Posted on 04/08/2010 9:57:18 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Which brings us back to the original point: until the current crop of mafia thugs and financial enforcers is forcibly retired, there is no resetting the economy. Every action taken to ‘fix’ things will be according to the same failed socialist/marxist playbook and the economy will only get worse.
And I still think Bush was blackmailed into doing TARP I: sign this or we well and truly kill this nation (which they were on the way to doing anyway).
Where in the constitution does it allow the federal government to regulate credit card companies? Or banks? Aricle 1, sections 8 and 9 enumerate what the federal government can legitimately do.
Republicans seem to have no interest in anti-trust actions which could have prevented "too big to fail" banks.
Again what is the constitutionality of that? Usually, you get huge players in certain industries because of regulation that erects very large barriers to entry to people would would compete with the "too big to fail" entities. Those big players work with government to erect those walls to competition.
Republicans also seem to have no interest in consumer protections which could have prevented some of the credit card and mortgage abuses.
what is the constitutionality of the things that would have been proposed?
Republicans abhorrence of regulation possibly led to the failure to identify and regulate AIG credit default swaps.
What is the constitutionality? Practically, how would more regulation have worked when the congress and president were passing laws that the banking industry wanted passed to socialize their risk to insulate them from the folly of the actions they made?
I don't see where any administration republican or democrat has had a pro energy independence plan since the last oil shock in the 1970's.
What is the constitutionality of the federal government meddling in where people get fuel or what they use for fuel?
He failed to use the TARP plans as promised to buy troubled assets, which led to continued doubts about banking, even as we saw the TARP funds go for bonuses.
TARP should have never happened. It was unconstitutional.
The federal government was given the authority/privilege of coining money. That means they could make regular coins form pre-existing money. That would be metal
The bubble in the housing market came from easy credit. Easy credit comes from making money out of thin air. When you have a government that says you have to use dollars backed by nothing that can just be printed or fabricated by adding zeros to the end of an account balance in a computer, it is very easy to inflate the currency and extend credit backed by nothing. Add to that leftist feel-good policies and you end up destroying economies.
Let’s see, so it’s still Bush’s fault, but he will never come up for election again, so who cares? Wall Street can’t be voted out. Third in line is the dem congress, which is up for election in the fall. Obama is next and his policies will be up in the fall. And registering very few votes for blame are the republicans in congress. So, who becomes the party of change????? This is all great news.
The Feds did it under the interstate commerce clause. And if I remember right it was Reagan who overrode the state usury laws, in order to deal with the legacy of inflation that Jimmy Carter left him with. And when they did it, they bypassed a lot of state consumer protections.
constitutionality of anti-trust?
Probably the interstate commerce clause again. Regardless of the constitutionality, anti-trust laws have been on the books since the Great Depression, but only Democrats seem interested in enforcing them.
constitutionality of consumer protections?
I would think that simple anti-fraud statutes would provide all the authority for that, that is required. And to the extent that the Federal government regulates anything, like banks, through the interstate commerce clause, they have the authority and the responsibility to enforce the law.
"What is the constitutionality to identify and regulate AIG Credit Default Swaps?
Again, by the whatever authority that they Federal government set up the FDIC, SEC and regulated banks in the first place. Probably the interstate commerce clause.
"TARP should have never happened. It was unconstitutional."
TARP shouldn't have happend the way it did. But I believe some form of TARP was necessary or we would be in far worse straits than we are now. If TARP was unconstitutional, then I'd be in favor of a constitution amendment to allow Federal regulation of banks, the Federal Reserve and react to banking crises.
"The federal government was given the authority/privilege of coining money. ... That would be metal"
The only difference between paper and metal dug out of the ground is that metal is shiny. They both rely on consumer confidence to have any value. And as long as any form of lending is allowed, money creation in excess of the hard currency occurs. Go get a Macroeconomics book at a used bookstore to understand this better. It will explain it. The only way to achieve what you are advocating is no lending at all and a barter economy. No thanks
I don’t know why we’re still stuggling with an answer to this. The reply should be:
Yes, it was Bush’s fault. Bush wasn’t conservative enough, and that led to the economic crisis. And the obvious answer to “not conservative enough” is to be MORE CONSERVATIVE.
We need to quit defending Bush and understand it is more important defending convervative principles than Bush’s legacy.
Agreed, but try explaining that to the average American.
They have also used the interstate commerce clause to claim that they have the ability to regulate wheat a farmer grows on his farm to feed his animals. Like Clarence Thomas asked "What cannot be regulated under the interstate commerce clause." That is an excuse, not proper authority as far as I am concerned. They are also probably going to use interstate commerce clause as an excuse to try to force us to buy health insurance. It is not good that we have allowed them to get away from the original intent, which was to regulate interstate commerce, that is make it regular. That means set standard weights and other measures so it was regular and as efficient as possible.
Regardless of the constitutionality ...
Are you freaking kidding me? Your argument is basically, we've been doing evil for a long time, so we might as well continue? One definition of tradition is "an error that is continually compounded".
Again, by the whatever authority that they Federal government set up the FDIC, SEC and regulated banks in the first place.
I don't believe they had that authority and I don't believe the SEC or FDIC should exist. Practially speaking, the FDIC is currently insolvent and it will not get better for them.
TARP shouldn't have happend the way it did. But I believe some form of TARP was necessary or we would be in far worse straits than we are now.
So basically, you believed the propaganda.
The only difference between paper and metal dug out of the ground is that metal is shiny.
Wow. Where to start with this? The paper money in question is backed by nothing. Metal is something. Paper can be backed by something, but that only works if market forces are allowed to work and banks are allowed to fail if they try to defraud the public. The paper/electronic money we use today is devalued at whim. That is theft. The dollar has lost 95% of its value since the Federal Reserve system was created. Gold is still gold. Silver is still silver. In case you can't figure it out, and I wouldn't be surprised if you can't, I am not a gold bug. I don't like fiat currency, whatever it is. Let the market forces work and people will find the money that works. Traditionally that has worked out to be gold or silver over millenia of human existence.
The only way to achieve what you are advocating is no lending at all and a barter economy. No thanks
Wow. You really don't know what a barter economy is. It isn't a barter economy if you use money, whether that's paper deposit certificates, federal reserve notes, or silver.
You know, not everything you read in a book is correct. Especially stuff you read in a macroeconomics voodoo textbook.
Yes, but I believe the court threw that out didn't they?
"Your argument is basically, we've been doing evil for a long time, so we might as well continue? "
Unfortunately that Interstate commerce clause does in fact give the fed's a lot of authority. Did you read my plan for restoring enumerated powers?
"So basically, you believed the propaganda."
No I have MBA from a top 20 business school concentrated in Finance. I understand banking and the economy and money creation very well.
That is the problem right there.
We’re swimming in a sea of stupidity.
No the problem is that you don’t understand money.
You think a gold standard prevents excessive money supply growth and will stabilize the economy. You only need to look to the 1800’s when we were on a gold standard and had deflationary depressions every 20 years.
And consequently, you don’t understand how the economy works or what would have happened to the economy if the banking sector had been allowed to fail in mass due to a short-term liquidity crunch.
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.