700 Billion Bailout
POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Sunday, September 8, 2024 21:33
VIEWED: 7614
PAGE 5 of 8
Funny, I voted for Perot, too. People have this image of me as a dead-dog democrat, which I find greatly amusing - especially because I never voted for Clinton. Either of them.
So you tend to lean to the right, I tend to lean to the left (okay, FAR left), and we still manage to find some common ground.
Sounds like the beginnings of a movement to me.
Let's get going right now - Libertarians 2012!! I've got a feeling we're going to need them then more than ever. And we're going to need all the help we can get.
Who's in?
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you tend to lean to the right, I tend to lean to the left (okay, FAR left), and we still manage to find some common ground.
Mike
That's the great thing about the Libertarian Party, I can be pro-life and you can be pro-choice, but as long as we both agree it's none of the Government's business we all get along great.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
That's the great thing about the Libertarian Party, I can be pro-life and you can be pro-choice, but as long as we both agree it's none of the Government's business we all get along great.
Kirk, you just made my night! America the beautiful!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nevermind
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm in V.A. Do you happen to know what the rules are in something like this?
Wulf, unfortunately this presumes they would respect the rules as well, and after Miami, after the RNC - do you really expect that they will ?
If yer gonna do it, contact just about any voters rights group and they can give you the specifics, although a lot of those laws are written in such a vague fashion they can be re-interpreted on the spot - and make damn sure to have audio and visual recording the whole time, preferably relay-porting it to something they cannot physically take from you and destroy or "lose" should they decide to kick over your table and assault you.
Might be worth a shot to contact Bev Harris's folk too down at Black Box Voting, cause they're pretty sharp on the related laws and whatnot.
My advice, don't do it unless you're willing to be arrested, beaten, and harrassed for a while after - cause it's all too likely that'll happen, and make your peace with being put on a "list" too.
Quote:
That's the great thing about the Libertarian Party, I can be pro-life and you can be pro-choice, but as long as we both agree it's none of the Government's business we all get along great.
Amen!
Although Barr isn't exactly what I would consider a sterling example of the Libertarian ideal, alas...
I honestly think the Libertarians can do better than him for a front man, any suggestions on that front ?
I'd suggest L. Neil Smith, but to tell ya the truth, the man is far closer to an Anarchist than a Libertarian.
I'd vote for him though (provided he had a running mate with substantial experience), that oughta tell ya something.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, I'm in a quandry. Don't want to economy to tank, but this whole thing scares the crap out of me. Is this solution worse than the problem?
The following from http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2008/09/now_we_see_it_the_white_house.h
tml#more
Now We See It: The White House Bailout Proposal
I would guess that this has to be one of the biggest peacetime transfers of power from Congress to the Administration in history. (Anyone know?). Certainly one of the most concise.
The Treasury Secretary can buy broadly defined assets, on any terms he wants, he can hire anyone he wants to do it and can appoint private sector companies as financial deputies of the US government. And he can write whatever regulation he thinks are needed.
I understand that they wanted freedom to respond and an ability to move quickly, but to designate the Treasury Secretary full power to oversee the, uh, Treasury Secretary's decisions seems unusual. Especially given that Congress only gets a report twice a year:
Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.
This graph really stands out:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Whoa.
So, for the next three months, and then an additional six months after that, the Treasury Secretary can do anything he deems appropriate without anybody anywhere looking it over.
That seems like an awful lot of absolute power. Am I wrong? Is this typical bureaucratic langauge? Or is this as strange as it seems?
edit: I should point out that everything under the underlined title is from the article, and not me talking. Though I agree with the sentiment.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Whoa.
So, for the next three months, and then an additional six months after that, the Treasury Secretary can do anything he deems appropriate without anybody anywhere looking it over.
That seems like an awful lot of absolute power. Am I wrong? Is this typical bureaucratic langauge? Or is this as strange as it seems?
Normally this type of language would be a deal breaker in any legislation, but Hank Paulson is highly respected on both sides of the isle and in the financial community. He is also friends with the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee (D)Barney Frank. Paulson has been in charge of a lot more money than this as Chief Executive Officer at Goldman Sachs and proved himself honest and capable.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This smacks of "temporary" emergency measures that will be anything but temporary. Why?
Response from the original article:
Quote:
Question: Is it possible to use this disaster as a step toward solving the larger issue of the vast discrepanacy between rich and poor?
I do not want to see my taxes used to sustain or re-establish the grossly inequitable status quo ante. Some proportionality should be observed; let those most responsible for the disaster bear the biggest share of the tax burden to fix it.
People are already beginning to realize the vast transfer of power that's going on - and making plans for how to use it.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:One of the fundamental tenets of law-making, as I understand it, is to never ever justify laws based on a single personality. Do you really not see the danger in that?
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Normally this type of language would be a deal breaker in any legislation, but Hank Paulson is highly respected on both sides of the isle and in the financial community. He is also friends with the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee (D)Barney Frank. Paulson has been in charge of a lot more money than this as Chief Executive Officer at Goldman Sachs and proved himself honest and capable.
As Sergeant says, this may not stay a temporary measure. (How about those "emergency acts" after 9/11? How much of those erosions in our freedom have gone away?) And please note - this bill gives power to the office of the "Treasury Secretary", not to "Hank Paulson". That office might be filled by god-knows-who someday. Do you really want to risk that? Even if this is allowed to expire, do you really want to set this kind of precedent, of giving dictatorial power, a complete free pass, to one individual?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I do not like the transfer of unreviewable power to any department.
On the other hand, I would not like the transfer of power to any individual, either.
Can you imagine how you would feel if a law was passed that gave X power to "George Bush" instead of "the President?" We can always impeach the Pres, ya know? I'm sure we could replace the Treasury Secretary, too. But the only way to get rid of 'person Y' is to hire a hitman.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME