Posted on 10/01/2008 10:17:03 AM PDT by fightinJAG
This thread pulls together the threads designed to organize freeper analysis of the draft Senate bailout bill:
I am not seeing this reported anywhere.
Found this article today:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/09/30/barbarians-at-the-gate/
Pretty disgusting - Paulson bails out AIG, Goldman is into AIG for over $20 billion, and Paulson owns a ton of Goldman stock. Meanwhile, Team Obama is into it as well: Jim Johnson is a director of Goldman, Warren Buffet now owns about 10% of Goldman.
Thanks for putting this in one thread JAG; I’m at work, and I don’t have time to search around for it all! :)
I was working fast, so didn’t do the best job at covering all the angles. Hopefully this compendium will help.
This will take time to get rolling, but should be helpful. At least there is the opportunity for it to be so. But posters will have to read and think about the provisions first, so it will take time to develop.
Thanks for your interest.
Rofl, an infinite loop.
Doesn’t matter what we think of this bill. McCain said yesterday congredd needs to approve this bill even ig the voters say no. He said voters don’t undrstand the complex issues involved.
So with that said congress will do as they wish.
Sometimes this looks like a set-up. I am the last person to gravitate toward conspiracy theories, but sometimes this looks like a set-up.
If not an “October Surprise,” then maybe “October Surprise”-type tactics taking advantage of a real-world crisis.
I actually agree that there is much about how high finance works and how the legislative process works that voters may not understand completely.
That said, there is much that voters DO understand, and I think many are competent to comment on those points.
As a Canadian, I don’t profess to know all that much about the inner workings of the U.S. legislation process. But, I thought all finance bills have to originate in the House. What is the Senate’s authority here for introducing this bailout bill? Just wondering.
The house typically deals with these things by sending it back with a short no thank you note attached.
a bill can originate in either the House or the Senate, though it’s usually in the House. Then the other house of Congress has to pass the legislation. If that house passes the bill already passed by the other house (still with me?), it goes to the president for signing. If that house changes the bill, the bill then goes into “conference,” where committee members from the House and Senate meet to hammer out differences on the bill. If they do, the bill is brought up again for a vote (see above).
That’s the simple version.
ALL spending bills, of which this is one, to be constitutional MUST originate in the House. That's why somehow the Senate is "attaching bailout to the AMT patch/tax extenders bill (H.R. 6049) that passed the Senate 93-2 last week."
That from an informational email from a Senate office today.
I'm most certainly not enough of a parliamentarian to know why this doublespeak makes this constitutional, but I thought I'd throw that in here for discussion. If indeed this is an unconstitutional dance, any member of the House could challenge the bill's constitutionality.
Eh... never mind. Just spoke to a constitutional lawyer I greatly respect and he said that the process I described is constitutional yet the bailout itself may be challenged on its constitutionality. But the process does stand up.
Everything always comes down to the courts, doesn’t it?
Only bills for raising revenue, that is tax bills, need to originate in the House, otherwise any other type of bill, including bills spending revenue, can originate in either house of Congress.
The restriction on Revenue bills is in the first paragraph of Article I, section 7 of the US Constitution:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. "
Not true. It's generally done that way, but only bills for raising Revenue must originate in the House. See my reply in Post 15
This time I doubt the House is going to say "no thanks", more likely they'll say "thanks for going first", make some minor amendments, and then pass it so fast it will make our heads swim, and perhaps empty our stomachs as well.
bump
If Obambi wins, the Rats will have the WH, the Senate, the House AND the courts.
Ugh.
Yes, Clint, I was wrong on that. At the least, I didn’t explain myself enough. I was looking for the post to fix-—thanks for your help.
All finance bills must originate in the House, but once passed there the Senate can originate legislation (in the form of amendments) to attach to those bills.
Since there is usually some kind of spending bill lying around in the Senate (!), it never seems too hard for the Senate to find a way to originate legislation through the amendment process.
Sorry, canaGuy, for the confusion, eh?
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.