOT to deserve them because this was never mentioned or examined. Maybe some of those people brought in a billion dollars of business and their bonuses were based? Maybe the CEO is the main reason the company is failing? Does that mean that some guy who worked hard to bring in that billion dollars in business shouldn’t be rewarded? But Obama needs a way to regulate pay and the bill proposed doesn’t even stop at executives, it doesn’t even stop at dollar amounts. In fact, it has no specification whatsoever.
So we can all look forward to government cars, government jobs, paid civilian volunteers who watch our every move and the the loss of our ability to reach for our dreams. The sad part is that Obama told us exactly what he was going to do and 52% of you refused to hear what he said. In fact many of you cheered at these things. Let’s remember just of few of the things he said.
- The Constitution is fundamentally flawed. It only protects the rights of the people but does not allow the government to do anything on your behalf.
- He wants a civilian Army as large as our military, and as well funded ($650 billion annually).
- He wants to “spread the wealth.” Oh, don’t pretend you don’t remember Joe the Plumber.
And let’s not forget good ole Reverend Wright whose teachings about America being evil and unequal ring in Obama’s ears. Funny … It’s equality that got Obama elected. Change? Oh yes, there’s change and if we don’t act soon the meaning of hope will have a very different meaning.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
581 Comments
====This bill essentially allows the Treasury to define “fair pay” for all employees, at any level. Worse, the Treasury would like to be able to take over any company it deemed as important enough to take over regardless of whether or not it had accepted bailout funds.====
If this is the case then we have a tyrannical govt that should be overthrown. These are unabashed traitors in congress and treason should be punished by death. These are criminals of the highest order who’ve been elected to represent us and uphold the Constitution, what we’ve witnessed since obama took office is nothing short of a socialist coup and utter disregard for the Constitution.
As far as I’m concerned the democrat leadership and those in congress who empower them should be executed for their crimes and sedition.
Oh, I heard what he said. I choked, voted for McCain, and bought a large supply of ammo.
People are waking up, Derek. In 2010, Congress turns red again, and I don't mean the red of the USSR or the Nazis (who were, after all, socialists). Presidents have been impeached before. Third time's the charm.
Yep. That crackling sound you hear is the Constitution burning in the White House fireplace, along with any contracts signed before, during or after the TARP plan. And Congress is warming its hands by the fire. The only thing left standing in the way is the Supreme Court. Now THAT'S scary.
You aren't making the mistake of thinking that the President and Congress are bound by law or the Constitution are you, silly boy?
It applies to any business 'the Government' deems to have a large enough impact on the society – it doesn't state what that impact is, though. If it were a few hundred years ago, we would pick up our guns and go to war. At this point, the sheep blindly follow, and praise themselves for being 'the change'. Change to what, I ask? We're getting more Orwellian by the second.
I don't know if he got it, but Geithner was advocating for the power to be able to take over any company that he thought was to big to fail for the good of the economy. That was also any company that had taken government money, but they didn't specify what was defined as government money so that wasn't necessarily TARP money. It could be any government money.
I think it is time to start seriously retracting the consent of the governed.
I also think I need to do a new t-shirt: http://nomayo.mu.nu/new_shirts_and_price_reductio...
Also, the part in the service bill abot not being able to engage in religious services which would even have kept a volunteer from going to Sunday worship on their own was removed last I checked as was the mandatory service bit although four senators reintroduced the mandatory service requirement into a new bill that is currently sitting in committee.
Also, the part in the service bill about not being able to engage in religious services which would even have kept a volunteer from going to Sunday worship on their own was removed last I checked as was the mandatory service bit although four senators reintroduced the mandatory service requirement into a new bill that is currently sitting in committee.
As for me, I am racking my brains and trying very hard to come up with possible legal challenges that could be issued over the legislation that has been passed recently. For example, it might be possible for a legal challenge to be issued over socialized health care the first time government comes between a patient and a doctor. Wouldn;t it be potentially a violation of the so-called right to privacy if the government steps in a overrides a doctor's treatment recommendation?
I believe there are certain emanations and penumbras that should be useful in such a legal pursuit.
Hold on people, aren't we on the wrong side on this one? These companies came to the government for a bail out. If they don't like the rules, they can give the money back. How is this different than putting conditions on welfare?
I don't see that in the legislation. Where are you finding that?
The bill I read specifically applies only to TARP companies. I remember Geithner talking about being able to bail out non-financial companies, but I don't recall him getting the authority. I also don't recall whether they were trying to give him the power to do it involuntarily. If so, that would have to be considered a taking.
I'll be glad to throw in an entire umbrella. Since the right of privacy doesn't even exist unless the nine gray eminences say so, we'll have to rely on the established right to contract and patient/doctor statutory confidentiality. Of course, since Obama's plan is to get rid of private enterprise entirely, as soon as he gets rid of the insurance companies (or takes them over by executive fiat), he'll go to the single-payer government-run system and you'll have nobody to complain to. And you guys all had the crazy idea that he hadn't thought this out carefully.
I am worried…a blogger gets his home raided for criticizing the local police. A Ron Paul supporter gets detained for carrying $4500 in cash on an airplane. Where have our rights gone? Is this the "New World Order"? When are people going to wake up?
By the way,, there is a very good song by Aimee Allen about all this, see youtube….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCKMTo210k
Come on, Andrew. Even if it isn't true, it COULD be true (that's from Justice Al Sharpton).
I'm as happy to go all pitchfork and torch as the next guy, but I'd like to make sure I know my facts before I do it.
It’s getting about time we vote with pitchforks and torches. The ruling class is overstepping it’s bounds. We as free Americans have a contract with our Founders that cannot be breached legally by any Washington politician, and is our generational obligation to leave for our children’s children. The swamp needs to be drained and our country restored to the principles of it’s founding. We stopped DC on immigration reform with the power of our voice. We must find and sustain this voice like the thunder of God, and demand our representatives listen, and just like immigration we can stop this crap.
If someone brought a strong case based on Roe I can't see the liberal or moderate justices voting to overturn the precedent. Nor do I see the Obama administration being in a position to mount a forceful case based on invalidating Roe.
Because at least in theory, the companies will have to pay the money back in some form or another, even if it's just by getting back on their feet, making money, and enriching the economy. Now that's just in theory, of course.
Welfare recipients are, well, welfare recipients. They don't have to give the money they got from me back to me or to the government. They aren't expected to earn it (in fact, they had better not start earning it or they lose it). And at least so far, the banks and businesses haven't developed the entitlement mentality of a welfare recipient, to wit: "I know my rights, you oppressing sonofaguns, now give me my money." Now as to why the businesses need the bailout in the first place, that's another story entirely.
No not at all. The Gov is refusing to take the money back. In many cases some of these companies refused money and the GOV made them take it.
What I've read is the wage control applies only to TARP companies. If I'm wrong, someone please provide a quote or a link that says otherwise.
What's sinister about this, is healthy banks like Wells Fargo were pressured to take TARP funds. Now there's a backdoor effort to exert control over these same companies, whether they needed the funds or not.
No real Ron Paul supporter would have $4500 in US DOLLARS. It would be in gold.
Facts are nothing more than a conservative ploy to keep the government from taking care of us.
===Is this the "New World Order"?===
Gordon Brown said this is the New World Order at the G20 summit.
"This is Collective action, people working together at their best…I think the New World Order IS emerging, and with it the foundations of a new and progressive era of international cooperation…From today we will together manage the process of globalization….To secure responsibility from all and fairness to all."
And obama is about to steal hundreds of billions more of our tax dollars and throw it into third world cesspits that will not benefit the people but rather their corrupt govts. We’re pouring hundreds of billions into the IMF; while Americans are losing their jobs and taking pay cuts we’re having the our tax dollars stolen by the criminal filth in DC and funneled overseas into corrupt coffers. We are not the global charity; it is not the American tax payers responsibility to take care of foreign nations or their citizens, that is why they have their govts. Overthrow them if they’re incompetent, to reward them with our money will only perpetuate the problem.
It's a good question. The TARP money was intended to free up capital markets to jump start the economy. Healthy banks like Wells Fargo wisely put the brakes on their lending since they couldn't be sure of the underlying value of their assets.
The TARP is meant to speed up that process so Wells Fargo and other healthy banks can lend while the government money provides a cushion against the uncertainty of their mortgage derivatives. The government doesn't want banks like Wells Fargo to drop anchor and ride out the storm. They want them sailing full speed and extending credit to the masses and to businesses. That's the purpose of the TARP.
But now, the over reaching administration has decided that TARP is a convenient way to take over these banks, healthy and otherwise. Expect Wells Fargo to return the TARP that they never needed, and credit to freeze up again as healthy banks don't want to become floor mats like General Motors.
Great words StanH, although if you were Michelle Bachmann, you would be ridiculed all over. What is wrong with people? Do we need a faux savior so badly? Has our country gone down the toilet so much that everyone wants to be a government robot, be totally under their control? I am so worried about this country………..i have said several times, i am just going to quit my job…..why should I work?
I truly fear national riots….this is going to get worse before it gets better. I am planning on keeping very little money in the national banks. I do not want my "elected" officials to take it. I plan to buy food, water, and weapons, for when people try to take my "stuff:" This is all perfectly legal, yet mr messiah has already introduced plans to limit guns or ammo, and has already gotten congress to try to push through his domestic militia.
".
Watch your asses people, the life we know is coming to an end. And hide your money. And buy cigarettes and cigars online, from overseas. The FDA is going to be monitoring all our smokes, who knows what mind altering chemicals they will use to make us pay more taxes than necessary, follow our messiah, and support "poor little kids healthcare
Precisely right. That's why I brought up the other two possibilities. Roe v Wade is merely the logical and murderous result of Griswold v Connecticut. The Supremes will ignore their own judicial philosophy if it expands the right of government to run people's lives, and ignoring the so-called right to privacy serves exactly that purpose in this instance. And the right to private contract and statutory patient/doctor privilege will be ignored in that same pursuit, so it's probably all a moot point anyway. The only thing that is going to stop this power-grab is a popular uprising, preferably at the polls, but I'll take whatever I can get in pursuit of freedom.
The original intent of 2nd Amendment, as far as I know, is so the citizenry could overthrow the government in the event that it slipped into totalitarianism or anything close to it.
You are sooo right! But it is still wrong…
not that it reaches that many, but i blog mon-fri about the current administration's idiocy. if anyone can point to the "no church while volunteering" rule or the bill going after private companies that do not take tarp money, please direct me. i have a hammer and i like to nail things to the wall.
"The only thing that is going to stop this power-grab is a popular uprising, preferably at the polls, but I'll take whatever I can get in pursuit of freedom."
I'm with you on that.
But it would be kind of fun to watch them twist on Roe for a while!!
I have to admit that I am of two minds on this.
On the one hand, I don't like the precedent that the government can control private companies. That's socialist and is just sickening to me.
But I also have a great deal of sympathy for the argument that IF you ask for money from the government, then you have to accept the terms that are applied to you (though I do not approve of involuntary retroactive changes to contracts at all).
The fact that companies were required to take TARP funds would seem to eliminate the argument that these companies choose to take the TARP funds, except that Dodd (D-AIG) changed the law to allow banks to give back the TARP funds — which they are now doing in significant numbers.
So in the end, I am troubled by this, but not yet ready to light my torch and grab my pitchfork.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
- George Washington
Not just our tax dollars. But the tax dollars of our children and grandchildren.
But the Government is taking the money back. At least seven backs have already given it back. More have announced they will.
Commerical lenders often require that loan recients make changes to management, management structure, pay structure, or rearrange their ownership or financing. Why should the government not do the same? These are essentially commerical loans.
That quote is being cut and pasted onto my Facebook account right now.
I am going to a local tea party. It was very easy to find just by googling. There are dozens of these tea party protests being organized across the country and they are getting media attention.
and this is crazy too!
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h20...
H.Amdt. 39: Amendment to add to the list of approved Clean Energy Corps activities the development of clean energy programs designed to meet the needs of rural communities. amending H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
Not to mention ACORN being involved in the census. There are MAJOR problems , people.
Yes, that's true about the wage control. It's also true that some of those banks who have been trying to pay back their TARP money have been stopped from doing so.
That's a wonderful side-effect of this legislation — the Obama Admin's desire to control these companies' pay structures is causing these banks to give back the money, which is undoing the bail out, which should not have happened in the first place.
Andrew, you remind me sooo much of my husband. Me? I'm ready to get out the tar and feathers– but he'll force me to learn the facts first. Then he'll help me dump the tar when the time comes.
Andrew, you remind me sooo much of my husband. Me? I'm ready to get out the tar and feathers– but he'll force me to learn the facts first. Then he'll help me dump the tar on their heads when the time comes.
Now Obama swears up one side and down the other that you can keep your private insurance although you'll be taxed out the yang for doing so. My husand and I are scrambling to figure out if this will even be possible for us because we have to maintain my health care somehow and the government won't.
I think it will be interesting to see how they jump on the BRCA case. If they strike that down then a strong case this way might have a shot although there are stronger Constitutional questions in the BRCA case I think.
A few of my favorites……..
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
- Thomas Jefferson
“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”
- H. L. Mencken
LOL! An uninformed mob is a rabble, but an informed mob is a revolution.
I hear ya, believe me. Assuming that the composition of the Supreme Court remains the same (and that's not as ridiculous as it sounds considering which one(s) are most likely to be replaced during an Obama administration), the present Court would continue to chip away at Roe and possibly even Griswold. But stare decisis doesn't mean "let the law be paralyzed." And the sooner the Supremes figure out that it isn't judicial activism to restore basic constitutional rights taken away by bad cases setting worse precedents, the better off we and our liberty will be. The death or retirement of Kennedy is the one that has me worried half to death. If Obama gets to replace him with a doctrinaire liberal who doesn't care about "popularity," we are in deep poo-poo.
Weren't there recent reports that not all came to the government with their hand outstretched? Some banks were called in and told to take the money.
There is no pistol ammunition of any caliber to be found in Seattle. Hmmmmm…..
Andrew,
The problem is that wage controls in and of themselves are damaging. Let us assume it is only TARP companies. My point is that what the giovernment is doing is still evil. If you are going to have the government hand out money to private companies, take over those companies and then start making decisions you have given the power to the government to control them. Once that control is established the money is irrelavant. If they can pass a law controlling wages what stops them from passing laws forcing the companies to invest in specific businesses. If a company like AIG which is a finance and insurance company buys 51% of another companies stock they control that company. Then the wage law applies to that company by the fact that they are now consolidated. > > Next
And they are also essentially private contracts between private parties. The government may indeed have some tangential interest in management, but considering how well they handle their own houses, including being a major cause of this disaster in the first place, I would hope they will keep their hands off from here on out. The government is supposed to be helping the private lenders with our tax money in a financial crisis, not taking them over (although I am sure that is the liberal intention behind it all). We have the right to expect something back, including a profit if possible. When do the welfare recipients start paying us back, even in theory? And the we/us is the taxpayers, not the government.
You do not need to have the other company take TARP money. They have the where withal to buy other companies. Depending on the "interpretation" of the law you might only need a minority interest owned by AIG (5 to 20%). I'll bet the left the wording on these issues vague on purpose.
If you own all the finance companies in America you essentially can own anything you'd darn well please. If this law passes I guarantee you will see a reversion from publicly held stock back to pribately held stock. The opposite of the IPO. This is what the wealthy will do to get out of the honus of the law.
God only knows what that might mean.
You do not need to have the other company take TARP money. They have the where withal to buy other companies. Depending on the "interpretation" of the law you might only need a minority interest owned by AIG (5 to 20%). I'll bet they left the wording on these issues vague on purpose.
If you own all the finance companies in America you essentially can own anything you'd darn well please. If this law passes I guarantee you will see a reversion from publicly held stock back to pribately held stock. The opposite of the IPO. This is what the wealthy will do to get out of the honus of the law.
God only knows what that might mean.
Yes, to avoid having any banks singled out by short sellers, they required all banks to take the funds. Originally, they could not give the funds back either, but Dodd changed the law to allow the banks to give the TARP funds back. Banks have been recently begun giving the funds back because of the law mentioned in this article. I am not aware of any bank being told they could not return the funds, though Obama convinced Goldman Sachs and four others to continue to hold their TARP funds for the moment.
BTW Since the government owns 80% they probably don't need to even pass laws to exert this kind of control over decision making in buying subsidiaries. They have probalby already cherry picked the board of AIG.
There is a fairly narrow issue in the BRCA case, but the Supreme Court has been known to take narrow issues to overturn much broader law. As I've mentioned before, I think it's time for the Court to stop chipping away at the edges and go for the gold. But I'm not counting on it.
Is that something like every silver cloud must have lining?
Is that something like every cloud must have a silver lining?
Viva La Revolución!
This concept of a business that's "too large to fail" is so foriegn to what this countries all about, it blows my mind that some actually buy into it. But hey, if you're going to imploy it, you better employ it for EVERYONE! For example; if I personally fail financially, and no one bails me out, I could end up going "postal", like that nut in NY today. Progressives might say that if he was "bailed out", those 14+ people would still be alive. That is some warped thinking!
"cherry picked the board"…
No doubt. Remember Michelle O's old $300k/year job that was INVENTED for her and DISAPPEARED when she left?
You can bet that Mr. President is rewarding his loyalists all over the place.
But who is going to stop him? His cabinet is FULL of tax cheats, and nobody seems to give a sh_t. It's all just a fun joke on the Leno show.
While I lose sleep every night trying to find more and more inventive ways to keep my business open and not get audited AGAIN this year.
Bastards.
Was that B. Hussein bowing and kissing King Abdullah's hand?
http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/obama-pr...
Keep making your voice heard – while we still have the First Amendment! Great piece.
Strange, there's not any in Charlotte eirher
That’s tuff Spiro, for people to appreciate that have never had the all encompassing experience of owning a business. These sons-of-bitche$ in Washington at the executive level haven’t run a fruit stand and the things that they did run are in $hitty shape. Ba$stard$ are an apt description and all their minions. Government to a business, is as useful as a teat on a boar hog. Fire your liberals first!
What obama is doing can be summed up with one picture………
http://img6.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obamataxpa...
The Nazis were indeed socialists, they even cunningly hid that fact in their name (NSDAP)so no one would notice. It worked too, most liberals today think that Nazis and Socialists are so far apart that by virtue of them loving them some socialists it allows them to call anyone they don't like a Nazi. I love irony, a concept that is lost on the left.
Can we start soon anyway? Some of the posters are finding ammunition hard to get hold of, and I'm not good with a pitchfork, although I do toss a pretty good torch.
You need one of them thar automatic pitchforks I've heard tell about lately.
As for starting, sure… why not. CHARGE!!!!
Indi,
I'm really undecided on this one. On the one hand, I hate government interference with business. I think the bail out should never have happened. (As an aside, doesn't the fact that the banks didn't spend the money indicate that the bail out wasn't needed?) I also think that this is a dangerous precedent, and I see how damaging it can be to the market and our country for the government to start micromanaging even a few companies.
But on the other hand, I also know that I would want to put restrictions on any money that I lent them.
I'm actually more disturbed by the other point you raise, about the ownership. It is one thing to offer money on certain terms, I can see that as a necessary (temporary) evil. But for the government to start owning companies is something completely different. That's called nationalization and that's a nightmare.
Indi,
I'm really undecided on this one. On the one hand, I hate government interference with business. I think the bail out should never have happened. (As an aside, doesn't the fact that the banks didn't spend the money indicate that the bail out wasn't needed?) I also think that this is a dangerous precedent, and I see how damaging it can be to the market and our country for the government to start micromanaging even a few companies.
But on the other hand, I also know that I would want to put restrictions on any money that I lent them.
I'm actually more disturbed by the other point you raise, about the ownership. It is one thing to offer money on certain terms, I can see that as a necessary (temporary) evil. But for the government to start owning companies is something completely different. That's called nationalization and that's a nightmare.
I hear the sound of a distant trumpet. Ride to the sound of the cannons. We'll just call the weapon "The Autofork." Our battle yell will be "Autofork 'em all!" You're a genius!
No they can't. They are refusing the checks from the banks that were forced to take the bailout (lest we know the ones that were REALLY in trouble).
Mr Price, with all due respect, Tim "What taxes" Geithner along with several members of our elected tormentors have already stated and as best best as I read that this farce would include any business that they deem necessary. And what makes matters worse is that Congress REFUSES to give a number as to what they consider excessive. They decided to punt that to Treasury.
Dodd put a provision in the stimulus bill allowing repayment of TARP funds. The following banks have confirmed that they repaid the TARP:
1. Iberiabank of Louisiana ($90 million)
2. Signature Bank of New York ($120 million)
3. Old National Bancorp of Indiana ($100 million)
4. Bank of Marin Bancorp of Novato, Calif. ($28 million)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01bank...
Lawhawk, did something funky just happen to the way you are seeing the website?
So much for Obama NOT being a secret Muslim. Here he is bowing to the guy who probably owns the country he was born in.
Same here.
Things are going to get "interesting".
Best to just buy it in bulk online.
Freedom is defended with 3 "Boxes"
Ballot Box
Soap Box
Ammo Box
I voted. I'm going to the Tea Party on the 15th. Lets hope that's enough.
Yep. After this there will be the predictable minimization of what this means and the naive hope that this will either "go away after the conservative revolution" or that it may be "good for us too" gosh darnit, as it will either A: show americans how bad the dems are or B: also work to demolish Liberal institutions. AMericans will sit by and Conservatives will whine and do nothing else, and then we will all be shuffled off to reeducation camps and our children will bear the burdens of our sins.
WE SUCK.
Yep. At first I couldn't even post back to you. Then I couldn't bring up the comments at all. Then the screen changed, and now "post reply" is over on the left side. An upgrade or change in format, maybe?
That they are. I haven't been this energized since the 70s.
Apparently it is some kind of upgrade. I went to a different blog on this site, and now next to the "posting" button there's a "number of replies" count.
I'm assuming you hit what you thought was "submit comment" and got the blue and white box asking what you were up to, right?
I had the same problem. And now all the threads start off automatically closed, which means I can't see what people have written without opening each thread. Talk about annoying. I left a comment about that for John on the next thread.
Let us know what you find out.
It kinda looks like the thread counts were becoming unmanageable, so to reach the whole thread, you have to click on the red "number of replies." Makes a certain amount of sense, but they could have warned us.
And the real problem here is that it's been years since the government has understood that it's not the government's money. It's OUR money, and we elect them to use OUR money wisely, not for power grabs.
Think of it this way Andrew…….
If you have to give money to family to help them out of a crisis you should not think of it as a loan. For you it must be a gift. You can tell them it is a loan but if you actually expect it back. Well family members quit talking to each other over such things. This is the same advice I'd give to a client if they asked me.
If you give this money you are going to have to trust the person you give it to do the right thing. You are going to have to make the judgement call before you do it that they will do what is best for the situation. If you lend the money to a sister and then start demanding your brother in law report to you on his life choices …. Well more than likely the situation is made worse.
Same thing here…. if you give AIG 100 billion to aid the economy you have to trust them to do it. The minute you start micromanaging and responding to political threats then in the end you simply ensure that whatever they do it won;t be the best economic choice. It will be the expedient political choice. This is the dillema.
Think of it this way Andrew…….
If you have to give money to family to help them out of a crisis you should not think of it as a loan. For you it must be a gift. You can tell them it is a loan but if you actually expect it back. Well family members quit talking to each other over such things. This is the same advice I'd give to a client if they asked me.
If you give this money you are going to have to trust the person you give it to do the right thing. You are going to have to make the judgement call before you do it that they will do what is best for the situation. If you lend the money to a sister and then start demanding your brother in law report to you on his life choices …. Well more than likely the situation is made worse.
Same thing here…. if you give AIG 100 billion to aid the economy you have to trust them to do it. The minute you start micromanaging and responding to political threats then in the end you simply ensure that whatever they do it won;t be the best economic choice. It will be the expedient political choice. This is the dillema.
If you have problems, make your own comments as well.
Mega,
The issue here is that the government is responsible the minute they guaranteed the loans that went bad. The bank were forced to make these loans by law and the investors were assured they were guaranteed by the government should anything go wrong. The failure of the government to responsibly manae Freddie and Fannie is the reason for this mess. HAd no law been written each individual who held this commercial paper coudl have gone to the government to demand satisfaction for the remainder from the foreclosure.
So instead of doing as Bush stated would be done the rout taken wasw for the government to be in charge. The first draft of the original stimulus bill has a paragraph at around 20 pages in. The first meat of the law. It said the Secretary of the Treasury shall have the authority to do whatever is deemed necessary without impediment.
It may make sense, but I really don't like it. It makes it impossible to read through a page without constantly opening the threads.
Any ways, I'm having problems even opening the threads at all, so I'm quitting for the night.
You must be logged in to post a comment.