Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If government chooses not to abide by the limits imposed on it by the Constitution, then that government has NO limits.
The Constitution formed the Fed govt as we know it today (or knew it). It created the offices of President and VP, created the House and Senate, the Supreme Court etc. And it has a section that assigns powers to that government, and defines what the duties of each branch are. And finally it has a passage that says, "If there's a govt power that ISN'T expressly named in this Constitution, then the Fed govt cannot have that power, but the states and people still can if they want to". And lastly the Const has a section describing how it can be modified, so the people can give the Fed more powers if they want to.
Let's see... The Obama admin chose to decide which companies could fail and which couldn't, then made it so by doling out a trillion or more US dollars to the lucky ones. But nowhere in the Const is there any language giving the Fed the power to do anything like that... nor has the Congress or states made any attempt to put such language in.
Then they decided to control the salaries of some of the employees. Not many... but how long will that limit be in place? And where in the Const is the Fed authorized to cap salaries of private individuals?
Now they've decided to take the responsibility of deciding who can work where, ordering GM's CEO to quit his job. Again, they haven't applied it to many... yet. But the Constitution gives the Fed govt NO authority to do such a thing - it's the GM Board of Directors' job do hire and fire the CEO.
For those of you who believe that "It was best for the country that he step down, so that makes it OK for govt to tell him to leave" is an acceptable excuse, see the first sentence in this post.
Remind me again why I should NOT think we are careening headlong into a socialistic form of government? Where the Fed govt takes over more and more of the formerly-private sector, its businesses, and the affairs of its people?
This change did not start yesterday. It's been going very slowly for many decades, and speeding up gradually. But with the election of the Obama administration and the extreme-left Congress we have now, it has suddenly slammed into high gear, with more changes to the nature of American industry being imposed in the last few months, than in any comparable time in history.
When you ignore the limits imposed on the American government by the Constitution, you wind up with a government that has NO limits. We're not there yet... but the light at the end of the tunnel, is looking more and more like an approaching train. An EXPRESS train.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 03-30-2009 at 11:41 AM..
No, I leave the drivel to the leftists who can't refute the facts.
But I did say a lot of this, and some moderator mistakenly merged it into a different 18-page thread that had little to do with my main points: That government is illegally taking over companies and private functions right and left, and accelerating our slide into a destructive socialistic form of government beyond all bounds. So I re-posted it to make that point more clear.
When you ignore the limits imposed on the American government by the Constitution, you wind up with a government that has NO limits.
It's the extreme right ideology that banks can regulate themselves that got us into this financial mess, so you're wrong there, too.
actually it was the leftist liberal ideology that got us in trouble with the banking system. Remember, it was Clinton who pushed for the banking deregulation in the 90s. It were the Democrats who pushed for more affordable housing and easier access to loans for people who could not get them.
so give where credit is due.......thank you Democrats for ruining our country,
actually it was the leftist liberal ideology that got us in trouble with the banking system. Remember, it was Clinton who pushed for the banking deregulation in the 90s. It were the Democrats who pushed for more affordable housing and easier access to loans for people who could not get them.
so give where credit is due.......thank you Democrats for ruining our country,
Uhm no, actually it was Bush that pushed the "American Dream".
actually it was the leftist liberal ideology that got us in trouble with the banking system. Remember, it was Clinton who pushed for the banking deregulation in the 90s. It were the Democrats who pushed for more affordable housing and easier access to loans for people who could not get them.
so give where credit is due.......thank you Democrats for ruining our country,
Deregulation is a leftist idea? LMAO! I guess Reagan was a liberal leftist.
Good article, but it was written a little prematurely.
Actually, deregulated banks were not the major culprits in the current debacle. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase have weathered the financial crisis in reasonably good shape...
The bolded banks have received taxpayer bailouts.
I agree wholeheartedly with the authors' conclusions, ie, there is plenty of blame to go around, but I disagree that deregulation is not a major factor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
