Amen on that....Term Limits would stop all of this.....
Stupid-AssCrats……………Lots of Baggage!
Posted on 09/24/2008 7:47:51 PM PDT by Lorianne
Does the Constitution have any role in the intense debate and blowback surrounding Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion bailout proposal? There is nothing in our founding document that prohibits taxing Peter (us) to pay Paul (Wall Street). There are constitutional principles, however, that speak to values such as oversight and transparency. Our system of checks and balances abhors a blank check.
And yet Secretary Paulson's proposal contains a sweeping provision that utterly strips the courts of any power to review his decisions. Section 8 of the Paulson proposal reads: "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
It is.
Is it constitutional for me Peter to pay drug addicted woman with three children from three fathers or middle aged man who commits tax fraud and disability fraud Paul (yes I personally know of people like that)?
No, it’s free speech!
Basically, the Act is telling those who want to sell mortgages to the government that a condition of sale is a waiver of all rights in litigation.
All sales are final.
If you offer mortgages to the government and the government accepts your price, and is then able to get a much better price when it sells them, you can't cry and sue and demand more money.
Paulson, Bernake and others will walk away rich men if Congress doesn’t place accountability on them and overseers to make sure they meticulously dot every “i” and cross every “t” — I don’t care WHO they are best friends with, these two are in collusion with each other and a boat load of Democrats who just got caught taking money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Talk about Conflict of Interest? The entire Democrat Party is in Conflict of Interest. And they’re the ones guarding the hen house?
Congress needs a complete overhaul and perhaps it’s time for TERM LIMITS to be imposed.
These slugs have NO business writing about ANYTHING more complicated than Slinkys and Hoola Hoops.
That would change the plan from an unconstitutional, dollar-destroying, corruption-generating, morality-subverting sack of steaming, fetid crap the size of Mount McKinley into: a constitutional, dollar-destroying, corruption-generating, morality-subverting sack of steaming, fetid crap the size of Mount McKinley.
Paulson has a personal net worth of more than 500 million dollars.
Bernanke is an academic who is nowhere near as wealthy as Paulson, but who is doing quite well.
Neither of these men are corrupt and they are both highly intelligent and experienced.
If anyone in this mess deserves your contempt and suspicion it should be the mess' creator, Alan Greenspan.
Is the Bill unconstitutional? The dreaded Section 8 is not unconstitutional, that language has been used in many bills before now without challenge.
All sales are final.
If you offer mortgages to the government and the government accepts your price, and is then able to get a much better price when it sells them, you can't cry and sue and demand more money.”
You may be right about that, but you are wrong overall. This proposal, as written, means WE can't sue if they approve a monstrous buyout well above market value, either. This could be a setup to reward the people who caused this problem in the first place.
Yes, but since when did these people care about the Constitution?
Which he could double if he were to swing 0.1% of the bailout money his way. I do not like this one bit.
He cannot do that.
By law all his money is in cash or in a blind trust that he cannot touch until after he leaves office.
Paranoia and envy are not the winning personality traits in this mess.
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.