Tenth Amendment Movement Aims to Give Power Back to the States

[mawilson 2,133]

Well as I said I don't see the slippery slope argument here - and I'm skeptical of the sudden opposition to all things Federal (which I think has more to do with the influence of the media talking heads in concert with some politicians playing off of local concerns).

Not sudden. I've been arguing against all things Federal for many years, for example here and here.

[GaryC 7]

1. I don't agree with the term "nationalization". I don't believe that is what is actually occurring here. Though I appreciate that this is just word games and semantics.... and others feel differently.

2. I don't think it's in any way comparable to Chavez and Venezuela. That analogy is utterly false on so many levels.

3. I do believe that all of the actions initiated in recent months as part of TARP or TALF or the bailouts before TARP was enacted (Bear Sterns, AIG at the beginning, Fannie/Freddie at the beginning) are constitutional. They can be hotly contested, debatable, advisable or not ..... but they are not Constitutional abuses. Get real here.

4. "Government owned" is not necessarily "Government run". I'm an owner through stock ownership and mutual funds of many American companies - I don't run them.

Ron, it certainly looks like these companies are "government run". The government is setting salaries, demanding restructuring, demanding altered business models, in regard to banks telling them to loan more money and installing new management. I don't see how it is utterly false on so many levels that this is the same as Chavez. The end result is the very same. The government owns the business. I think I am very real when I raise constitutional issues with this. You may choose to ignore these facts and accept them but a very large number of people do not.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't believe that this is what is occurring in the US in the current crisis. I believe that our government (under Bush and Obama) has reluctantly stepped in as a buyer of last resort to prevent a collapse that would be far worse than standing by. They have no interest in running these concerns, no ideology about interfering in the marketplace. On the contrary - I believe that they want to divest these assets just as soon as they possibly can.

I don't see reluctance, I see eagerness and excitement.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well as I said I don't see the slippery slope argument here - and I'm skeptical of the sudden opposition to all things Federal (which I think has more to do with the influence of the media talking heads in concert with some politicians playing off of local concerns).

Not sudden. I've been arguing against all things Federal for many years, for example here and here.

You might - I'm talking about the tea party stuff that's kicked off in the last 2-3 months.

[GaryC 7]

I don't believe that this is what is occurring in the US in the current crisis. I believe that our government (under Bush and Obama) has reluctantly stepped in as a buyer of last resort to prevent a collapse that would be far worse than standing by. They have no interest in running these concerns, no ideology about interfering in the marketplace. On the contrary - I believe that they want to divest these assets just as soon as they possibly can.

Then why won't the government let some of the banks pay back the TARP money? Several banks want to so they are no longer restricted by the new rules. Instead the government is saying they must wait so the remaining banks don't look weak.

[GaryC 7]

Well as I said I don't see the slippery slope argument here - and I'm skeptical of the sudden opposition to all things Federal (which I think has more to do with the influence of the media talking heads in concert with some politicians playing off of local concerns).

Not sudden. I've been arguing against all things Federal for many years, for example here and here.

You might - I'm talking about the tea party stuff that's kicked off in the last 2-3 months.

It took the in your face takeovers to wake them up. When it was a small fire in the back room they ignored it. Now its a 5 alarm fire and they are wide awake. It's true ignoring it for so many years was wrong but sounding the alarm now isn't wrong, just late.

[natty bumppo 297]

Whoohooo...time to bring back the Articles of the Confederation.

Um ... the Articles of Confederation were written about 85 years before this photo ....

No sh!t...really? Do you know why the South called themselves Confederates?

Um ... I live in a former CSA state ... prior to moving to this state I lived in another former CSA state. I've studied this era and have visited quite a few locations in reference to both time periods.

maybe your description should have stated Articles within the Confederate Constitution (CSA) ... not Articles of the Confederation (USA)

As to why they called themselves "Confederates" ... what a bunch of like minded people/ States who wanted greater power to the States and not the central Gov't.

[scandal 951]

I don't believe that this is what is occurring in the US in the current crisis. I believe that our government (under Bush and Obama) has reluctantly stepped in as a buyer of last resort to prevent a collapse that would be far worse than standing by. They have no interest in running these concerns, no ideology about interfering in the marketplace. On the contrary - I believe that they want to divest these assets just as soon as they possibly can.

Then why won't the government let some of the banks pay back the TARP money? Several banks want to so they are no longer restricted by the new rules. Instead the government is saying they must wait so the remaining banks don't look weak.

I agree with you on this Gary. I think things have stabilized enough in the past few months that we should be moving out of crisis mode, and back into normal operations. Part of that should be letting those who want out of TARP get out. There might be some negative repercussions, but the benefit of the government demonstrating clearly that they want the free market to reign will be very valuable. (The symbolism of getting out of Gitmo to getting out of TARP is not lost here... nor is either move purely symbolic)

[GaryC 7]

I don't believe that this is what is occurring in the US in the current crisis. I believe that our government (under Bush and Obama) has reluctantly stepped in as a buyer of last resort to prevent a collapse that would be far worse than standing by. They have no interest in running these concerns, no ideology about interfering in the marketplace. On the contrary - I believe that they want to divest these assets just as soon as they possibly can.

Then why won't the government let some of the banks pay back the TARP money? Several banks want to so they are no longer restricted by the new rules. Instead the government is saying they must wait so the remaining banks don't look weak.

I agree with you on this Gary. I think things have stabilized enough in the past few months that we should be moving out of crisis mode, and back into normal operations. Part of that should be letting those who want out of TARP get out. There might be some negative repercussions, but the benefit of the government demonstrating clearly that they want the free market to reign will be very valuable. (The symbolism of getting out of Gitmo to getting out of TARP is not lost here... nor is either move purely symbolic)

Hence my fear. My distrust of the federal government is only strengthened by this. It does seem that they intend to make this takeover a permanent one. To me it seems less about fixing the crisis and more about control.

[mawilson 2,133]

I agree with you on this Gary. I think things have stabilized enough in the past few months that we should be moving out of crisis mode, and back into normal operations. Part of that should be letting those who want out of TARP get out. There might be some negative repercussions, but the benefit of the government demonstrating clearly that they want the free market to reign will be very valuable. (The symbolism of getting out of Gitmo to getting out of TARP is not lost here... nor is either move purely symbolic)

No they haven't

Seriously, does anyone believe the results of the so-called "stress tests"?

All the banks were insolvent just a couple of months ago to the point of needing a bailout;

these guys blew a $10 trillion hole in the economy and now they are telling us that it's easily

fixed with $75 billion?

Come on now.

[Danno 1,228]

As I clearly stated, you are near and dear to me as a fellow VJ'r, I was not accusing you of racism. A good deal of the furor from the Right has racial overtones, I am not ashamed to call a spade a spade.

Ready, have you been to a tea party? I have and I saw nothing which could possibly suggest racism.

I'm gonna have to call you on that and ask you to give specifics on where you get the Racist angle from.

In fact, Obama is not the target or at least not the main target, it seemed people where just as wound up about local gov as they were the fed..... of course that part would not make national sound-bits so you might have a misconception.

The only people I have seen who are hung-up on Obama being Black is, the very people who won't stop talking about how "race doesn't matter"....

The rest of us are much more interested in what he does.

[scandal 951]

I agree with you on this Gary. I think things have stabilized enough in the past few months that we should be moving out of crisis mode, and back into normal operations. Part of that should be letting those who want out of TARP get out. There might be some negative repercussions, but the benefit of the government demonstrating clearly that they want the free market to reign will be very valuable. (The symbolism of getting out of Gitmo to getting out of TARP is not lost here... nor is either move purely symbolic)

No they haven't

Seriously, does anyone believe the results of the so-called "stress tests"?

All the banks were insolvent just a couple of months ago to the point of needing a bailout;

these guys blew a $10 trillion hole in the economy and now they are telling us that it's easily

fixed with $75 billion?

Come on now.

a. It's not 75 billion - TARP alone was 700 billion. Total bailouts/stimulus spending to date has easily exceeded a trillion, I believe even 2.

b. I didn't say everything is fixed. I said things have stabilized enough .. to move out of crisis mode. To use an ER analogy, the patient is no longer in imminent danger of dying. But he's still in intensive care and hooked up to the respirator.

BTW - TALF is taking flight. There are new auctions monthly of syndicated auto loans and student debt being offered to funds and private equity firms, which are snapping them up as cakewalk investments- high reward/low risk thanks to government guarantees. My firm (unnamed, of course) is actively participating. We like what we see.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As to why they called themselves "Confederates" ... what a bunch of like minded people/ States who wanted greater power to the States and not the central Gov't.

So you believe that would be a better system than having a Federal Government?

[mawilson 2,133]

a. It's not 75 billion - TARP alone was 700 billion. Total bailouts/stimulus spending to date has easily exceeded a trillion, I believe even 2.

b. I didn't say everything is fixed. I said things have stabilized enough .. to move out of crisis mode. To use an ER analogy, the patient is no longer in imminent danger of dying. But he's still in intensive care and hooked up to the respirator.

When you're levered up 30:1, it only takes a 5% decline in asset prices to wipe you out.

(The numbers have changed since I posted this, but you get the idea.)

According to the latest figures from S&P/Case-Shiller, US house prices are still in free fall.

If the trend continues for even another month or two, the banks are not going to survive.

[natty bumppo 297]

As to why they called themselves "Confederates" ... what a bunch of like minded people/ States who wanted greater power to the States and not the central Gov't.

So you believe that would be a better system than having a Federal Government?

nice deflection ... and attempted projection