Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: 32 Words That None Dare Utter

reply to post by pluckynoonez


And in the military, Section 8 is the type of discharge you get when you're NUTS!!!!! Which is what this is, NUTS!!!!! No oversight??? You've got to be frakkin' kidding me!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by b4christ15

Originally posted by SectionEight
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

Politicians hands have always been greased from time immemorial. Nothing new under the sun here.

Can people stop using this excuse to try and justify what is going on here. I'm sick of the whole " nothing new here, this is how it's always been" talk being shoved down my throat. It is unconstitutional, immoral, and a scam.

My view exactly. It has been going on from time immorial & it's about time it was stopped: Old World Order ruled by the self-selected Elite has been with human societies for more than long enough. The foundation of the Constitutional Republic of America was the first-of-its-kind attempt in history to change that by putting the People in charge, but with the only limitation being that Human Rights (via the Bill of Rights) are not to be violated...Not by the government, not by other nations & not by other people either. In essence, the Constitutional Republic of America was the real NWO but the Old World Order corrupted it away from its original path...And the only way real enforcement mechanism for the Constitutional Republic is the People themselves.

Originally posted by ACEMANN
Oh MAN ! This is exactly what has been speculated...this bill was sitting in a drawer somewhere collecting dust until the time was right. I can't believe that GW is putting "extraordinary pressure" on Congress when this bill had already been drafted.

Ummm...Not to wax historic, but the Patriot Act (& numerous other pro-tyranny "legislation") was also just "sitting around waiting for the right time" too. Congress has grown too dependent on letting non-Oath-bound hirelings draft Bills for them to vote on for too long...Congress is allowed to take advice from experts, certainly, because it's impossible to assume that every elected Official be well-versed in every potential contingency: However, they should be the actual writers of any proposed legislation even if it means gathering research from non-aligned sources.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...It's been this way for far too long & we need to make real change (contrary to what Obama's "real change"), if "elected," he'll just going to stay on the same path anyway) if humanity is going to evolve socially as well as technologically.

It's become more than obvious by now that our "elected" body of Government Officers don't care what the People think or say...Even in violation of their Oaths of Office to do so. When taxpayers say "Not on MY tab," in such high percentages & the Government continues on its path to tyranny at break-neck speeds, the serious question at the root of it all is "When are the People going to stop it?"

[edit on 24-9-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by SectionEight
It's a necessary evil or else the free market would instantly be politicized and made inoperable.

Excuse my French, but bull #. This plan with this wording is NOT necessary, but it is evil.

First of all, if it was a free market, we would not be intervening. It hasnt been a free market, oh well, ever. The "invisible hand" would be doing the correcting, now wouldnt it? Does anyone actually read Adam Smith for comprehension? Or do they just mouth the words thinking they sound smart?

Secondly, I would rather lose my material assets in the short run that lose my country. I can rebuild if I have to. We can figure something out, make do, help one another. But we cannot give that kind of power and money to someone without any oversight, or review in a court. They arent asking for the power to make quick decisions. They are asking for the right to not be called to task for their decisions, no matter what that may include. I am sick to death of this whole "you cant prosecute us for war crimes" "you cant prosecute us for stealing trillions of dollars" crap. Why have a Judicial branch if it isnt allowed to work?

We can rebuild individually, but if we allow our government to hand over control of our economy, and undermine our Constitution any more than they already have, we are in danger of losing something much more precious than money. Our country. People died for this country. People continue to die for this country. I am not so cowardly that I am going to stand by and let weasels give it away because I am afraid I might have to tighten my belt, get a second job, and eat rice and beans for a couple years. Whatever it takes, it is worth it not to lose America.

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by SectionEight
It's a necessary evil or else the free market would instantly be politicized and made inoperable.

Uh, the "free market" is dead, my friend. It died the day the fed decided to bailout Bear Sterns & the sweater started unraveling. This bill is merely the final nail in the coffin of free market capitalism. As for it being "politicized" that ship sailed many, many years ago when big business was given a pass on any of their miss-deeds after greasing the right palms inside the Beltway.

Bear Stearns wasn't "bailed out," The Fed found them a buyer, remember? JP Morgan? The Treasury bailed out Fannie and Freddie, though they were initially government entities. They bailed out AIG, they let Lehman fail, and they did all of this to stop a systematic failure. Allowing the market to be free would have resulted in "hoovervilles" that make the "tent cities" look like a camping trip. I don't agree with all of the bailouts but I know what the Treasury is trying to do, which is to prevent systemic failure that would make your ability to make posts impossible, because you likely wouldn't be able to pay for your internet.

THE free market is dead... THERE is no truth in it anymore. It is bankrupt in every possible way imaginable. Trickle down is dead 2.

THE GOP philosophy is circling the drain... ITS about time!

I hope no-one will object to a non-American making some comments on this $700 billion rescue/bailout of these large financial institutions. The fact is that at the present time, at least, what happens within the US economy has repercussions for other economies world-wide. True, this has not always been the case; there was an era when the former British Empire’s dealings had similar effects, but those times have now gone into history and the US has taken that position. I for one would not like to see the US fade into history as a former economic power in that way that Britain and the other powers before it did. The potential for human suffering in the event of a global economic collapse are horrendous to contemplate.

So much for the intro. While it seems that something needs to be done to stabilize the markets and re-inject some level of confidence into them, what I am wondering about is the legality of this whole deal. I’m not a lawyer so what follows may well be a massive misinterpretation of things on my part, but all the same here is the way I see it.

Reading my copy of the US Constitution, I see that Article 1, section 8, par. 1 begins:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

(Bolding is my own.) [You can read/download a transcript of the US Constitution at the NARA website.]

I read the bolded section to mean that Congress has the power to pay the debts incurred by the USA as a nation and by direct inference, debts incurred by individuals or legal entities resulting from their actions which directly serve the nation. I do not, however, see anything in this par or elsewhere in the US Constitution that says the Congress has the power to pay the debts incurred by private individuals or private legal entities -- that is, debts those individuals or entities that have incurred not in the course of providing service to the USA and its people, but debts arising simply a result of their own trading or other affairs. And seeing as the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land (viz Article VI par. 2), then even if a law is passed through Congress that empowers the US to pay the debts incurred by these corporations then it doesn’t make this bailout/rescue constitutional. Does it?

I don’t know for sure so I’m asking you who are of the US and likely know and understand your Constitution a lot better than I do. I repeat, these corporations that have lost billions were not acting in the service of the US, but were simply trying to make a profit for themselves and/or their shareholders and hence did not incur their billions in debt while in the service of the nation.

Irrespective of whether the PTB think that the bailout/rescue is necessary to prevent a slide into a possible economic collapse, I don’t see how that belief -- valid or not -- has any bearing on the matter. Either the Congress has the power to pay the debts of private individuals/legal entities or it doesn’t, and my reading of it is that the supreme law says it doesn’t.

It also says, in Article VI par 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

I take that to mean that US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is also required to support the US Constitution? I repeat (ad nauseum ) that I may be wrong -- but if the Congress is not empowered to pay debts of private individuals/legal entities as I've outlined, then Paulson should not be pushing for this piece of legislation, as he is an executive officer. Would that be right?

According to this Bloomberg article, the Paulson debt plan "may mostly" be of benefit to Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Paulson was formerly Chairman and CEO of Goldman's. Is this fact of any consequence in his desire for Congress to put through his "rescue" plan?

If I'm wrong on all this could someone let us know under what part of the US Constitution the Congress does have the right to “bail out” or “rescue” corporations that have incurred debts? Yes, I am aware of the S&L disaster and the way that was handled. However, just because a similar approach has been adopted before it doesn’t necessarily mean that this latest is legal or even that the previous was either.

Regards,

Mike
EDITED to add par and link about Bloomberg article.

[edit on 24/9/08 by JustMike]

[edit on 24-9-2008 by mental modulator]

Just trying to imagine what else this $700billion (or $2000 for every person in America) could be spent on if the US Government had priorities which were in favour of the people, not the wealth of the elite. Money has lost its value to them. How many problems could be solved instead of a bail-out?

...then again, the same could be said of the money spent waging the Iraq war. It's all madness. Daylight robbery!

There is only two options presented to the masses - either the taxpayer slaves pay up for the excesses of the banks and failure of the FED and SEC or every stockmarket and economy in the world will collapse! It's like a form of blackmail, but there are better options.
The current problem is that the banks will not lend to each other due to a lack of trust that the lender may not get the money back due to the potential insolvency of the other party. Why don't they simply close the banks for a short while and send independent assessors in to determine which banks are solvent and which are not.
Those which prove to be solvent are then allowed to re-open and those which are not must be closed. End of story

JustMike;

I probably don't have to say it, as it is generally implied all around by most of the ATS community; not only do we welcome your comments and inquiries, but we encourage you to join in.

In the olden days, when the world was still full of unknowns and people did their best to cooperatively overcome the trials of survival, leaders enamored of their power and notoriety feared the gathering of masses, as it led to the potential for the common people to 'think' for themselves, thus diluting the leaderships' authority. This venue is analogous to that 'gathering'; in the case of input from everyone - more IS better.

Our Constitution is clearly, and explicitly, the thorn in the side of any would-be fascists and corporate regime promoters. They will undertake any plan to marginalize it, or render it into nothing more than (you guessed it) "A God-damned piece of paper!" as one of our more recent 'oath-taker' declared it to be.

However, the Constitution will persist. It is the nature of the living document that represents our blueprint to eliminate tyranny, fascism, and the tendencies of the self-deluded elite to claim unilateral authority to implement policy.

The are foolishly trying to change the American dream through imagery and manipulation, but for all their foundations, think-tanks, self-promoting 'faux-statesmanship', and elite self-worship, they fail to see the folly of their conspiracy. I call it conspiracy because that is technically what this represented. A conspiratorial plot to further the consolidation of wealth and power to the elites that control access to the tools of government. Their fear and racketeering mindset is evidenced by the need to proclaim "no oversight", "no redress", "no tolerance for 'outrageous' conspiracy theories", "executive privilege" and all the other tools that make being a citizen more akin to being a serf.

The good will of the citizens of the world is an essential component to our global power to eradicate these parasites in the governments of the world. The parasites will fail. What they want to accomplish is against human nature and the concept of human freedom.

Nineteen;

Why don't they simply close the banks for a short while and send independent assessors in to determine which banks are solvent and which are not.

Because the nature of the Central Bank System imposed on this (and most other) nation states is such that each Bank is a sovereign entity, not subject to the common laws, but only to those the Fed and others under the dictatorship agree to.

No one has EVER executed and reported publicly on an audit of the Federal Reserve and the government will not EVEN ENTERTAIN THE MOTION to do so. The Fed, in a very real sense controls this country by arbitrary production of currency (inflating and deflating value of the dollar for their benefit and the benefit of their 'stock holders') and similarly, arbitrarily assigning a 'credit rate' as it suits their owners needs. - All of this is done without input or control from the people, who are STATUTORILY barred from oversight and challenge inthe matter.

Eventually, one or two (or more) states will begin to teach actual history in this countries school curriculum and people will be exposed to the truth of the Federal Reserve Systems and the financial purpose it serves.... hint: it's not about the people.

Homework: How many people do you know who think that the Bank actually loans money it has on deposit? How many people know what 'Fractional reserve lending" is. And how many do you think are aware that the IRS is an illusion, in actuality it is a collection agency for the Fed; nothing more.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Thing is and it is a good thing is that clause is the one members in congress are objecting to the most.

I really wish people would drop the "think of all the better ways the government could spend that $700 Bil!" talk. IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY TO SPEND, FURTHERMORE, THEY DO NOT HAVE $700 BIL, WHICH IS WHY IT WILL INCREASE THE DEFICIT! If we were sitting on a $700 Billion surplus, then fine... talk all you want about better ways to spend said money (though it still isn't the government's money and any surplus should be immediately returned to the tax payer)... but considering this is basically the govrnment forging our and our children's names on an I.O.U. note, it's truly ridiculous.

I fear we only have 6 days to come up with a workable financial plan before the entire market crashes.

reply to post by Skydancer


Let it crash... the greedy bastards brought it on themselves, let them pay for it.

32 words that had dared to be uttered.

"There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."

*Albert Einstein

I was watching the panel being interrogated and was facinated by the whole process. I was watching on MSNBC intently when Senator DODD started on Bernake... "on Section 8..."

Then MSNBC went to commericial!!!!!! WTF!

i find this commericial break very timely. On top of this there is no mention of this paragraph by anyone on the news programs.. None! This section 8 is Deep Throat looking right at us! but no discussion about it anyhere!....

It is amazing how all through the election ron paul and his people couldn't get any air time on all the news media, but as soon as this comes up everybody and there brother is trying to get his on there network. I guess that all them people must have been paying attention to what us Ron Pual supporters were saying all along.
We were warned more than one time about what was to happen when these people run rogue doing what they will with other peoples money.
CAN ANYONE SAT "Text RedENRONText White"

Originally posted by SectionEight
It's a necessary evil or else the free market would instantly be politicized and made inoperable. The secretary would only be able to act if everyone agreed and that never happens in Washington.
The Administration always holds the upper hand as the President could fire the Secretary, Congress can also presure the President to fire the Secretary. If the Congress finds the Secretary to act so poorly, they could impeach the President. There is ultimate accountabillity in place, they just cannot interfere with the nuts and bolts of the job position which is good.

You will just drink any administration kool-aid wont you? This is a fascist coup, and they are doing it by blackmailing tax payers and congress with a depression. The same people responsible for fixing the problems are the same ones responsible for creating them.. What does that tell you? EVIL is NOT EVER necessary. This is the United States of America. Not Nazi Germany. I'm an avid reader of history, and this is Germany 1935.

I love debating with you because you always give me a run for the money..But please read history on this one. they are ROBBING YOU. And you're apologzing for it.

Like many of you, I dislike the wording of the proposed statute. However, as an attorney I feel like I can qualify the importance the wording just a bit.

1) With regard to JustMike's comments, I think it's important to remember what clause in Constitution you are reading. That section has become known as the Taxing & Spending Clause. It has been interpreted VERY broadly over the last 150 years such that today one might read the statute as follows:

"Congress may tax on, and spend for, anything it deems to be for the general welfare of the United States."

It is one of the broadest powers Congress currently wields. It would be very difficult to argue Congress did not have the power to forgive debts, bail out companies, etc. if Congress determined that doing so was for the general welfare of the United States. (See Broad interpretations of the Clause in cases such as South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987))

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) With regard to the wording of the currently proposed statute: The Supreme Court is the last word on ALL issues Constitutional. The Supreme Court has interpreted Constitutional provisions to mean certain things; we all know from basic Civics courses that the Supreme Court changes its mind quite frequently. Specifically, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution led to the Congressional power to write legislation that was "un-reviewable" by courts. My point is this: Before we jump off the deep end assuming any act of Congress will grant some unchangeable, unshakable, limitless power, we need to recognize that the Supreme Court may strike such a power, or such an act down at any time by changing their interpretation (Distinguishing cases like Ex Parte McCardle and the like). While the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political entity, over the past 200 years it has served to effectuate dozens of political, social and economic purposes. It, often, is the hand that forces change in this nation. In the face of some sort of governmental coup, I have faith enough in the Court that they would make such a choice.

Might the President attempt to ignore the Supreme Court and proceed as He chooses?
Yes, but this is highly unlikely to occur.

What would be the result if the Executive ignored the Court?
The unraveling of this Republic as we know it.

The Question: Should this situation arise, will the citizens of the United States sit back and accept it, or stand up and fight?

You can propose anything you want, but nothing comes into effect until the Congress says so. No one is heading to the Quantanamo Bay Prison yet where disobedient folks will be sent for re-education.

When Paulson said that the financial system was in deep trouble, like $700 billion trouble, everyone believed and still is that it was true without making sure that it was the case. Wouldn't you review the claim? There was no Section 8 obstacle to do so.

If the Americans forfeited their opportunity to check on the Execs once, they can do it again and let the Section 8 stand as it is -- In-Paulson-We-Trust style. I think that it would undergo some cosmetic changes that allows the Congress to sit and look, but essentially not touch so that Pride and Power could shake hands.

DD S&F from me good Op!

Some very astute and good points made on this thread by others too.

What really worries me now, is the $ and price of thereof, bailout or no bailout, Wall Street Crash or not,

How long till a run on the $ occurs, a real run to allow for the "Market Correction" as being found in the US housing market?

Back on this bailout, and the danger's inherent within it, and any motivation that may be causal in it from "behind the scenes" is summed up by a question put to the Fed Secretary and Chairman earlier by a American congressman/Senator, not verbatim but;
"(Elf-After talking about the need for some sort of oversight in the allocation of the money, and suggesting to the Fed that maybe the payments could be staged, with $150 Billion initially said):

The person then who is fed secretary, or chairman would have more influence directly overseas and at home, they would actually be the most POWERFULL person in the world!"

This really says it all; Bernankie is a very dark wolf in sheep’s clothing! When pulling strings on the street before the Fed he was instrumental in hedge and Securitization support, part of the reasons this is happening anyhow.

Basically what we are watching is the transition of economic world wide power from POTUS and the good hard working American people, to a Private Bank! And the same old families and chess masters.

And as well as that transition of power away from the American people, you as a nation are about to agree to selling your Grandchildren's Labour and heritage for the privilege.

Think on that!

The American Taxpayer and people are being "DP"ed at the moment and have become so fixated on the fear of collapse, and also drugged & numbed down over generations so NO One seems to see and feel the Rape take place.

I am a Bit surprised by the lack of real "grass roots" or widespread civil protests, if only by phone to politicians etc, in the US at the moment.

Just this one bailout would be $100 bills at 856 miles high!
Or to put it another way $1000 a second from the US taxpayer for the next 36 years or more!
That’s without the IraqII Bond's and earlier bailouts this year and month.

The $ is over valued & over printed by far, especially as the bottom does not seem to be close yet in the US housing market.

How can the $ hold if this is allowed?

No one says anything or notices?

As the elected representative said to the fed earlier "the most powerful person in the world" and not voted in!

Kind Regards,

Elf




[edit on 24-9-2008 by MischeviousElf]