Mark Levin "Ron Paul Supporters Biggest A-Holes"

Did you read my post? I’ll try one more time.

“There’s nothing controversial about that. Nobody has ever denied that Congress could defund any war, any time.”

Correct. Levin’s position is not that its controversial, or that Congress can or cannot defund the war. His point is that the War Powers Act removes **the necessity** of congress to defund the war, and provides **political cover** so that Congress is able to require the executive to consult, thus removing the need to defund the war.

“The question is this: does the President have to go to Congress to wage aggressive not defensive war.”

The answer is this: The Constitution gives him a power to be Commander in Chief. But this power is limited by 1.) nature of the deployment, as explained in the Constitution, and 2.) funds.

“Levin says it doesn’t.”

No he doesn’t say that. He says the constitution **does** give him limited powers, and that if the Congress wants to exercise its check (funding) that they should do so. If they do not do so, then Congress is essentially granting assent to what the executive is doing. Further, Congress has an ingrained incentive to limit or to not limit the power of the executive, namely politics. Levin is arguing that this is all a part of the constitutional balance of power.

“You seem (?) to be arguing that Levin wants to “defund” the war. If so, could you provide evidence?”

No. I am arguing that Levin wants Congress to exercise its constitutional powers if it chooses to do so.

“If Levin does not support defunding, he is clearly (under his own doctrine!) a supporter of this war.”

The question of whether or not he supports defunding is a separate question than the more important question, which is: How is Congress to exercise its check on the executive branch? What is the most appropriate way for Congress to do so? The Constitution sets forth one mechanism for this check against executive power. The War Powers Act sets for an entirely different mechanism.

So again, as in my earlier post, I reiterate that to take a very complex argument about how Congress and the President should exercise their Constitutional powers, and boil it down to whether or not Levin supports the invasion of Libya is simplistic at best and also misses the larger and more important point, which is this: If Congress, a representative body in a republic, wishes to exercise its power of funding, it should do so. If not, it should not. And, also important, is that with this mechanism(the original Constitutional mechanism, not the War Powers Act), each individual member of Congress must take a stand on the issue of funding. If individual citizens disagree, they can express themselves with their vote.

This is what Levin was talking about when he made this point, missed by some.

“Let’s see now. The Fed is owned by the banks,”

No its not.

“and is primarily responsible for a 98% fall in the value of the dollar over the last 98 years.”

No its not.

“Wall Street (i.e. Goldman Sachs) is was involved in setting up the CDS structure”

Wall Street was one part of a very large CDS market. Its hardly a conspiracy.

“that took down Lehmann and Bear Sterns,”

True. It did take them down.

“and they got the government to give them a full payout.”

Kind of. There were a lot of political interests that were behind it, and Lehmann and Bear Sterns didn’t get a full payout. One was sold in a fire sale and the other ceased to exist. Hardly a windfall.

“The banks were behind the LTCM bailout, which bailed out said banks.”

Super-simplistic view of that transaction. There were a boatload of parties involved. The fact that you attribute it all to banks reveals that you are not super knowledgeable about it.

“It was banks that set up the MERS process and MBS structures, and then cheated like mad”

Super-simplistic view of the entire history of MERS and MBS. There are dozens of parties involved in that history besides banks, and the mortgage industry was not created by banks. If you take these simplistic views of the financial system you become the useful idiot of people who don’t like capitalism in general. So how exactly are you conservative or even pro-American?

“- there’s sworn testimony before Congress that 80% of the loans put into MBS by one company were crap -”

That statement is false in its face, but it supports your simplistic view so I can see how you would believe it.

“and the bankers got the government & Fed to bail them out.”

There were (and are) a lot of parties who would gain if they could bail out and take over banks. Have you thought through why that might be? If you do think it through, you might start to understand how ranting against banks serves certain people that you probably wouldn’t want to hang around. Or you can just stick with the easy answers and continue to spew hatred against bankers. Your choice.

“It may be simplistic,”

It is.

“but there are facts behind the viewpoint that the banks are boogeymen.”

Facts that are incorrect, but if you take the simplistic view that all banks are evil, then they fit perfectly into your world view. Good luck with that world view, you are going to need it.

me: “- there’s sworn testimony before Congress that 80% of the loans put into MBS by one company were crap -”

you: That statement is false in its face, but it supports your simplistic view so I can see how you would believe it.

Reality: "These are also the banks in the middle of Foreclosuregate. I remind everyone that Citibank's former Chief Underwriter said, under oath, that Citibank was knowingly making bad loans - 60% by 2006 and 80% by 2007 - and selling them off in securities to pension funds and other investors. Instead of being forced to eat these bad loans and be closed as a consequence they were bailed out with our taxpayer money, and still are by Bernanke's "Quantitative Easing." From The Market Ticker

The dollar has fallen in value by 95-98% since 1913, by all the reports I've seen. Since the Fed was assigned the responsibility to maintain the value of the dollar, who else would you blame? Or can you still buy an ounce of gold for $20 somewhere?

Banks own stock in the Regional Feds (admittedly a restricted form thereof) and the Regional Feds appoint most of the Board of Governors. That's as good as owning as far as I'm concerned.

So Lehmann and Bear Sterns were sacrificed. The favored banks were made good. Today we heard about the foreign banks that were made good with TARP funds.

Whether my story about MERS or about CDS was simplistic isn't really relevant. The banks were involved in both, crimes appear to have been involved in both (certainly perjury), and nobody has gone to jail. That's sufficient to start thinking about conspiracy in either crime or subsequent coverup.

“Reality: ‘These are also the banks in the middle of Foreclosuregate. I remind everyone that Citibank’s former Chief Underwriter said, under oath, that Citibank was knowingly making bad loans - 60% by 2006 and 80% by 2007 - and selling them off in securities to pension funds and other investors. Instead of being forced to eat these bad loans and be closed as a consequence they were bailed out with our taxpayer money, and still are by Bernanke’s ‘Quantitative Easing.’ From The Market Ticker’ “

Answer the following question for yourself:

Why were banks making bad loans?

The way you answer that question will reveal if you really understand what happened.

“The dollar has fallen in value by 95-98% since 1913, by all the reports I’ve seen. Since the Fed was assigned the responsibility to maintain the value of the dollar, who else would you blame? Or can you still buy an ounce of gold for $20 somewhere?”

Who else would *you* blame? No one else? Why or why not?

I’m really interested in the foundation of your reasoning for blaming the Fed for all inflation. In the history of the United States, before the Fed was founded there was inflation. How do you explain that inflation if the Fed is the source of all inflation?

What factors gave rise to inflation before the Fed existed?

Is your assertion that on the day the Fed was founded, all of the other factors contributing to inflation ceased to exist and at that point in history the Fed became the only source of all inflation? That’s an interesting theory, but not one that anyone I know would be prepared to believe, including you I would guess if you really think about it.

“Banks own stock in the Regional Feds (admittedly a restricted form thereof) and the Regional Feds appoint most of the Board of Governors. That’s as good as owning as far as I’m concerned.”

It’s not as good as owning. If you think that is “ownership” in the traditional sense then you do not understand ownership. You can read why on wikipedia if you would like. Here is the pertinent link and a portion of this albeit general source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#Federal_Reserve_Banks

(from wikipedia):
“A member bank is a private institution and owns stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank. All nationally chartered banks hold stock in one of the Federal Reserve Banks. State chartered banks may choose to be members (and hold stock in their regional Federal Reserve bank), upon meeting certain standards. About 38% of U.S. banks are members of their regional Federal Reserve Bank.[72] The amount of stock a member bank must own is equal to 3% of its combined capital and surplus.[73][74] However, holding stock in a Federal Reserve bank is not like owning stock in a publicly traded company. [******]These stocks cannot be sold or traded, and member banks do not control the Federal Reserve Bank as a result of owning this stock.[******] The charter and organization of each Federal Reserve Bank is established by law and cannot be altered by the member banks. Member banks, do however, elect six of the nine members of the Federal Reserve Banks’ boards of directors.[41][75] From the profits of the Regional Bank of which it is a member, a member bank receives a dividend equal to 6% of their purchased stock.[63] The remainder of the regional Federal Reserve Banks’ profits is given over to the United States Treasury Department. In 2009, the Federal Reserve Banks distributed $1.4 billion in dividends to member banks and returned $47 billion to the U.S. Treasury.[76]” (”****” are mine)

[back to your argument:]

“So Lehmann and Bear Sterns were sacrificed. The favored banks were made good. Today we heard about the foreign banks that were made good with TARP funds.”

There are a number of errors in the logic of this statement. Lehman and Bear Stearns failed to account for and to prepare for the risks that they faced. This *was* partially a systemic problem. However, saying that the problem was systemic does not absolve each of the individual players that were part of the system. In other words, some unit makes up the system, namely, the individual players. Some of the players where banks, some where labor unions, some were government entities, some were investors, some were employers, some were foreign entities, the list of players is extensive by not infinite. *All* or most of the players in the system either failed to account for the risk inherent in it or trusted some other party to account for the risk that **they themselves assumed.** Whether they took the risk directly and should have known better, or whether they took the risk indirectly and trusted another party to account for the risk for them, they are equally to blame.

Government policy during this time, in the name of “fair housing” put banks in a “damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t” situation. Businesses exist to make money. That is their purpose. If the government forces businesses to be the instrument of altruistic policy bent on “social justice” why is that the fault of the business? Businesses are in business to make money. That is their purpose. Politicians who couldn’t run a lemonade stand or operate a convenience store pretend to know how to run a complex business like a bank, and then banks are supposed to be evil. And reasonably intelligent people like you actually believe it.

“Whether my story about MERS or about CDS was simplistic isn’t really relevant.”

The simplicity is relevant not because simplicity is essentially bad. In general a simple solution to a problem is better than a complex solution to the same problem.

The reason your simplistic explanation is problematic, is that in addition to being simple, it omits key facts, and sets up certain parties for castigation in such a way that **does not eliminate risks from the system going forward.** Blame banks all you want. It’s not going to prevent government from forcing impossible social solutions out of businesses in the future (which is exactly what happened in 2007).

“The banks were involved in both, crimes appear to have been involved in both (certainly perjury), and nobody has gone to jail.”

Just as at the beginning of this exchange, you continue to omit key players and influences, because it serves your thesis.

“That’s sufficient to start thinking about conspiracy in either crime or subsequent coverup.”

Correct. Your version of events *is* *sufficient* to make a person starting thinking about it. But even the worst of arguments is sufficient to start someone thinking.

Saying that something starts you thinking about something isn’t really saying very much. If all (or most) of your premises are faulty, and you start thinking about them, hopefully you will reach the conclusion that you are reasoning from false premises.

The problem is, you haven’t reached that conclusion.

I have.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.