In summary (at least what the above sounds like to me)... You aren't really in favor of things like a Constitution or pre-determined set of governing rules. You prefer to elect a leader / president that you HOPE will act how you want them to on individual issues. Including changing agreements and rules after the fact and as they see fit. Interesting position to hold. Sounds like an authoritarian government to me.
There's a lot to talk about in this post, but I'll focus on this one. You're ok that Obama's "overstepping his authority" (and to be fair to the President, I believe many more politicians than he are doing a far worse "overstepping" job) when it comes to cash money, but not ok that Bush "overstepped his authority" to keep people from being killed by terrorists (Afghanistan), weapons of mass destruction (Iraq), genocide (Africa) , or just plain aggressor behavior (Russia/Georgia)? Or that's he's an "International Bully" b/c he wanted to put ANTI-Ballistic Missile measures right next to the one country in the world that still has a marked ICBM capability? Do you not see the Russian posturing over the last 9 months as "bullying" behavior, or is it just that since it's not Bush doing it you're cool with it?
Thanks for focusing on one . . . much easier to respond: My knowledge on foreign affiars is minimal. I think Bush was an international bully because of the way he handled the Iraq war. That war, IMO, has changed the politcal climate and social attitude of the US on a global scale. I guess I adopted the term bully that was used by someone because that was how I (and I think a large part of the world) saw Bush's reaction to 911. So all the rest of that Brian, I'm not ignoring . . . I just don't know. I hope Obama does not come off as a bully and repairs the damage I think Bush has caused in the foreign affairs areana. But foreign affairs is not Obama's strong point . . . and really right now I'm more concerned about the US and global economy than foreign affairs.
Whatever . . . however you want to label it. I try to explain my thought process and admits my faults in that thought process. More accurate summary of my position (in case you were trying to be serious and not mocking): I do believe in the constitution and a set of rules to be governed by. There are times and circumstances when those rules need to be stretched and tested and new rules made, within the framework of the constitution, for the good of the country. If what the gov't is trying to do is unconstitutional in the eyes of the people that make that decision, then no, the gov't should not be allowed to do it. But if what they are doing is aggressive and within the rules (like Tom Penn) then they should do it in this situation. And yes, when I vote for a leader, it is primarily based on whether I trust their judgement. And that includes using his judgement on when to be aggressive and changing rules and agreements that he can legally change for the good of the US.
You're in favor of scrapping a system of contracts and a consistent application of law over a couple of hundred million dollars? Really? Ed O.
This is a smokescreen, IMO. To distract us from the ~$10T in debt congress is going to add over the next 10 years. $200M is chump change in comparison.
This applies in no way to the subject at hand, where no crime has been alleged and no punishment is being meted. It's a simple tax on traitors who continue to find loopholes rather than help undue the damage they have already done to their country.
It's clear nobody has done anything LEGAL to deserve these payoffs, so if any of them are decent people then of course they would refuse to take it. Bu then, we've already established there are no decent people on Wall Street.
When the "business" is a con game stealing from Americans and bankrupting our society I'd rather my government imprisoned them for life as they would with any other terrorist.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20339.html “I mean there were a whole bunch of folks who, on paper, if you looked at quarterly reports, were wildly successful, selling derivatives that turned out to be. . .completely worthless,” Obama says, with a chuckle. “Gosh, I don't think it's me being anti-Wall Street just to point out that the best and the brightest— didn't do too well on that front, and that— you know, maybe the incentive structures that have been set up— have not produced the kinds of long term growth that— that I think everybody's looking for.” He also said he doesn’t think Wall Street has gotten his message yet, and that he must do a better job conveying it to them: “One of the things that I have to do is to communicate to Wall Street that, given the current crisis that we're in, they can't expect help from taxpayers but they enjoy all the benefits that they enjoyed before the crisis happened,” Obama said. “You get a sense that, in some institutions that has not sunk in. That you can't go back to the old way of doing business, certainly not on the taxpayers' dime.” Yet he stops short of endorsing legislation moving through Congress to tax nearly all the bonuses of executives at AIG — and clearly signaled his desire for changes in the legislation. He says it’s important not to “govern out of anger.” And asked if the measure was constitutional, the former law professor said: “Well, I think that— as a general proposition, you don't want to be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals…And as a general proposition, I think you certainly don't want to use the tax code—is to punish people.”
good for obama if he goes through.... http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jUtOqjn-Gmqh0fIoTp_GZIOAVVEwD973C63G0
So your argument is "it's ok because Bush did it?" I think people need to open their eyes to what's going on. The current administration is spending $trillions upon $trillions. It's taxpayers' money. Where's it going? Have you seen $.01 in tax cuts promised? Has any one of us seen $.01 of emergency stimulus $840B money? People who whined about a few $billion going to Halliburton seem awfully quiet when there's $trillions going to Obama's contributors, to big financial institutions like those in Biden's home state, and especially to friends and family of the Goldman Sachs types who are supposed to be watching the nation's finances now. You know, the people who are going to end up owning lots of real estate bought at an 80% discount (or more) with that discount being footed by we the taxpayer.
now people are taking bus' to AIG execs houses. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090322/D97322A80.html I wonder if they were banging on their iron gates with their coffee mugs?
BP reports in the stickied thread here that he has seen his taxes cut. Were any of us supposed to see it individually? barfo
Seen any shovel-ready projects going on near you? I don't mean the road to nowhere in Sen. Byrd's home state of W Va, either.
Good news: NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Monday that 15 employees who received some of the largest bonuses from American International Group Inc. have agreed to return the money in full. The commitments amount to more than $30 million of the $165 million in bonuses awarded earlier this month by the troubled insurer. Cuomo said he still hopes that more AIG employees will return their bonuses. He expects his office will be able to recoup about $80 million of the money the insurer paid out — roughly the amount of bonuses paid to American employees.
Well, yes, I believe the local paper had a story on a road project that would be funded with stimulus money and was set to start soon. And no, I'm not in W. Va. barfo
Haven't been involved in this convo at all, but I have seen infrastructure projects, funded by the economic stimulus bill, near my home as well.
