Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
So Dave, are you part of the 19%?
The UAW is alresdy pissing and moaning that they'll shoulder the burden. Those guys are just like you Dave, Bitch about being hung with a new rope.
He can void 'the will of the Congress' with the stroke of a pen.
He also can attack other countries with the military without Congressional approval.
Approving a few $billion in loans to the automakers is small potatoes ......
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
Why have Congress at all?
The bogey man of "socialism" has been bandied about so much by the freemarketeers & the Republicans until it has lost any semblance of reality & become just another scare tactic to defend the party line & continue the flow of taxpayer monies to the rich. They don't seem to mind it so much when it is used, as with the bailout of the banks, to save their own asses but when it comes to bailing out the workers who actually produce something it's a different story.
This is not paean to socialism or to organized labor but rather a plea for a return to regulation & oversight that has been lost to the advocacy of "free market principals" & unfettered greed by those who exploited it.
I'm starting to wonder about most government positions. They all kind of run together, shrouded by lies, deciept, theft, and over spending other peoples money.
Those checks and balances are being "porked" away. If we had actual public servants, rather than lifelong politicians there would be much less of what we see today.
By the way, I don't like giving the auto industry the $17B anymore than you Dave.
Because I can assure you, the people who actually own, work and pay for things, have a different view than the ones sucking off the system.
If his only power was to take action only on bills approved by Congress, the Pres would be reduced to little more than a rubber stamp.
And throwing out Friedman??
I'll agree Friedman's theories were all wrong based on the last year of economic activity - just as soon as you agree that regulation was all wrong based on the economy of the '70's.
I have no problem with regulation - as long as it's not just a cover for taxation.
In my view, regulation can only be effective when there's an independent authority administering it. But wealth and power control the government, so effective regulation is hard to come by.
I think there was a combination of factors that brought on the current conditions, but it's not possible to know for sure until we can look back 10 years on this period.
When you speak of the greater good, don't forget that welfare and poverty didn't end under the Great Society programs either. Whatever the shortcomings of any economic theory, it's hard to declare them a success or a failure when all aspects of the theory don't exist in the real economy. I don't argue against all regulation, but I also know the dangers of over regulation on the economy as a whole and on the middle class too.
Again - if there's a way to tax the rich and redistribute wealth to others without stifling growth and productivity and chasing capital away, maybe Obama will find it. If he finds a way to do that he'll fulfill the old adage about a chicken in every pot and we'll all repeal the 2-term restriction by acclaimation...
None of those actions are 'free market' in any form.
In an excessive regulatory environment, Friedman would predict a stifling of growth and a reduction in productivity - which played out exactly that way during the '70's.
You can be against free market theory - but are you suggesting a return to the alternative?
Pit Row
Right or wrong, someone has to make a decision.
That's not a failure of free markets. That's a failure of character and values. Any system is corruptible by people who refuse to recognize everyone else's equal right to have what they have and try to take advantage by tilting the game their own way. Corruption plays no ideological favorites and will bring down any society. Free democracies are more fortified, but not immune, against subversion because a corrupted power-elite are less able to insulate themselves from the will of the masses. But, if the masses get lazy and disinterested, they'll get it up the ass, too.
The thing that brought down the USSR was corruption of the 'to each...from each' ideal. The fatal flaw in that is that it requires an all-powerful controlling mechanism to execute. And the mechanism is not a machine. It's weak, influencible, corruptible human beings. And since - by ideology - they control everything, the whole thing is doomed to collapse under the weight of their own human flaws.
The President should and must have power to make certain decision without Congressional approval, just as Congress has the right to do things without the President's approval. If Congress had to approve everything a President did, Congress would have full authority over both the legislative and executive power of governmant, which would eliminate the concept of checks and balances of the three branches of government that the Constitution sets up.
I think that pretty much explains it whether you like the final answer or not.
That is checks and balances and is the sharing of power between the legislative and executive branch.
Show me ANYTHING in the Constitution stating the POTUS can just do as he pleases even after Congress says "No"
Show me where the Constitution gives sole dictatorial powers to make law to the POTUS
Beautiful, actually
There's seperation of power between the legislative and the executive branch. Your argument is that a President can only act to approve or veto a law passed by Congress, which is wrong on its face. The President can attack another country, supply arms and money to allies and direct foreign policy through his appointed cabinet members without a law being passed. If you think those powers make him a dictator then you need a refresher course on American government.
In this case a law failed to pass and you seem to be saying the failure of passage is the same as passing a law prohibiting the purpose of the failed law. That's not the case. If Congress passed a law that said auto companies are illegal - then you'd be right. But they didn't do that so you're wrong. They simply could not get the votes to pass a law that would have done what Bush did.
And you're also wrong in asserting that Bush assumed dictatorial powers by approving these loans. If Congress chose to they could vote to suspend the TARP program, which would prevent these loans from being made. So the checks and balances are still in place, you're just not looking for them it seems.
Post a reply to: WTF?