WTF I agree with Scalia again!

[Vekseid]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/70985.html

...

The 5-4 ruling by the high court was unusual. Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most conservative jurist, wrote the majority's opinion and was joined by the court's four liberal judges.

The five justices held that contrary to what the Bush administration had argued, states can enforce their own laws on matters such as discrimination and predatory lending, even if that crosses into areas under federal regulation.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the four dissenters, argued that laws dating back to the nation's founding prevent states from meddling in federal bank regulation. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

The ruling angered many in the financial sector, who fear it'll lead to a patchwork of state laws that'll make it harder for banks and other financial firms to take a national approach to the marketplace.

"We are worried about the effect that this ruling could have on the markets," said Rich Whiting, general counsel for the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group representing the nation's 100 largest financial firms, in a statement. The decision "hinders the ability of financial services firms from conducting business in the United States. Even worse, it will cause confusion for consumers, especially those who move from state to state."

Stephen Ryan, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, said the decision "will have a significant, negative impact on the ability of a national bank to offer a financial product uniformly throughout the country."

In a statement, Ryan, who's brought suits against state enforcement, predicted "a crazy quilt of conflicting legal instructions" and a "confusing situation of shared enforcement responsibilities for financial services."

Consumer advocates were elated.

"This Supreme Court decision is a victory for taxpayers, who have suffered enormously as a result of abusive business practices in all types of lending," said the Center for Responsible Lending, a consumer advocacy organization based in Durham, N.C. "This decision will help to restore confidence in the financial services industry and the national economy."

Congress has already been studying changes to pre-emption rules as part of President Barack Obama's proposed revamp of financial regulation. Obama proposes creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which would have the power to write and enforce rules on mortgage lending practices. The proposal expressly states that these rules would be a floor nationwide, and that states could write their own tougher rules.

At issue in Cuomo v. Clearing House Association is whether the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the chief regulator of national banks, erred in shutting down New York's efforts to question banks about predatory lending practices.

The OCC convinced lower courts that then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had overstepped into federal territory when he sought non-public information about the lending practices of federally regulated banks. Forty-nine states joined New York in appealing the lower court ruling.

...

To be fair Scalia is a rather intelligent man. I'm not so fond of Thomas, Alito or Roberts, however.

Edit: Also, bolded text because I find it amusing that they would say forty-nine states joined in the fight rather than expressing that every state in the union objected.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Agreed.  Thomas is about as neo-fascist as they come.  I don't think there's a single expansion of government power (unless it would benefit poor people somehow, perhaps) that Thomas hasn't rubber-stamped.  "Quisling" would be an apt descriptor for him...

[Jude]

I'm not so sure this was a good move.  It may seem like one in the context of the recent financial meltdown, but opening up local governments to passing their own laws regulating financial systems heavily, well... Articles of Confederation anyone?

To be fair I think the state's right argument should be dead, and that only time the states should be given the power to govern is something that requires a different approach in different areas of the country (i.e. if one size simply can't fit all).  So I obviously have a different perspective on things.

It certainly hinders online banking across the country.

[Zakharra]

I'm not so sure this was a good move.  It may seem like one in the context of the recent financial meltdown, but opening up local governments to passing their own laws regulating financial systems heavily, well... Articles of Confederation anyone?

To be fair I think the state's right argument should be dead, and that only time the states should be given the power to govern is something that requires a different approach in different areas of the country (i.e. if one size simply can't fit all).  So I obviously have a different perspective on things.

It certainly hinders online banking across the country.

  Uumm.. no. States rights are NOT and should never be a dead issue. There is a reason the federal government was controlled in the Constitution (even if it is a tattered binding nowdays with the political idiots in office[ from both main parties]). Everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution was strictly handed to the States to run. As it should be. The federal government should never ever run or control everything.

[Jude]

  Uumm.. no. States rights are NOT and should never be a dead issue. There is a reason the federal government was controlled in the Constitution (even if it is a tattered binding nowdays with the political idiots in office[ from both main parties]). Everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution was strictly handed to the States to run. As it should be. The federal government should never ever run or control everything.

I respect your point of view, but the majority of what you said was ideological without justification for your beliefs other than the "there's a reason the founding fathers set things up that way."  One could easily explain that reason in terms of fear of central authority (because of their experiences with England) and a lack of technology facilitating quick communication, thus making a federal government very inefficient.  You could argue both of those problems have been solved today, so a federal government which handles most responsibilities is a lot more viable today than in the past.

There are still good arguments against having a strong federal government, but you have to actually make them instead of just screaming "NO" then stating your views in a very polarized fashion if you want to come off as interested in discussion/debate and not just someone interested in bludgeoning other people over the head with your point of view.

[Zakharra]

 I believe, I'll look it up later when I have the time, the Constitution says that everything that is not given to the federal government in the Constitution belongs TO the states. I'm not going off of the basis, 'there's a reason the founding fathers set things up that way', but off of an actual written part of the Constitution. A federal government that controls more isnt the best thing. As has been proven by how well it mananges things. Which are pretty abysmal.  Name one federal bureaucracy that is efficient with it's finances and services. Aside from the military which is somewhat seperate and not used in the US, mostly.

[Trieste]

The US is a patchwork of people, a patchwork of states that will not learn to agree on much. The founding fathers were counting on this when they set up the system to add amendments to the Constitution - you can see that if you take a look at it. If all of our states were not various different points of view, you would not have hard-left states, and you would not have hard-right states. You would not have red states, blue states and battleground states.

As such, states should have control over their government at home. I would not want California conservatives governing my neighbor's right to marry. I would not want New Hampshire's anti-income-tax rallying around my Massachusetts property tax. And I guarantee you, you do not want Massachusetts insurance regulations botching up your car insurance (because up until recently, everyone in MA paid $2k a year for insurance... some of us still do until they straighten out the deregulation). And you shouldn't have to. This is why we have states, state government, state laws and state's rights.

Just like I have the right to choose what clothes I wear, what food I eat - Alabama has a right to undereducate its children if they really wanna, and California has the right to piss off its gay community. Just, not here.

[Jude]

That's one of the better arguments for states rights I've heard.  But there are some big problems in application.

For example, the truth isn't democratic.  When it comes to passing law to act on facts, different interpretations in different states means that at least part of the nation is going to be clearly in the wrong even if the majority of the nation recognizes the proper course of action (then again the same argument can be made for when the majority of the nation is wrong).

Also larger states have more "rights" than smaller ones when you really examine the situation.  Take Texas for instance.  Because they're such a large state, what Science textbook they choose to adopt affects what textbooks the entire country ends up with (I'd have to go look up the specifics to explain this particular instance, but I think you get the basics).

Obviously there are things we should leave up to the states and things that the federal government should handle.  I'm not against the states having any say, I just think it's a cop out to boil down controversial issues to "let the states decide."  It's passing the buck along and doesn't really solve anything.  If Missouri outlaws abortion and Illinois legalizes it, then Illinois' actions essentially overwrite Missouri's (since traveling between the two states is so easy).

What I meant by I feel that state's rights are a dead issue is that I'm sick of hearing it brought up like it's something really important we  should be focusing on now.  However, I'm sure if I lived during a different time, with different issues I might feel differently about it.

[Trieste]

But at the same time, that's why we have free commerce between the states, and why we don't require a visitor's visa to go from Louisiana to Florida. If Illinois wants to give people the right to choose abortion, they have done that - it's not overwriting Mississippi's laws at all. What the law says is, "We do not want that here, on our soil". And that is what such a law accomplishes.

It used to be illegal to get a tattoo in Massachusetts. The law was only recently removed. What came of it? It meant that Rhode Island tattoo shops got a heck of a lot of MA customers. It didn't mean people didn't get inked, but it meant that MA did not have to deal with the regulation of health laws in tattoo parlors, and that it did not have to hire extra health officers to carry out inspections on them. Nobody in the state legislatures (I hope) is stupid/foolish/naive enough to think that the laws they pass will be effective outside their state borders (even if I sometimes wish I could bring Florida gun control laws up to Massachusetts). State's rights are inalienable.

However, whether they should persist in the current climate of globalization is another argument entirely, and that's what this article is about (do you see what I did there?). The current national banking crisis is truly awesome to behold, and the fact that the global economy is linked by globalization means that most of the world (okay, not most of it but only the parts that count, har har) enjoys REALLY GREAT UPS together - and, as we are now painfully learning, we suffer the lows together. Globalization means a migrating patchwork of locally bereft areas as large companies pull from the cheapest labor pools. It means that for ages, women in India wanted to marry a man who lived in the Western world, and now they are wanting to marry men back home, because the jobs are in India now.

It means great shifts, both good and bad, for all parts of the world that are linked, and one does wonder if tiny little states with tiny little congresses really should matter that much. I can't help but think 'yes', because while globalization has brought a whole lot of good, it also brings a loss of touch with local communities. If the US is represented by a handful of people from each state who get together in Washington, you lose some of the locality. You lose the fact that local politicians have wives, mothers, brothers, sons... and their families are falling on hard times, too. But if you have someone covering the whole state with just one person, how are they ever going to understand that while Springfield has a soaring unemployment rate, Cape Cod is doing a-ok - and adjust for that?

As far as larger states having more pull than smaller ones, well, larger countries have more pull than smaller ones. It's demographics and it's a matter of resources... The larger tribe will always be more powerful than the smaller tribe, if by way of nothing else than the ability to throw more manpower into the mix. Our laws are made in part to look out for the little guy, at least in general. You don't have to tell the 150-pound computer-nerd pipsqueak not to murder people with his bare hands. He's the one who're more likely to be the victim of the brawny guy with the big stick. (So to speak. It's an imperfect analogy, but I hope it gets my point across.)

It's when the laws stop protecting the little guy that we as a general population start to get nervous, I think... And in this particular case, the states are the pipsqueak.

[Vekseid]

I'm not so sure this was a good move.  It may seem like one in the context of the recent financial meltdown, but opening up local governments to passing their own laws regulating financial systems heavily, well... Articles of Confederation anyone?

Every single state in the union objected.

Every. Single. One.

It's not like there's any disunity here. This is a case of a federal deregulation being seen as disastrous by every last participant in these United States. You can make arguments for federal power, but when it goes against -everyone's- will, there is a problem.

[Jude]

Every single state in the union objected.

Every. Single. One.

It's not like there's any disunity here. This is a case of a federal deregulation being seen as disastrous by every last participant in these United States. You can make arguments for federal power, but when it goes against -everyone's- will, there is a problem.

If it goes against everyone's will why not have the federal government do something about it (which they were already planning to) instead of opening it up to the states before congress gets it done, which in the end will result in a big mess?  I don't even see how congress is going to pass its laws if the states pass some in the mean time.  I see some serious conflicts coming.

[Zakharra]

 Because the states don't trust the Congress to do the right thing. Congress looks out for 2 things and 2 things only. It's members powers/authority, and that of the federal government. Not the states. If the Congress does pass laws that all of the states object to, the Congress members are likely to suffer in the next elections. The House much more than the Senate. They are supposed to be representing their states, not tying their hands with more onerious regulations.

[Jude]

I think that's a very cynical point of view.  I see the congress doing things for the people all the time.  It takes quite a bit of twisting to take the point of view that they do everything to further their own political ends.  But it's not really a surprising (and is a far held) point of view in a bailout era.

What I don't understand is that if a person falls on hard times, people expect unemployment assistance (which is reasonable) until they can get back on their feet.  But when it happens in a larger scope with a business, they call foul if the business is helped.  Not only does that prevent the government needing to pay out unemployment, but if we're giving individuals safety nets, why don't we treat businesses with similar consideration?

[Zakharra]

 Actually, it doesn't take much twisting to see it that way, The members of congress have acted for their own interests for a very long time. To ensure that they get reelected again. This is borne out by their approval rating. Such as this;

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance

http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121208/congress-approval-rating-drops-33.aspx

http://congressratings.com/

http://www.americablog.com/2009/03/congress-approval-rating-at-highest.html

All of these show a consistant negative view of Congress, both the House and Senate. People are skeptical of Congress since the ancient phrase, 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' is as true now as it was there. People simply do not trust the Congressmen.

People cried foul at the big businesses getting a handout because they see small businesses fail all the time. Why should a big business get more support when it was failing? It's seen as a payoff to the big buisinesses who shelled out millions to political campaigns.

[HairyHeretic]

If power corrupts then surely those in State authority are equally likely to fall prey to it, if not more so, since their perspective is very much focused closer to home, as it were.

[Zakharra]

If power corrupts then surely those in State authority are equally likely to fall prey to it, if not more so, since their perspective is very much focused closer to home, as it were.

*nods* It is, but they are more directly held accountable for their actions since people can see what they do in the state. Congressmen have an advantage that they move out of state to do their work.

[Jude]

Just because there's a consistent negative view of congress doesn't prove anything related to congressional corruption.  All it shows is that the American people have lost faith in congress' ability to effectively solve their problems.  The reasons for that are as numerous as the stars in the sky.  You don't have to take a cynical view of corruption in order to explain those numbers.

As for "absolute power corrupts absolutely," that doesn't really apply here considering that congress' power isn't absolute.  Even if it was, that statement was never true.  All-truisms rarely are.  How people handle the power they're given to them is a reflection of their character, not how much power they're given.

I'd argue Congress has a low approval rating because it's rare that you actually find a senator or representative with charisma of any sort.  Personal magnetism and force of personality seems to be the only thing that actually endears the American people for any sustained period of time.  The figureheads of the Senate and House are far from charming.  Even if you agree with them, Nancy Polosi, Harry Reid, Jon Boehner, and Mitch McConnell are about as endearing as a bulldog.

That also touches on another point, the divisiveness of the current political climate.  The only people who really seem to rise in the estimation of the American people and stay there are those who attempt to overcome the negativity.  And Congress for the longest time has been the most partisan area of governance.  That's unlikely to change anytime soon because it's the only branch of government where partisanship is both necessary and designed into the system.

[Trieste]

If it goes against everyone's will why not have the federal government do something about it (which they were already planning to) instead of opening it up to the states before congress gets it done, which in the end will result in a big mess?  I don't even see how congress is going to pass its laws if the states pass some in the mean time.  I see some serious conflicts coming.

Actually, that's what Congress appears to be planning, from the article. They want to make their own legislation that requires a certain 'floor' of regulation on these companies, then let the states embellish it as they will. They want to make sure the companies can't run around willy-nilly... then the rest is up to the states. It's the sort of idealism-based marriage of fed and state that I'd like to see a lot more often.

What I don't understand is that if a person falls on hard times, people expect unemployment assistance (which is reasonable) until they can get back on their feet.  But when it happens in a larger scope with a business, they call foul if the business is helped.  Not only does that prevent the government needing to pay out unemployment, but if we're giving individuals safety nets, why don't we treat businesses with similar consideration?

I think the idea is multiple bailouts. If a company flubs something once, okay, fine. The problem is that you have multiple bailouts, and when you hear stories of companies being caught giving huge bonuses for top execs, bonuses that are worth more than my next ten years of income, it causes some concern. In short, it's not the use of bailouts, but the rampant abuse of them that we have seen lately. If you'll notice, you'll get the same reaction when you talk about the sandbagging 'welfare queen' stereotype (which is getting proven more and more false as time goes on, note) who gets a manicure every other day, has eight kids and nineteen grandbabies in a family that hasn't had a job in four generations.

Edit: Like four replies have been posted while I was typing this, so it's probably irrelevant by now, but I'm posting it anyway.

[Jude]

The multiple bailouts thing is a good point.  Sadly it's only a small portion of companies that have actually received multiple.  The majority of organizations have only gotten one, and a minority of those have already turned around their balance sheets and want to repay the money (the terms of which are being decided now).

My main problem is just the incredible polarization against the bailouts which partially results from ignorance.  I've talked to many people about the subject that don't even know that the money isn't just being freely given away, the companies are expected to repay it.  There's just so much misleading talk out there.

[RubySlippers]

I must point out states USED to under the Constitution appoint the Senators to Congress so they had in theory fair representation to the power of the elected House of Representatives. Then they made them elected as well leaving the states no say in lawmaking at the Federal level. So now they have to do this the government structure gave them no choice.

On this case since states are supposed to share power with the Federal government as I pointed out above they should have the right to make laws as they see fit. As long as they are there for a just purpose and to protect their citizens.

[Trieste]

I must point out states USED to under the Constitution appoint the Senators to Congress so they had in theory fair representation to the power of the elected House of Representatives. Then they made them elected as well leaving the states no say in lawmaking at the Federal level. So now they have to do this the government structure gave them no choice.

Erm, who do you think casts the votes for Congressmen, Eddie Izzard? :P

[Zakharra]

The multiple bailouts thing is a good point.  Sadly it's only a small portion of companies that have actually received multiple.  The majority of organizations have only gotten one, and a minority of those have already turned around their balance sheets and want to repay the money (the terms of which are being decided now).

My main problem is just the incredible polarization against the bailouts which partially results from ignorance.  I've talked to many people about the subject that don't even know that the money isn't just being freely given away, the companies are expected to repay it.  There's just so much misleading talk out there.

When the bailouts are handed out to entire industries wholesale such as the banking and auto, it has a negative impact on the public when billions of their tax dollars are tossed away like that. A lot of people think those businesses should have been allowed to fail and collapse.

Also when two of the three automakers file for bankrupcy anyways, with the government holding a majority of the shares, it leaves people asking why? The we hear that there are banks able to make payments back to the givernment, but that they are being not allowed to make those payments. Again it leaves people wondering why? Many people see it as an attempt of the government to take more control over US industries. How many people trust a bureaucracy? Not that many.

[RubySlippers]

Erm, who do you think casts the votes for Congressmen, Eddie Izzard? :P

They were appointed and a state could remove them from office giving state legislatures and governors a place at the table. Now they don't answer to the states but to the people whoe tend to pick idiots. At least before the voters elected the state government and they could apply common sense to appoint decent people to the Congress for their terms.

And it worked pretty well everyone has a stake in the Federal government and the balance of power was maintained fairly well.

What do the states have left but the Courts to get some measure of respect.

[Trieste]

So the people who elect the congressmen are idiots, but the people who elect the governors and whatnot are okay and don't elect idiots.

Okay, got it.

[Indigo]

I've always been a big believer in 'state rights'.  (of course, we know that the civil war killed many state rights, or severely restricted.  We know why (slavery) yet the states lost much of their former independance.)  I suppose it comes down to some simple things.

In a country the size of the U.S. , we cannot expect  Federal Government, which is rather huge, to be able and balance out all the issues that come into play.  This is why it is vital states are able to pass their own laws, even if in some cases, it goes against Federal Law.  Federal Law is important, of course, yet so is the ability of each seperate state to voice and fight for or against it, as they see fit.

Example, you take a city.  There is the blanket government, but within that, you have neighborhood watch, homeowners associations, school PTA, unions, etc.  The government would be doing a disservice in making decisions that effected all of the above if it did not appy fairly to them.  Say...the government decides a new factory is approved on government land...good for the union maybe, and small buisness, but bad for the homeowners and schools that use that land as 'public open space' where they can walk their dogs and let their kids play.

SO they compromise...but they all have to come to the table and negotiate it.  Ofcourse, many times people are still angry, or don't get what they believe is 'fair', but at least there is (or should be) the ability to speak out.  That, in a way, is what states do with Federal government.  Federal government can spread blanket laws...but to expect those laws to be able and appease/help/work in every single corner of the country, in every state,  no matter what, is to me, wishful thinking.  The states can then put to vote issues that, while maybe they cannot override the Federal law, they can hell at least try and make their voices heard instead of saying..."Oh well, state rights don't mean anything, so we'll all just shut up and accept it."

How this applies to the original subject...of course it does.  This is a big country, with different regions and ways of thought.  We should never think that state rights is somehow 'fluff' or 'just a dead issue' or 'a waste of time'.  I, for one, am interested in the great dance of thoughts and fights, even if I don't agree, I am glad to be able to join the war of words regarding the republic.


edit: and sorry, didn't mean to hijack beyond the original issue. 

[Jude]

It's really no wonder people feel like they do when they look at the facts like you do Zakharra.  I don't know if you realize it, but there's a lot you're twisting.  Many of your statements are blatant falsehoods or exaggerations which're really close to the truth.  For example:

When the bailouts are handed out to entire industries wholesale such as the banking and auto

But uh, they didn't.  There were banks that didn't receive a bailout, and Ford was barely touched.  To my knowledge all they got was a line of secured credit, which is next to nothing.  When you consider there are 3 purely domestic car manufacturers, changing 66% into 100% is quite a falsehood.  Plus the Industry is composed of a great deal of cars manufacturers, we only meddled with the American borne ones, not necessary the ones that do a lot of business (and even manufacturing) in America.  And before you claim that none do, there's a lot of car companies that actually have plants here that aren't the big 3.  And banks are an even worse example of your "entire" vs. "actual" claim.

it has a negative impact on the public when billions of their tax dollars are tossed away like that. A lot of people think those businesses should have been allowed to fail and collapse.

Thinking they should of been allowed to collapse is fine, it's a legitimate philosophical belief.  But this notion that tossing away tax dollars to keep those companies alive had a negative impact is completely without data.  We don't know if it was a smart move or not yet.  We do know that a credit crunch hasn't arisen to the point of completely decimating local industry.  Things aren't wonderful, but you can't exactly claim that our bailouts did nothing.  Many economists agree they weren't bad decisions.  So your claim there is based on ideological grounds, likely without any current non-biased evidence.  That and "tossed away" is a blatant falsehood.  They're going to have to repay what they can, and very few industries we've loaned cash to have just downright failed and will be unable to repay the money (if any, I haven't heard of one).

Also when two of the three automakers file for bankrupcy anyways, with the government holding a majority of the shares, it leaves people asking why? The we hear that there are banks able to make payments back to the givernment, but that they are being not allowed to make those payments. Again it leaves people wondering why? Many people see it as an attempt of the government to take more control over US industries. How many people trust a bureaucracy? Not that many.

Again, that's a cynical point of view.  It's another example of you taking a situation and deciding you're going to choose one of the worst possibilities to believe.  There's not a shred of evidence that any of this is the government using the crisis for a power usurpation is actually what's going on.  There's been perfectly legitimate reasons for every bit of meddling that was done, along with the President personally assuring the country that he doesn't want to be doing this and that it's a short-term thing.  The majority of the country doesn't want this to become a permanent change (and I'm with them), until there's an actual reason to suspect foul play, simply assuming it off of some "power corrupts" or "government is evil" principle is paranoid and illogical.

The "why" you say people are asking in your post isn't hard to find.  It's just that people are fearful and there are a lot of talking heads putting stupid ideas in their mind instead of the truth.  There's always someone out there willing to tell you something crazy in hopes of endearing you to their cause, especially when you're in shaky waters already.  It's a lot harder to try and take people's hands in this troubled time and assure them when they're already leaning one direction.

As for the why, they didn't want the auto-industry to go into bankruptcy (which is why they attempted to fix things with earlier plans).  It happened because there was ultimately nothing they could do because they underestimated how big of a mess GM and Chrysler were in.  There were hard issues to be dealt with, the Union first and foremost, so finding a resolution to the problem was going to be hard.  It's not surprising that it failed, I don't see any evidence of anything sinister and don't understand how anyone can.  I do understand how people can feel shaky over this much government involvement.  But jumping from that shakiness to the conclusion that there's a grand conspiracy for control isn't logical.

As far as the conditions of repayment for the financial industry in relation to bailout money, I've heard so many conspiracy theories about this.  But it's just a simple matter of practicality.  Assume they'd let people pay back with no strings attached, then some of the banks which cannot afford to give the money back might be tempted to (in an attempt to get rid of the ugliness associated with the bailout) and then fail, completely wasting our efforts in the first place.  Making them wait to repay us until they can actually afford to do so without forgoing the original purpose of giving them the money (to make credit more fluid) is hardly unfair.  It's essentially forcing them to stick to the plan.

It's easy to sit back, twist facts in a very small way, use loaded language, and make cynical assumptions about our government.  It seems to be a popular trend in today's political climate.  But if anything these statements are born out of ignorance, paranoia, and a feeling of uncertainty.

It's possible that all of our efforts to fix the economy will go to waste, and that the Democratic reliance on Keynesian economics will prove ineffectual.  There's certainly an argument to be made for that in opposition of the majority party's actions at current.  What does the political discourse no good is to take the point of view that there's disingenuous actions going on.  It reminds me of the sort of things the liberals did during the Iraq war, when they wouldn't shut up about some supposed "blood for oil" motive behind the war despite the fact that there wasn't any evidence to support such claims.  If you're not willing to give those who oppose your idea the benefit of assuming they're genuine in lieu of any idea to think otherwise, I don't see why anyone should take you seriously as you cannot possibly add anything of value to a debate by assuming unprovable motives.

[consortium11]

Just a quick point about the banks which received bailout money and haven't been allowed to pay it back.

The money wasn't just to make sure banks didn't go under. It was also to allow them to keep lending to people and companies. Without banks lending and with equity finance being far harder to raise the entire commercial sector was paralysed. Bank balances were often so thinly stretched and they were so averse to risk that they wouldn't lend in deals that were not only run-of-the-mill but actually commercially safe. The reason the money was given was so they had the reserves to continue lending.

So, banks may have been in a position to pay back the money almost immediately... but then the problem remains that they wouldn't lend. By keeping the money they were in a position to start lending once more... and unfreeze the system.

It should also be noted that the 10 big banks that have repaid TARP money have done so giving the government a profit... which considering the short term nature of the lending is excellent business. Of course, these were the relatively stable banks and the same can't be expected of others, but it's still a small successs.

I'm no fan of this (or any) bailout in principle, but in practice it isn't always the evil some people sell it as. The Japanese government actually made money off their bailouts years ago and it's too soon to see exactly what happens with this one.

[Indigo]

That above gave me something to think about...

I am one of those against the massive 'bail out'...I've just felt it's like trying to shore up a foundation made of sand...you can pour much into it, but the tide is still going to sift it away.  Basically...'bad investment/accounting principal cannot be fixed by pouring money into a bucket with a hole at the bottom.

I also have felt...capitalism...say what you will about it...you get into the race, you get what's coming to you if you cheat/overextend/ignore problems.  Let them tumble and fall.  Of course, I've had people look at me in horror for even suggesting such a thing...but well...I had to speak what I initially felt.

As far as the 'bank bail out'...I know the idea was to get banks 'lending' again, yet it seems odd that some have not been doing so, instead still not working with those going into foreclosure, yet accepting the bail-out.  I find the practice distastful, but I don't have all the facts...

It just seems to me, that a company, a bank who stands out and asks for a government bailout in the million...billions of dollars and still has the nerve to foreclose on people who aren't just not paying their mortgage, their trying to work with them by offering what money they have, and still they refuse?  I cannot wrap my mind around it.

...yet profit hmmm?  If the government can make it, so do it? Well...capitalist at it's finest perhaps....I'll have to rethink it.

[consortium11]

I don't disagree with any of those points.

I'm against bailouts in principle for the exact reason you stated... let capitalism have its way. If companies go for risk over safety then they tried their hardest and they failed... and from knowledge of that the next set of companies to emerge will run a better more sustainable business and thus things improve without requiring direct government interference. In the long term I think that's the best way to do things. In short term though the sheer amount of suffering a mass collapse would cause makes a bailout a near political necessity; economic cycles don't correspond to electoral cycles.

I also agree that bailouts often help both the good and the bad; companies that are fundamentally sound but for whatever reason have found themselves without the resources to continue and those that will leak money nearly continuously. The Big 3 in Detroit is a good example of that; all of them were beset by a whole series of woes from huge Union costs to unpopular cars and a range of issues in-between. Bailout money was unlikely to save them all, however much was thrown in.

That said, there's a good argument that the point of the money wasn't to save the companies but to manage their collapse. Apparently 2 million workers depended on them directly for their employment and if one day any of the big 3 just disappeared it would have been a huge shock to the system. Car companies don't have the luxury of Ch.11 (I believe) bankruptcy that worked so well for air companies... if I get on a plane I don't really worry if there will be parts for any subsequent repairs... if I've bought a car I certainly do.

And I agree completely that banks with TARP money should be lending and trying to avoid foreclosing. The logic behind the mass foreclosures was generally that the banks themselves had debts they couldn't pay and now that they can't just unload the mortgages on the market and get a good price they were scrambling for any money they could get their hands on. 2/3 of the value now was worth a lot more to those banks then the entire amount in 10 years. Now they have these reserves though it seems strange they're continuing to do this; unless they want to simply purge their books of all bad debt and start clean... even at a relative loss.

[Jude]

The beginning of the TARP fund's disbursement was handled absolutely atrociously by Henry Paulson too.  The oversight doesn't even know exactly what happened in the early days, so it's not surprising there's such a negative view of it.  The only actual statistics compiled that I'm aware of are the "stress tests" done, which weren't particular persuasive.  Also just because I'm defending the genuineness of the interests of those involved doesn't mean I'm for bailouts either.

AIG especially should've gone down in flames.  Add the corporate bonus nonsense into thing and there's plenty of legitimate reason to feel like you're getting screwed.  It's not that I can't understand where people are coming from who are incredibly anti-bailout, etc., it's just that I can't appreciate a position that takes that nervousness, disgust, and lack of faith and molds it into something cynical which assumes as a matter of self-evident (but dubious) "fact" that our system is broken.

I do think we're currently paying for the mistakes we made in the 80s and 90s related to deregulation, and that our current politicians are attempting to correct the mistakes they've made.  It might not work, I might not agree with it, but it's not constructive (or healthy) to pretend there's something sinister going on when we those we elected are essentially doing what could've logically been expected of them to begin with.

[Indigo]

Yes indeed...paying for the sins of the past we are...the deregulation of many things is a hurtful wound now, that we have to deal with.

..I don't feel the system is 'broken', which is why I don't agree with 'bailout'.  What I do feel is that if government/buisness meet head to head in this regard, (which surely they are doing now) that the facts are clear, and buisness should never..no matter the job cost, have to be 'bailed out' again in such a massive wave of billions of dollars.

I am painfully aware of the job cost, but cannot fathom that as a reason...which is being used! by big companies to 'please bail us out because we forked up'.

I'm cynical sure...yet realistic and hopeful.  You cannot be just one and understand the entire folly when it comes, or how to avoid it, or how to deal with it...or how to even comprehend it.

*sighs*  I wish for the best, but feel there is, as someone commented somewhere else, still a massive 'clusterfuck' to deal with, which I being only a layman, can only begin to comprehend.

It's all a boggle that I think we're all trying to still comprehend, and still learning the complications of, every time we decide to perk up and listen.

[Oniya]

I am painfully aware of the job cost, but cannot fathom that as a reason...which is being used! by big companies to 'please bail us out because we forked up'.

The way they are using it is saying 'If we aren't bailed up, we have to shut down, and then all-ll-ll-ll-ll these people will be out of work, and suffering, and won't that suck?'  And the thing that makes the US public so cynical about it is that one company (whose name I forget) that took the bailout, paid their upper echelon's massive bonuses with it, and still fired workers in droves because they couldn't make payroll.

[HairyHeretic]

Another part of the problem of big businesses failing is the knock on effect, especially if they're concentrated in particular areas. If factory X closes, lays off 2000 people, not only are those people out of work, but the businesses they supported locally are also going to be affected by having that revenue now no longer coming in.

[Zakharra]

It's really no wonder people feel like they do when they look at the facts like you do Zakharra.  I don't know if you realize it, but there's a lot you're twisting.  Many of your statements are blatant falsehoods or exaggerations which're really close to the truth.  For example:
But uh, they didn't.  There were banks that didn't receive a bailout, and Ford was barely touched.  To my knowledge all they got was a line of secured credit, which is next to nothing.  When you consider there are 3 purely domestic car manufacturers, changing 66% into 100% is quite a falsehood.  Plus the Industry is composed of a great deal of cars manufacturers, we only meddled with the American borne ones, not necessary the ones that do a lot of business (and even manufacturing) in America.  And before you claim that none do, there's a lot of car companies that actually have plants here that aren't the big 3.  And banks are an even worse example of your "entire" vs. "actual" claim.
Thinking they should of been allowed to collapse is fine, it's a legitimate philosophical belief.  But this notion that tossing away tax dollars to keep those companies alive had a negative impact is completely without data.  We don't know if it was a smart move or not yet.  We do know that a credit crunch hasn't arisen to the point of completely decimating local industry.  Things aren't wonderful, but you can't exactly claim that our bailouts did nothing.  Many economists agree they weren't bad decisions.  So your claim there is based on ideological grounds, likely without any current non-biased evidence.  That and "tossed away" is a blatant falsehood.  They're going to have to repay what they can, and very few industries we've loaned cash to have just downright failed and will be unable to repay the money (if any, I haven't heard of one).
Again, that's a cynical point of view.  It's another example of you taking a situation and deciding you're going to choose one of the worst possibilities to believe.  There's not a shred of evidence that any of this is the government using the crisis for a power usurpation is actually what's going on.  There's been perfectly legitimate reasons for every bit of meddling that was done, along with the President personally assuring the country that he doesn't want to be doing this and that it's a short-term thing.  The majority of the country doesn't want this to become a permanent change (and I'm with them), until there's an actual reason to suspect foul play, simply assuming it off of some "power corrupts" or "government is evil" principle is paranoid and illogical.

  Point out which ones are falsehoods? I'm seeing this from both sides of the aisle. Right and Left that don't trust this. 

How much of GM and Chrystler is now owned by the federal Government? By the Unions? Not a lot of people are pleased by the government controlling these companies.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120842/disapprove-majority-government-ownership.aspx

  .. and to think Congress has a hand in this..

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49122

Ford is financially stable enough to survive and is doing well enough. However when people see two automakers  get billions and still collapse into bankruptcy, it makes them wonder. Republican and Democrat. What sort of cars will the federal government now tell GM and  Chrystler to make? They essentually run the companies with a majority ownership stake now.  Will they build cars Americans want, or cars they think Americans will want?


I know the Big Three are not the only automakers with plants in the US, but they are only US ones here. Toyota, Fiat, Nissan and the others are based in other nations and are doing well financially and aren't American companies. Therefore no bailout for them.

The "why" you say people are asking in your post isn't hard to find.  It's just that people are fearful and there are a lot of talking heads putting stupid ideas in their mind instead of the truth.  There's always someone out there willing to tell you something crazy in hopes of endearing you to their cause, especially when you're in shaky waters already.  It's a lot harder to try and take people's hands in this troubled time and assure them when they're already leaning one direction.

As for the why, they didn't want the auto-industry to go into bankruptcy (which is why they attempted to fix things with earlier plans).  It happened because there was ultimately nothing they could do because they underestimated how big of a mess GM and Chrysler were in.  There were hard issues to be dealt with, the Union first and foremost, so finding a resolution to the problem was going to be hard.  It's not surprising that it failed, I don't see any evidence of anything sinister and don't understand how anyone can.  I do understand how people can feel shaky over this much government involvement.  But jumping from that shakiness to the conclusion that there's a grand conspiracy for control isn't logical.

When the government ends up in control of 2/3 of the US automakers and has or is trying to take a heavier hand in the banking industry, it makes people wonder and worry. The government does NOT have a good financial record. It's pretty abysmal in fact. How deep in debt are we? How much deeper is that projected? When was the last time a large government plan or bureaucracy plan came in under budget? If the government was a business, it would have had to declare bankruptcy long ago. The government has an ability that no company has now. It can either raise taxes or print money.

As far as the conditions of repayment for the financial industry in relation to bailout money, I've heard so many conspiracy theories about this.  But it's just a simple matter of practicality.  Assume they'd let people pay back with no strings attached, then some of the banks which cannot afford to give the money back might be tempted to (in an attempt to get rid of the ugliness associated with the bailout) and then fail, completely wasting our efforts in the first place.  Making them wait to repay us until they can actually afford to do so without forgoing the original purpose of giving them the money (to make credit more fluid) is hardly unfair.  It's essentially forcing them to stick to the plan.

It's easy to sit back, twist facts in a very small way, use loaded language, and make cynical assumptions about our government.  It seems to be a popular trend in today's political climate.  But if anything these statements are born out of ignorance, paranoia, and a feeling of uncertainty.

What about those that can afford, financially pay it back? If they have the money and they think they are solid enough to do it, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? 

I found this, http://en.mercopress.com/2009/06/10/us-banks-ready-to-repay-bail-out-money-but-fears-of-further-credit-crunch     
..in a search (I'm new to searching, so I have a somewhat difficult time finding correct paramaters for searches). It's interesting that the banks have to be allowed, to ask, to give the money back.

It's not twisting things, but a point of view. The fact you call it twisting of facts right away is worrisome. You automatically cast aside those views which you don't agree with as paranoia, ignorance, paranoia. That is not a good start for a discussion when you dismiss the other person. One could come to the conclusion that you assume your facts are 1, better, 2  your reasoning more sound, and 3  your opponents ignorant or stupid.

It's possible that all of our efforts to fix the economy will go to waste, and that the Democratic reliance on Keynesian economics will prove ineffectual.  There's certainly an argument to be made for that in opposition of the majority party's actions at current.  What does the political discourse no good is to take the point of view that there's disingenuous actions going on.  It reminds me of the sort of things the liberals did during the Iraq war, when they wouldn't shut up about some supposed "blood for oil" motive behind the war despite the fact that there wasn't any evidence to support such claims.  If you're not willing to give those who oppose your idea the benefit of assuming they're genuine in lieu of any idea to think otherwise, I don't see why anyone should take you seriously as you cannot possibly add anything of value to a debate by assuming unprovable motives.

I never said and have never supported the view that those who disagree should be shut up. This is a free country and those views should be free to be spoken. The same thing goes when the party in power switches. It's a free and open discussion that helps make this country great.

[Jude]

I never think people should "shut up."  I do think people should be honest about what they're basing their beliefs on.  And there's no reason to feel as cynical about things as you do.  There's not a shred of evidence that anything sinister is going on.  The only thing you come back with time and time again is that there's reason to feel "worried" about what's going on on any large scale.  I agree with you.  But there's no reason to feel corruption is going on.  That's really my only point.  Worry all you want, but when you start claiming the things you do using only public opinion polls as evidence (which proves nothing but feelings of the public) then you don't HAVE evidence.

[Zakharra]

 No. YOU don't see any reason to be cynical. I do. You trust the government and the federal goverment and apparently don't see a lot wrong with what it's doing. Many others do. We don't have the trust you do in the federal goverment.

The fact the government is in control of 2 of the 3 US automakers and is in effective control over much of the bankinh industry makes a lot of people suspicious. Especially since several politicians and the President were quoted as saying they did not want to take control of the automakers. Yet they have effective control over them.

There's a reason the public has such a low approval rating of Congress. The public doesn't trust them to do more than spend (waste) their tax money.

Public opinion is a powerful thing. Perception IS reality. Politics lives mainly off of what is percieved. Are the politicians 'Doing a Good Job?'. Are they 'Listening to the Voters?' If polls are not to be used, why do so amny politicians and both parties (especially the Democrrat) use them? Because they show what they want and can be geared(twisted) to shape public opinion. Which -does- have an affect. Thus, perception is reality in politics.

[Jude]

No. YOU don't see any reason to be cynical. I do. You trust the government and the federal goverment and apparently don't see a lot wrong with what it's doing. Many others do. We don't have the trust you do in the federal goverment.

I feel like you're glossing over what I'm saying and reading what you want out of it.  I do see wrong with some of their actions and I've said so, but there's a difference between disagreeing with what's going on and not trusting their sincerity.  You don't seem to trust their sincerity even though there's no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the explanations they've given.  Why think they're liars unless they've shown they are or could be?

The fact the government is in control of 2 of the 3 US automakers and is in effective control over much of the bankinh industry makes a lot of people suspicious. Especially since several politicians and the President were quoted as saying they did not want to take control of the automakers. Yet they have effective control over them.

I've given the reasons why they assisted the banking industry and the auto industry.  I've laid it all out in multiple posts the logic behind it.  Do I agree that this was the best course of action?  No.  But I see no reason to doubt the justification they've given as the truth.  You're looking for there to be more to the picture without any reason to.  There's absolutely no reason to think that the powers that be are doing something sinister outside of paranoia and fear of centralized authority which stems from an ideological basis.

If there is a reason, then lay it out.  Why should we not take Obama at his word?  Or anyone else for that matter?  You seem to think that the actions, which can be and have been explained, intrinsically justify concern.  You use words like "take over," which in the instance of the banking sector is completely false.  They don't have absolute control of the financial system which is also part of your criticism in their failure to prevent the AIG bonuses.  What is it?  What exactly is your point?

There's a reason the public has such a low approval rating of Congress. The public doesn't trust them to do more than spend (waste) their tax money.

Public opinion is a powerful thing. Perception IS reality. Politics lives mainly off of what is percieved. Are the politicians 'Doing a Good Job?'. Are they 'Listening to the Voters?' If polls are not to be used, why do so amny politicians and both parties (especially the Democrrat) use them? Because they show what they want and can be geared(twisted) to shape public opinion. Which -does- have an affect. Thus, perception is reality in politics.

Perception is reality?  That's really not even remotely true.  It's incredible if you actually believe that.  That would essentially make you an existential relativist, in which case there's not really a point in debating anything.

Your beliefs seem to be based on absolutely nothing but an endless train of circular logic and philosophical paranoia.  It seems to me that you're cynical and refuse to give government the benefit of the doubt.  If your default position is to doubt the intentions or motives of any in office, then you're an ideological anarchist by definition.

[Zakharra]

I feel like you're glossing over what I'm saying and reading what you want out of it.  I do see wrong with some of their actions and I've said so, but there's a difference between disagreeing with what's going on and not trusting their sincerity.  You don't seem to trust their sincerity even though there's no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the explanations they've given.  Why think they're liars unless they've shown they are or could be?

I've seen, heard and read on the scandals that they get involved in. Favors from lobbyists The fact that many people seem to change when they get into office. Once in the Congress, the plan becomes, 'How do I get reelected?"  I think of them as liars, because they have, time and again, proven themselves to be liers.

I've given the reasons why they assisted the banking industry and the auto industry.  I've laid it all out in multiple posts the logic behind it.  Do I agree that this was the best course of action?  No.  But I see no reason to doubt the justification they've given as the truth.  You're looking for there to be more to the picture without any reason to.  There's absolutely no reason to think that the powers that be are doing something sinister outside of paranoia and fear of centralized authority which stems from an ideological basis.

That's how you see it. That's not how I see it. You seem to see no cause for alarm. I do. I do not trust the federal government because it is too big. It is a bureaucracy, which is notoriously inefficient and tries to put people into broad generalizations. By it's nature, a large bureaucracy cannot look or care for everyone. It's officials become more concerned with what they control and it's not responsible to the people.

If there is a reason, then lay it out.  Why should we not take Obama at his word?  Or anyone else for that matter?  You seem to think that the actions, which can be and have been explained, intrinsically justify concern.  You use words like "take over," which in the instance of the banking sector is completely false.  They don't have absolute control of the financial system which is also part of your criticism in their failure to prevent the AIG bonuses.  What is it?  What exactly is your point?

  I don't take Obama at his word. I did not vote for him. I do not like his policies. Why should I take him at his word? He's promising to enact things I do not agree with politically.  Policies that you seem to agree with.

When they can dictate how the banks can return the money,when the banks -have- the money to return.. They have more control over the financial sector than before. And they do control 2 large US automakers. Which does make people nervous. That means they can dictate what cars those companies make. Rather than letting the market dictate what actually sells.

Perception is reality?  That's really not even remotely true.  It's incredible if you actually believe that.  That would essentially make you an existential relativist, in which case there's not really a point in debating anything.

Your beliefs seem to be based on absolutely nothing but an endless train of circular logic and philosophical paranoia.  It seems to me that you're cynical and refuse to give government the benefit of the doubt.  If your default position is to doubt the intentions or motives of any in office, then you're an ideological anarchist by definition.

  And there you go again dismissing my opinion because it's not thew same as yours.  Because I am not agreeing with you, you seem to automatically  label me as a That would essentially make you an existential relativist, in which case there's not really a point in debating anything.. Which neatly allows you to ignore and dismiss anyone's opinion you disagree with.

You should note, I do -not- dismiss yours. I do -not- toss yours aside, but I do look at them and try and see where you are coming from. Part of the issue is this is a text forum. Thus a good deal of communication is lost when body language, voice tone and manner isn't used.

I take what the elected officials say with a large grain of salt, then observe their actions. As a former President said, 'Trust, but verify', and given their past history, it has made me somewhat cynical on politicians. I judge them first and foremost on their words and actions, and am not surprised when they do tend to get caught red handed.

[Jude]

But the whole automatic doubt of politicians, even when there's no indication of guilt, is essentially the same as racism.  Judging a person based on what group they belong to in spite of their personal characteristics is unproductive and essentially takes you out of the realm of the debatable.

I did not vote for George Bush, but that doesn't mean I automatically assumed that his motives were disingenuous and that he was a liar.  You don't have to agree with someone's policies to take them at their word.  In fact, refusing to take someone at their word when you have no logical reason not to (association with a group isn't a reason unless the definition of that group necessitates the association) is really a violation of the fundamental principle that's the basis for our legal system:  innocent unless proven guilty.

You seem to use the "popularity" argument when it comes to take the public's opinion to justify your position, yet more than half of the country has confidence in Obama and you don't.  You seem to pick and choose when you want to apply the arguments you use, instead of applying them universally.

You're right though, you haven't discounted my points of view exactly, and I have made statements that indicate I don't respect yours.  The reason I don't, is because if we can't trust each other and have debate based on what people say, there's no point in debating at all.  If you're just going to assume by default that politicians aren't worthy of trust, it's game over.  What's the point in debating politics at all?

Why elect anyone, no matter who we pick they're going to abuse the power.  But lets extend that further, you can't trust corporations.  Can you even trust mayors?  What is there something special about power that it only becomes corrosive when it reaches a certain point?  I mean I've even seen heads of a family abuse the trust and power of the other members.  I guess we can't have associations with people at all.

While the above paragraph isn't meant to be taken literally (as there are a few logical errors more than likely that I won't bother to sort out) it's how cynicism works.  It rots the foundations of faith in people, which is probably why I'm so opposed to it.  What irritates me further is that the specific brand of cynicism I see applied to politics in the form of the conservative movement is applied selectively.

They claim to be afraid of government power... yet they're for a larger military, which is the true source of any government's power.  They fail to realize that companies are capable of tyranny in a pure capitalist society the same way a the government is.  Companies are also capable of being bureaucratic or inefficient as well all on their own.  Even if they're not being bureaucratic they can serve the purposes of the corporate executives in a very dangerous way (such as how the amount of money executives make now today is many more times the amount of money that executives used to make when compared to what the laborers under them do).

All arguments against government being able to succeed and against "large bureaucracy" are based on upon old data.  They are not logical, they're statistical.  And the statistics collected by history were collected in the social, economic, and technological climates the past.  They're not perfectly applicable to the future simply by the basis of isolation of variables; too much has changed.

[SakiaWarner]

I think we have all missed the point of the original post and the opinion of the Supreme Court.

This is a very unusual case in that BANKS are one of the few institutions the Federal Govt oversaw that states DIDNT have the right to meddle in.

And thats odd because almost ALL Federal Laws.. ie Fair Debt Collection, Equal Housing, Truth in Lending.. all allow that states can basically make tougher laws above and beyond what the Feds do.

California for instance has more protection for those in debt than say...Indiana. Kentucky has NO regulation of debt collectors over what the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act gives.
But when it came to Banks.. states werent allowed to investigate them.. or bring them into court to answer for wrongdoing, it had to be done through the FEDS and THAT was what NY was ticked about.

Why is it that the Feds got to control banks and they were the only ones to hold them responsible?

States set their own usury rates, they set their own Commerical Code that might differ from the Feds Universal Commercial Code but they weren't allowed to bring banks to task when the banks screwed up.

This is about giving the states the right to go after a bank when the bank screws up in THEIR STATE!!!

The whole debate got off the topic.. Banks were about the ONLY institution that states weren't allowed to touch  or investigate. Only the Feds could.

This decision now pretty much tells Banks... get your shit together because not only are you held to Federal standards... but the states can hold you accountable too.

I dont see the issue with that at all. Its a good thing... a very good thing to protect the little people out there.

[Phoenix]

The Federal Government's job was never to make laws about what the States do, it was only to keep the states operating in Constitutional Manner.

The ONLY jobs of the Fed according to the real laws of this country (not the Unconstitutional laws passed illegally) are to keep the States Constitutional, to represent the States in foreign affairs, and to mediate between the states in cases of things such as commerce.

It is NOT meant to be a lawmaking establishment, that was usurped. State laws, so long as they are Constitutional, are the highest law of any given state. The only higher law than that is the Constitution.

Because our ancestors have allowed (and even sometimes supported) greater and greater usurpation by the Fed does not mean that what they're doing is Constitutional, legal, or must be accepted henceforth.

The Fed should never have been meddling with banking laws to begin with. it's technically illegal for them to do so, except as it applies if States directly request mediation.

[Trieste]

The Federal Government's job was never to make laws about what the States do, it was only to keep the states operating in Constitutional Manner.

The ONLY jobs of the Fed according to the real laws of this country (not the Unconstitutional laws passed illegally) are to keep the States Constitutional, to represent the States in foreign affairs, and to mediate between the states in cases of things such as commerce.

It is NOT meant to be a lawmaking establishment, that was usurped. State laws, so long as they are Constitutional, are the highest law of any given state. The only higher law than that is the Constitution.

Because our ancestors have allowed (and even sometimes supported) greater and greater usurpation by the Fed does not mean that what they're doing is Constitutional, legal, or must be accepted henceforth.

The Fed should never have been meddling with banking laws to begin with. it's technically illegal for them to do so, except as it applies if States directly request mediation.

It's slightly unrealistic to expect the states to turn around and say, "No thank you, Mister Obama, we don't need all that money you're giving us for those federally funded programs. No, we'll manage to balance our budgets while trying not to raise taxes and tuition in state schools on our own, thanks!"

Just sayin', is all. We can sue in federal courts left and right - but that costs money, and time (which is more money), and effort that the states will only put forth on things locally and vitally important.

[Phoenix]

Yes, and that's how they've managed to get so totally out of control.

What's the quote? "He who would sacrifice his liberty for security deserves neither"? Something like that.

He who would sacrifice his liberty for another road deserves neither.

When will we stand up for our freedom?

[Trieste]

I believe the topic of the thread is about an instance wherein the states have stood up for their liberties, actually.

[Phoenix]

I believe the topic of the thread is about an instance wherein the states have stood up for their liberties, actually.

Yes, I was more lamenting my State's recent foolish killing of a resolution that would prevent Fed abuses on our soil. This despite overwhelming citizen support for it.

Sorry, carry on. :p

[Callie Del Noire]

Every single state in the union objected.

Every. Single. One.

It's not like there's any disunity here. This is a case of a federal deregulation being seen as disastrous by every last participant in these United States. You can make arguments for federal power, but when it goes against -everyone's- will, there is a problem.

Look at the focus of WHY. Predatory Loans.

The federal government is not doing enough to work it out. One of the main focal points of this particular issue is the existance of PREDATORY Loan companies. These are the guys to do the 'We'll cash your check an wait till payday to clear it' guys. They are the ones who help the 'Will finance E-1 and up car places' you see around military bases.

One of my old COs spoke about NINE times in front of congress about the practices that were scamming the service members I worked with and I heard him comment once that as long as they (the loaners) had lobbyists in DC that nothing tangible would change.

Some of the payday loan places pull interest rates that LOAN SHARKS would be proud of. Do you blame state regulators wanting to do something to the big companies who are nationally run?

Next time you see the commercial with Gary Coleman about the payday loan company he's fronting pay CLOSE attention to the percentages at the end of the commercial. (Yeah the ones that flash by for like 6/10ths of a second).

[Oniya]

Some of the payday loan places pull interest rates that LOAN SHARKS would be proud of. Do you blame state regulators wanting to do something to the big companies who are nationally run?

Next time you see the commercial with Gary Coleman about the payday loan company he's fronting pay CLOSE attention to the percentages at the end of the commercial. (Yeah the ones that flash by for like 6/10ths of a second).

Or simply do a couple seconds of research with Google.  (Especially since I haven't seen any commercials for these businesses for months.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payday_loan#Controversy_and_criticism

[Callie Del Noire]

Or simply do a couple seconds of research with Google.  (Especially since I haven't seen any commercials for these businesses for months.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payday_loan#Controversy_and_criticism

They tend to come in cycles I've noticed.. Blitz for a few months, lay low for a few more.. you see more between halloween and april 15th than the rest of the year it seems to me.

[Oniya]

Some states have recently passed laws limiting them, as well.  Even without the horrendous interest rates, it's a vicious circle:  You take out a payday loan to get you to your next paycheck, and then your next paycheck is needed to pay off the payday loan so you have to take out another payday loan to cover you until your next paycheck.

[consortium11]

While I'm no fan of some of the practices of payday loan companies, they do fill a hole in the market.

Especially now, most "respectable" institutions won't offer loans to the majority of people who use these payday companies because there is far too high a risk of default. Unless someone wants to offer security for the loan (which I doubt anyone would), then the way the payday companies make up for that risk is by having a high interest rate... risk/reward and all that jazz.

With too much restriction on how these companies can operate; perhaps an unreasonably low interest rate cap then they'll start taking security... and no-one wants to lose a home/car/possessions over a loan for a few hundred pounds/dollars.

On a theoretical level I prefer the pawn-shop method to the payday loan (even though both run the risk of trapping people), but it still serves a necessary purpose. If someone does need money before the next payday, what should they do instead?

[Callie Del Noire]

Thing is.. they need more regulation and limits to what they can do. And the feds aren't doing it. Those lovely men we put in congress aren't making it a priority (hey..they got GREAT advice on the subject from the lobbyists..who NEVER lie)

So the states have to do something..and now that it's creeping up into federal levels.. the feds are getting into a snit about it.

[Bayushi]

Here is the point of the matter.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That there is the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. It is one of the most important parts of the Constitution, as it is the basis for the Federal Republic that we may(or may not) currently enjoy.

Last I recall, there were no sections in the Constitution granting the Federal Government control over banks. Not one. Not a single section allowing them to gain or retain control over any private enterprise. None of those, either.

As such, the states and local municipalities/counties should RIGHTFULLY be levying regulation as they feel needed. The problem is that Congress chose to meddle in affairs it had no business in, such as the various GSO's, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress passing laws to force banks to lend unsafely was unconstitutional, as it was not within their means to do as such, by the Tenth Amendment.

CONGRESS, not Fannie/Freddie is responsible for where we are now, economically. Mayhaps not the CURRENT Congress, but certainly a number of members of Congress are partly responsible for the meddling that brought the economic collapse upon us(Such as Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd).

As for government running private enterprises, well... I cannot, and do not, believe that they can achieve the success that would be possible if these enterprises were being operated privately. Government can set and change the rules/regulations/laws to be more beneficial to themselves; but that again is improper meddling.

Problem in the end is: Government(Especially the American Federal Government) is NOT known for expediency or accountability(laughter ensues) with anything. Why? THEY'RE THE GOVERNMENT.

Layers and layers upon LAYERS of bureaucracy is the problem here. The ONLY part of the government that operates with any alacrity within their bureaucracy is the Military. That is because the Military actually has oversight and accountability(not to mention discipline). The rest is so steeped in laziness and sloth that people are often being paid to do nothing(See Social Security Administration). I have PERSONAL experience in dealing with moronic bureaucratic processing, particularly with Social Security. I had to wait FIFTY-THREE MONTHS(four years and five months) just for Social Security to finally have experts look at my medical information and say, "Yeah, you're disabled!" And I had to HIRE A LAWYER to get it done THAT "fast". And have my Congresswoman fax and call them and have some words for them on my behalf.

Yeah... I think I have good reason to have so little faith in the federal bureaucracy.

[Callie Del Noire]

Layers and layers upon LAYERS of bureaucracy is the problem here. The ONLY part of the government that operates with any alacrity within their bureaucracy is the Military. That is because the Military actually has oversight and accountability(not to mention discipline).

Eeeehhhhh.... speaking as a medically disabled vet, I'm not so sure about that statement. It took them 3 years to decide I was to biochemically fucked up to not be allowed to serve AND merit a medical retirement. I've seen guys who were literally one bad episod from a wheelchair get kicked out with basically severance and a 'see ya, don't let the door hit ya on the way out'.

Ironically, I've heard that it's getting even harder now that the Democrats have oversight to get disability. (Which struck me as strange.. but from the looks of it, it's a cyclic thing.. ). Of course the last year EVERYONE in the process has been twitchy when you meantion the words 'Senator' and 'Congressman'.

[Bayushi]

Ironically, I've heard that it's getting even harder now that the Democrats have oversight to get disability. (Which struck me as strange.. but from the looks of it, it's a cyclic thing.. ). Of course the last year EVERYONE in the process has been twitchy when you meantion the words 'Senator' and 'Congressman'.

See, that was thing about my Congresswoman. She was really big on helping people out with Social Security, apparently having had a family member deal with their BS. Mentioning her name usually had the Social Security person I was haranguing crapping their pants and transferring me to a supervisor.

Lawyer told me that it was good to have gotten her involved.

As for the military... well... not EVERYTHING moves with swiftness and alacrity all the time. Procurement tends to be pretty nasty... but much of that has to do with congressional meddling/mandates/regulations.

As for people getting booted when they're doing horribly... well, I can't attest to that as I've not seen it myself. Remember that a lot of military bureaucracy is still loaded to the gills with civilians(accountants, etc). Not to mention yet more congressional meddling.

Point is, in the grand scheme of things, the only part of government that DOES move with any kind of alacrity is the Military. For instance, we have forces on constant standby for potential worldwide crises, such as the 82nd Airborne and our Special Operations folks.

For Example:
If there were a sudden need to deploy soldiers to, say, North Korea; the 82nd Air would be there sometime this night(typing this at 1840 local time).

If we had a sudden emergency need to deploy federal bureaucrats four miles from said bureaucrats homes, expect their arrival sometime next month.

[Callie Del Noire]

Wouldn't do me much good. Given the State Rep in the senate KNOWS my family name all too well (Big Brother was supporter of the non-unelected incumbent not to mention a candidate for Govenor. :( )

I found if you didn't FIGHT and stay on it..they'd kick you out with the mimium. Seriously I mean.. kicking a guy out with nerve damage without any ability to work at all. For a while after the first of the year, I thought it was getting to the point where you'd lose a limb to get medically retired.