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.
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