It was bound to happen...

[Professor S]

The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

The news comes as state lawmakers are already facing a severe cash crisis, with the state at risk of running out of money in July.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-health-cuts8-2009may08,0,4592200.story

So now the stimulus money is being used as a cudgel to force states into doing what the Federal government dictates, and a state like California that is swimming in debt can't even regulate themselves without being threatened with further financial problems.

Wondered why it's taking so long to get the stimulus money out? Now you know why. Money = Power.

This also explains why several of the Republican governors have refused stimulus money.

[Typhoid]

Well, at least Obama has a plan.
Now, a good plan....

[thatmariolover]

So he's dictating the way that ~1% of the money is spent in order to bring wages back to unionized healthcare employees.

California is still going to have 6,726,000,000 available to spend how they wish. Honestly I think the fear mongering here is a little rediculous.

[Professor S]

So he's dictating the way that ~1% of the money is spent in order to bring wages back to unionized healthcare employees.

California is still going to have 6,726,000,000 available to spend how they wish. Honestly I think the fear mongering here is a little rediculous.

Read it again.

Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

They didn't say it could cost them a % of the stimulus money, it says it could cost them ALL of the stimulus money. Perhaps the threat has been reduced to percentage of the cut, but if so I haven't seen it yet. To call this fear mongering after reading the article isn't an honest comment, it's simply dismissive.

If I wanted to really fear monger I could go into how this Administration's treatment of Chrysler fits with the literal definition of economic fascism, at least the Italian version.

Fascists explicitly promoted their ideology as a "Third Position" between capitalism and communism.[125] Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Economic_policies

Now is that fear mongering, or a pretty accurate description of what happened? And no, I'm not saying Pres. Obama is a fascist, but his decisions in regards to Chrysler certainly were, but one example does not a fascist make. Then again, four years is a LONG time...

[Ric]

I find it really interesting that despite government money being poured into the system peoples wages were still cut. Surely the extra money means they can afford to pay their employees properly. The fact they are part of a union should go a long way to resolving this position. Trade unions can and have proven to be highly effective in such circumstances here in the U.K

To call Obama a fascist I think may be a little harsh, as ProfS said 'one example does not a fascist make' and when you consider the harsh decisions that have to be made in such an economic climate the buck stops with one man and that man is Obama. You (possibly) voted this guy into power to make these decisions. Perhaps some of his views may be considered fascist but now is the time for hard line no bullshit decisions to get the U.S and indeed in turn the European economy's kick started again. The US and European economies relate to one another so closley that what effects one directly effects the other.

In the past there was a woman Priminister in the UK, her name as you may well know was Margerate Thatcher, she made some truly harsh decisions that I think were far more extreme than any measures yet employed in this current recession. Dont quote me but she basically said at one point, about struggling business' words to the effect of 'if you cant shape up and you cant pull through and you go under then it's tough shit'

[TheGame]

Read it again.

You mis read what he said actually. Or didn't get his point...

The goverment is only dictating what ONE PERCENT of the money that they GAVE CALIFORNIA is being spent on. Honestly, who cares?

To clarify further, if I gave you $500 to invest in food for a few months, but told you that you that you need to buy YOURSELF a $5 extra value meal from Mcdonalds or I'm taking the $500 back.. are you seriously going to take a moral stand and not take the $500?

No wait! I'm fear mongering you!! :mischief:

Wasn't the problem with the stimulus package from bush that they couldn't control how the money was spent in the first place? So wouldn't this be something that the american people asked for?

[Vampyr]

Read it again.



They didn't say it could cost them a % of the stimulus money, it says it could cost them ALL of the stimulus money. Perhaps the threat has been reduced to percentage of the cut, but if so I haven't seen it yet. To call this fear mongering after reading the article isn't an honest comment, it's simply dismissive.

If I wanted to really fear monger I could go into how this Administration's treatment of Chrysler fits with the literal definition of economic fascism, at least the Italian version.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Economic_policies

Now is that fear mongering, or a pretty accurate description of what happened? And no, I'm not saying Pres. Obama is a fascist, but his decisions in regards to Chrysler certainly were, but one example does not a fascist make. Then again, four years is a LONG time...

I don't think you understood what MarioLover said, or you're reading the article wrong. If they don't revoke the wage cuts they'll lose all of the stimulus money. If they do revoke the wagecuts, they'll only lose the ~1% that it costs them to spend on it.

And I really don't care that the federal government is doing this. These wage cuts will save you 74 million? Well, that's okay, since the federal government just gave you 6.8 billion. If cutting wages is something you don't do lightly, and only as a last resort, as the article stated, then you it shouldn't be a big deal to repeal them in the face of all the new money you're getting.

And if I was going to give someone 6.8 billion dollars, I would probably feel inclined to make sure they spend at least some of it the way I wanted them to.

And those republicans who turned down stimulus money? They'll still not be getting anything whereas California will be getting 6.8 billion - 74 million. I think it's obvious that some people still turned down a crap load of money.

It's completely ridiculous, this argument.

American people to their government, about 10% of which do not have jobs, have no means to feed their kids or pay their bills: "Why did you turn down our stimulus money?"

Government: "Well, you see, the feds were going to force us to either spend some of it to save some of your jobs, or it was all going to be taken away. And we're waaaaaay to proud to have them telling us what to do."

Good lord. This is one of the reason's I voted for Obama. More power to him.

[Professor S]

More power to him.

Well, you're getting your wish. There is definitely more power to him. And I understand your argument completely when it comes to California and the stimulus money., but I think you've missed mine.

And quite honestly I find a lot of the opinions here more than a little troubling. They are basically tacit agreement's with fascist economic philosophy, a philosophy that has led to more than a little hardship in recent history. You think that it's ok for the Federal government to essentially extort and micromanage states into doing what they say by lording billions of dollars over their head? What gives them the RIGHT? I use that term expressly. Nothing does. They have simply taken that power, and are using billions in dollars that are borrowed from American citizens to do it, instead of using it for what we entrusted them to use it for. There is such a thing as states rights in America as written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or at least there used to be. I'm not sure anyone knows anymore, because it's all become so convoluted and murky.

I forget who said the following quote, but I tend to agree with it: "People want to privatize economic gains, and socialize losses" Unfortunately, like with most things, you can't have it both ways.

As for Chrysler, while you might think that it's ok for the Federal government to come in and decide direction, hiring, firing and the budget of private business, we'll see how this works in the long run. As I mentioned before, history does not agree with that assessment. I also don't see how an auto commission or government group can effectively guide a supposedly private company. I don;t really see any other government programs turning profits, do you? I fear all we have gains is an albatross around our necks; a failed company that we will not allow to fail and will instead haunt us for decades, sucking more and more money as we continue the mantra of "this time it will work... this time it will work...". But again, this waits to be seen.

For a government to pick economic winners and losers (the UAW and Chrysler's bond holders, respectively) is oppressive (whether the oppression is "good" or "bad" is irrelevant) and toes the line of destroying the entire concept of contract law, if not breaking contract law outright. If we are not a nation of laws, and each law is respected regardless of whether or not we subjectively agree, we are nothing. If you disagree with a law, then work to change the law. For a government to ignore any law is to eliminate the rule of law.

The proposed "truth commissions" going after Bush administration lawyers over water boarding is a perfect example of this. If these lawyers are charged it will be an obvious break of "ex post facto". You charge people for breaking a current law or legal decision that wasn't against the law at the time. Law does not work backwards, only forwards. I don't blame the administration for this, but instead the Congress, but as a former lawyer Pres. Obama should have spoken out against it instead of taking the "hey, who knows?" opinion that seems to be so popular in politics these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

And Ric, while I understand your point of view as a European and having grown up in what is essentially a socialized democracy, I certainly would never want American to follow in Europe's economic footsteps. It would reduce our country from being an economic powerhouse to simply an also-ran. Thats not meant as a pejorative, simply an observation. The fact that your country was so affected by an American recession is an example of why I wouldn't want to follow in those footsteps. I prefer our inevitable recessions to come from our mistakes, not someone else's.

I also find it interesting that much of Europe is moving away from government controls in economics to a more free market ideology (France and Germany to be more specific, Ireland did it a while ago). If these fascistic economic tactics are so successful why are these nations starting to move away from them?

[TheGame]

So prof, you think setting expectations for 1% of the money that you give away is wrong?

I think the people who are doing the fear mongering is the republican party and yourself. You're expecting the absolute worst from the government.. You know, the government has and had the power to dictate where 100% of that money went right? But we cry over 1% like its the end of the world...?

[Professor S]

So prof, you think setting expectations for 1% of the money that you give away is wrong?

No, I think the Federal government dictating budgetary policy of a state is wrong, no matter how small. I'm sorry if you think it's not. The triviality of 1% if irrelevant. It could be for a $1 and it still would be wrong. The problem is not with the amount, it is with the act even taking place.

The Federal government has assumed powers that are not theirs. I can remember many people screaming to high hell about the Bush administration being dictators when they pushed through the patriot act. If you believe that is true, I fail to see how this is different. In fact, I see actions like this affecting far more people far more greatly than the patriot act ever did because of how it affects the economy of the state (which affects every resident of the state).

I think the people who are doing the fear mongering is the republican party and yourself. You're expecting the absolute worst from the government.. You know, the government has and had the power to dictate where 100% of that money went right? But we cry over 1% like its the end of the world...?

I'm a little tired of the dismissive "fear mongering" label. I pointed out that what this administration did to Chrysler was fascist. No one disagrees with this assessment, and yet I'm a fear monger? I point out that the administration threatened to refuse stimulus money promised to state swimming in debt in order to enact a policy change, and how it is a huge assumption of power by the Federal government over state government, and I'm a fear monger? Funny, I thought I was pointing out the obvious. I thought people had heard of the 10th amendment. But I guess when point out something people don't want to hear, it's expected that their initial reaction will be hostile.

Perhaps you disagree with my analysis of these two items, and thats fine, but trying to dismiss an argument that is at the very least considerable benefits no one.

[TheGame]

Before I go to our disagreement, let me start with the thing I think we do agree on.. As it stands right now the Fed does have too much power. They have too much control over our currency in general.

But the thing about that is that's a problem that's always been there. And decisions made these days are not going to make much of a difference, we were put on the tracks to this damn near 100 years ago, and at this point I don't think it can be derailed.

I doubt anyone in the government has the ability to affect this without causing havoc. That's just how I feel.

No, I think the Federal government dictating budgetary policy of a state is wrong. I'm sorry if you think it's not.


The Fed isn't dictating this, you can call it that, but once again past decisions led to this. California has been in debt for as long as I can remember. And it was our state government's decision to take the money. If they had their sh** together to begin with we wouldn't have this problem.

And I think only pushing one thing that only accounts for 1% of the funds provided is perfectly reasonable. It'd be unreasonable, if they gave the funds... and then pushed for a lot more to be done, I can't label an exact line on it cause its grey.. but I'd say it depends on how long the state had the money also. 1% this early in is nothing...

If they asked for say, 5% 3 years later, or a return.. then that's when I'd be throwing a fit too.

[Professor S]

The Fed isn't dictating this, you can call it that, but once again past decisions led to this.

No but the Fed does everything BUT dictate this by holding billions over their head like a cudgel. If the Federal government were to actually take over control formally, I think the constitution would literally explode and take out the entire Library of Congress. This is a Constitutional end-around, and everyone knows it.

California has been in debt for as long as I can remember. And it was our state government's decision to take the money. If they had their sh** together to begin with we wouldn't have this problem.

To me, the dire straits of California are a reason NOT to meddle with their budget, especially when they're trying to CUT IT. Also, did the Federal government let the states know that they would be micromanaging them if they took advantage of the stimulus money? No. I wouldn't be this offended if they had. Also, the amount of money being offered is near or more than the total tax revenue of the state and meanwhile they're billions in the red. California was made "an offer they couldn't refuse", but it was never in the power of the Federal government to make the offer in the first place.

And I think only pushing one thing that only accounts for 1% of the funds provided is perfectly reasonable. It'd be unreasonable, if they gave the funds... and then pushed for a lot more to be done, I can't label an exact line on it cause its grey.. but I'd say it depends on how long the state had the money also. 1% this early in is nothing...

Except a violation of the 10th amendment. Thats a sticking point with me, and I don't think there should be any exceptions regardless of the situation. Once we start bending our constitutional laws, I think we will twist them until they don't resemble what they once were. It's human nature.

This is a dangerous precedent, IMO. Once a government begins to take power, they normally don't give it back, or stop acquiring it. This administration's hand has been VERY heavy, beginning with business, and now with California. I'm curious to see if this will happen with other states.

If it stops HERE, I think what has happened hasn't been that bad and in some cases may work out. But we're barely over 100 days in this administration, and so far the precedent that's being set does not bode well for future governmental decisions.

[TheGame]

Prof, you act like the Fed having us by the balls is a new thing. This situation didn't start with Obama being elected. I can understand your concerns, but this is a conversation we could have been having long ago.. the only thing that's different now opposed to a year ago is that the financial meltdown is bringing to light power that has always existed.

[Typhoid]

Keep in mind I have had a few beers at this point, but I would just like to state:

You think that it's ok for the Federal government to essentially extort and micromanage states into doing what they say by lording billions of dollars over their head? What gives them the RIGHT?

Well, the fact they are the government/essential "ruler" of the country sort of gives them the right.




Anyways, my two cents:


I agree with both sides here.
The fact that they are saying "Here, take X amount of dollars, but make sure that 100/X goes towards ____ or else you don't get X dollars" is entirely wrong. It's wrong in the sense they're saying they have to spend a certain amount, nomatter how small on something. However, they are the overall government, which does technically overrule state power.

On the other hand, it is only 1% of the fund they are giving, so no - realistically, it's not a huge deal. If they were saying 60% has to go towards ____, then yes, I could see why it's a big uproar.

[TheGame]

Keep in mind I have had a few beers at this point, but I would just like to state:



Well, the fact they are the government/essential "ruler" of the country sort of gives them the right.




Anyways, my two cents:


I agree with both sides here.
The fact that they are saying "Here, take X amount of dollars, but make sure that 100/X goes towards ____ or else you don't get X dollars" is entirely wrong. It's wrong in the sense they're saying they have to spend a certain amount, nomatter how small on something. However, they are the overall government, which does technically overrule state power.

On the other hand, it is only 1% of the fund they are giving, so no - realistically, it's not a huge deal. If they were saying 60% has to go towards ____, then yes, I could see why it's a big uproar.
60% would definently be an outrage. Its hard to draw a line though, because it just means if the government tosses a state enough extra money they can get the state to change any little thing they want. Potentially... which is what Strangler is scared of.

I can see how 1% is an annoyance to prof also, but the fact that they could be pulling for a lot more and only asked for one little thing is reassuring in a way. If they really wanted to abuse their power they could, and nobody could stop them.

Some people just chose not to trust the government and make wild assumptions about what will happen. Honestly, I don't trust the govt much, but I'm not gonna sit there and cry about what they could possibly do. Get mad when they actually pull more stunts and don't show contraint. I'm mad at the first bail out package, biggest waste of money ever.

For all I know the first bail out bush made was just done so that future bail outs would come with some more rules attached to them, and people would have to accept them. Who knows? We can't really control what is coming.

[Seth]

I don't think being the Federal government removes constitutional restraint just because so much attention is paid to the elecion every four years. Localized government is more meaningful and direct in it's implications, the US is built around that ideology. Who wants to be under the 'control' of a centralized system, without more local representation? What happens when Obama(figurehead not policy maker) decides that fascist maneuvering takes precedence over a stagnate economy? The millions of t-shirt wearing morons embrace it because obviously a polar opposite partisan is going to be doing 'good' in contrast to the last 8 years of 'bad'.

so, is the 2nd amendment relevant prof_S? just curious as to your thoughts since you hold the 10th as vitally important.


we're all gonna be obamanated pretty soon. I predict that, at this rate, within 4 years they're gonna have to make use of all the empty detainment centres located throughout the country. Not everyone's going to step in line to suck the presidents dick everytime he talks about hope when food stamps and 'socialized healthcare' are prescribed for the upcoming onslaught of consequences resulting from the now overt fascist meandering. ahaha, but that's just pessimistic. Dabble away el presidente

You know there's laws recently in place that make adherence to local state law over federal law a crime. doesn't bode well for Montana folk.

[Professor S]

Typhoid, I stated before nothing gives the administration the right to do what they did. Pres. Obama is not a ruler, he is a public servant, and swore to uphold the constitution when he was sworn in. He has not. We do not elect Kings, we elect Presidents who make up one third of Federal power (Executive, Legislative and Judicial).


Game, I don't think violations of the Constitution to be annoying, they are a breach of our most basic trust in our governing officials. You talk about those that think like me failing to trust this administration. I am not the one breaking the trust. If you can not trust that a government will abide by the laws that founded it and they swore to enforce, why should we trust them?


Seth, to answer your question, I am a proponent of the 2nd amendment, and I am a gun owner. I find all the bluster about the intention of the amendment to be a bit silly. If you read the correspondence of the founders it is quite obvious what they intended: that each citizen has the right, and some believed the duty, of gun ownership.

That said, I don't mind reasonable regulation if guns, like background checks. I am against prohibitive taxes on ammunition, however, as I believe that violates the intention of the 2nd amendment as it is a way to basically castrate the amendment.

Other than that Seth, you're on your own. This whole shadow government and detention center thing is a bit out of control, IMO. If the current administration continues in this direction, we won't have to sorry about them in 4 years. The American people may be optimists and even gullible at times, but they are not stupid sheep to be led to their own disenfranchisement. The tide will eventually turn if these actions by the administration become a pattern. I still think elections matter.

[TheGame]

Game, I don't think violations of the Constitution to be annoying, they are a breach of our most basic trust in our governing officials. You talk about those that think like me failing to trust this administration. I am not the one breaking the trust. If you can not trust that a government will abide by the laws that founded it and they swore to enforce, why should we trust them?

Well, I can see you clearly make Obama the face of things that have been in the works for 50+ years. If you haven't learned by now, the Fed govt and the president do what they want to do once they're elected into office. Yes it sucks, but at this point the only thing you can do is hope for honestly and clarity on what is happening. And you can only hope that they have your best interest at heart and show constraint.

And they are not violating the constitution directly, unless the constitution is updated to include specific rules that goes against the fed's way of getting around the rules with money. Now a direct violation of the constitution that out weights every bail out that's ever happend is Federal Taxes, and the existence of the National Debt. Where are the threads where we're getting pissed about that and all the presidents supporting it?

To me, the conservitave side is very funny these days. They are actually brainwashing people into beliving that Obama is pushing for the will of the fed any more then Bush was, Clinton was, or first Bush was. Obama's actually trying to help us out financially, and is being VERY weak about it and not abusing his power even though he could easilly. The so called "abuses" of his power have all had our best intentions in mind.

Its not like Obama signed into the whole NAFTA thing and fucked the middle/lower class over for most jobs that were available. And its not like Obama torchured someone so that they can lie to us and send us into an endless war with no clear objectives. Its not like Obama created the national debt, or signed the Federal reserve act. Its not like Obama was the first person to do a bail out or stimulus, and just sent out the money blindly to rich people without any rules or regulations attached. Its not like Obama is the first president to embrace the Fed and not fight them.

You have to understand that Obama was given this deck of cards to play with, and he's playing it to the tune of trying to support the american people. That's all you can really ask for.

[Professor S]

So instead of arguing what I've presented, you've decided to defend the Administration by pointing out where others have failed. Repeating and magnifying mistakes does not suddenly make them correct decisions nor does it invalidate the document. Even George Washington broke with the Constitution once or twice, but yet it remains.

But lets take your argument at face value, even though I disagree with the premise of it, and point out the differences:

1) Speed. I've never seen so many breaches of constitutional intent (bordering on actual violations) in so fast a time. Even Bush didn't come into office and begin rewriting the founders immediately.

2) Scope. You can argue all you like about the patriot act and whether or not water boarding is torture, but the scope of what Pres. Obama is doing is about 1,000 time greater than what Bush ever did. Bush's accused violations and stretches of constitutional law were very specific, and tended to impact non-citizens and individuals the most. As for specific amendments violated in intent, you can only point to one: the 9th, and even that is a bit murky.

Pres. Obama is rewriting how the Federal government interacts with both business and states on a grand scale, and has trounced. So while tolerated some previous jockeying with constitutional intent, and disagreed with others, it's hard not to see such a difference between the two.

Also, Bush's violations of intent did not directly affect most people or the nature of our country's economic and governmental policy on a micro level. Pres. Obama's violations of intent have, and on a level that will affect everyone.

3) Intent. Pres. Obama has stated publicly and clearly before that he disagrees with the Constitution.

Ignore the biased commentary and concentrate on what he actually says in the first half of the interview. The redistribution part in the second half is a a discussion for another day.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iivL4c_3pck&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iivL4c_3pck&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

So why do I have a reason to believe that the actions that he has taken, so very quickly, will cease in the future and not extend even further? He essentially dismisses the Constitution. The same one he agreed to uphold. And the disagreement isn't with specifics, it's with it's ACTUAL INTENT. So no, I don't expect any of his violations to be technical violations. He knows they'd be overturned by the court (until he can appoint new SC jurists). Instead he'll use money (and how he has control of money garnered by the legislative branch is another violation of intent) to beat local governments and businesses into submission.

Game, I have never doubted that Pres. Obama believes that what he is doing is right and honorable, but once again history shows that whenever power is taken from the people it leads to further suffering regardless of good intentions. And while they have the best of intentions, they suffer from the same diseases that all "greater good" politicians suffer from: Hubris and Ignorance.

Hubris in thinking they can make better decisions from afar than those close to and directly affected by societal issues (states, municipalities, businesses, individuals); and Ignorance in refusing to acknowledge how others have failed before them attempting to achieve the same goals the same way.

[TheGame]

1) Speed. I've never seen so many breaches of constitutional intent (bordering on actual violations) in so fast a time. Even Bush didn't come into office and begin rewriting the founders immediately.

Does it matter how fast its done? No, it just matters that its done. And please, can you give a more specific example of Obama directly breaking the law?

The problem started with the government borrowing money from people who are not in the governement. That is what should have been made illegal to start. when money is taken, all of a sudden whoever loaned it gains influence over the government's decisions. And this is an issue that's not new, nor created by Obama.

2) Scope. You can argue all you like about the patriot act and whether or not later boarding is torture, but the scope of what Pres. Obama is doing is about 1,000 time greater than what Bush ever did. Bush's accused violations and stretches of constitutional law were very specific, and tended to impact non-citizens and individuals the most. As for specific amendments violated in intent, you can only point to one: the 9th, and even that is a bit murky.

Pres. Obama is rewriting how the Federal government interacts with both business and states on a grand scale, and has trounced. So while tolerated some previous jockeying with constitutional intent, and disagreed with others, it's hard not to see such a difference between the two.

Also, Bush's violations of intent did not directly affect most people or the nature of our country's economic and governmental policy on a micro level. Pres. Obama's violations of intent have, and on a level that will affect everyone.

I disagree completly. The Iraq war was started because of "evidence" that was gained by torchure.. evidence that was obviously a lie. How many lives did that cost alone? How bad did that mess up america's reputation? And how much money did that cost? I mean, are you fucking kidding me?

The patriot act is just a small thing in comparision to water boarding.

There is NO comparision whatsoever between what Bush has done to this country and what Obama is doing so far. Bush has done FAR worse. Obama is is not destroying our reputation and unnessicarily killing thousands of people.

Game, I have never doubted that Pres. Obama believes that what he is doing is right and honorable, but once again history shows that whenever power is taken from the people it leads to further suffering regardless of good intentions. And while they have the best of intentions, they suffer from the same diseases that all "greater good" politicians suffer from: Hubris and Ignorance.

The power has been being taken from us slowly over the last 100 years. It just goes back what I first said.. The government has allowed money from other souces to influence us. You can make Obama the face of it all you want, but this is not a new issue, and he's not doing anything anyone else couldn't have and wouldn't have done.

[Professor S]

Does it matter how fast its done? No, it just matters that its done. And please, can you give a more specific example of Obama directly breaking the law?

I stated in my arguments that Pres. Obama hasn't directly broken the law. We've already discussed that point. He's violated the intent, and used money to do so. Thats what I mean when I say "constitutional end around". The best the law could do would be to declare some of his actions as being unconstitutional (violation of the 10th amendment) by bringing the cases to the supreme court, but his actions are not directly against the law as there is no legal precedent. As a former constitutional lawyer, Pres. Obama should know better, but unfortunately he appears to be using his knowledge of the Constitution to work against it.

The problem started with the government borrowing money from people who are not in the governement. That is what should have been made illegal to start. when money is taken, all of a sudden whoever loaned it gains influence over the government's decisions. And this is an issue that's not new, nor created by Obama.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Can you explain further?

I disagree completly. The Iraq war was started because of "evidence" that was gained by torchure..

I don't remember that ever happening. I know we used water boarding to get information to use in Afghanistan and after we went to Iraq, but I don't that being the reason for the invasion. I think 9/11 was the obvious reason, and the terrorists weren't exactly hiding where they were.

Evidence that was obviously a lie.

No, the information gained from the interrogations actually proved to be quite useful. Most people in the CIA actually claim is saved many lives in the field. It was also only used on 3 people, all non-citizens and un-uniformed combatants. You are confusing the evidence that led to the Iraq war with the information gained by interrogation for use IN the war. And please don't call it torture. Water boarding instills panic, but does not cause pain or mutilation. If you must, call it "illegal" interrogation, but to call water boarding torture cheapens the word.

How many lives did that cost alone? How bad did that mess up america's reputation? And how much money did that cost? I mean, are you fucking kidding me?

If we want to get into arguments about numbers dying we can, but I don't remember this being the basis of the argument at hand. People die in war and the results of the interrogations didn't get us into the war. This is irrelevant to our argument, and we've already argued Iraq to death. Lets keep on point.

The patriot act is just a small thing in comparision to water boarding.

There is NO comparision whatsoever between what Bush has done to this country and what Obama is doing so far. Bush has done FAR worse. Obama is is not destroying our reputation and unnessicarily killing thousands of people.

Not constitutionally, and thats what we're talking about here: The executive branch stealing power from the states and other branches on a large scale. I didn't want to bring scope into the argument, but you did when you started splitting hairs with percentages and the like when discussing the stimulus money in California, so as I stated before I argued this point on your terms. In terms of scope of bending the constitution, Pres. Obama's actions have been far more vast, and impact all Americans and not a select few.

The power has been being taken from us slowly over the last 100 years. It just goes back what I first said.. The government has allowed money from other souces to influence us. You can make Obama the face of it all you want, but this is not a new issue, and he's not doing anything anyone else couldn't have and wouldn't have done.

And once again how does repeating the mistakes of others, but on a grander scale, make them suddenly acceptable? Doing more wrong makes it right? We're beginning to go in circles here, and much of the argument has gone off point, and horribly so as much of what you stated as your arguments for the evidence for Iraq are factually incorrect.

At this point I'm willing to let our arguments stand, unless you have something new to add (my first question).

[TheGame]

I stated in my arguments that Pres. Obama hasn't directly broken the law. We've already discussed that point. He's violated the intent, and used money to do so. Thats what I mean when I say "constitutional end around". The best the law could do would be to declare some of his actions as being unconstitutional (violation of the 10th amendment) by bringing the cases to the supreme court, but his actions are not directly against the law as there is no legal precedent. As a former constitutional lawyer, Pres. Obama should know better, but unfortunately he appears to be using his knowledge of the Constitution to work against it.

The problem is the constitution isn't a perfect document. He is directly following the laws that have been put into it, and you know it. If more rules needed to be added to the constitution or some clarification or changes made to adjust to the issues of this time... then I can agree with that. But don't go tossing out that what he's doing is unconstitutional if it isn't.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Can you explain further?

Sure I can, but first let me quote the next part.

I don't remember that ever happening. I know we used water boarding to get information to use in Afghanistan and after we went to Iraq, but I don't that being the reason for the invasion. I think 9/11 was the obvious reason, and the terrorists weren't exactly hiding where they were.

No, the information gained from the interrogations actually proved to be quite useful. Most people in the CIA actually claim is saved many lives in the field. It was also only used on 3 people, all non-citizens and un-uniformed combatants. You are confusing the evidence that led to the Iraq war with the information gained by interrogation for use IN the war. And please don't call it torture. Water boarding instills panic, but does not cause pain or mutilation. If you must, call it "illegal" interrogation, but to call water boarding torture cheapens the word.

This quote shows your complete lack of understanding about what lead up to the war in Iraq. Which I'm going to give you a pass on since I can just educate you on it now.

First read this site: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13307

Bush and Cheney were pushing to find a way to link Iraq to 911. And they used waterboarding to do so. They pushed to get a FALSE confession about the link. You know with torture you kinda want to say anyhting to make it stop right?

So every single man woman and child who has died due that war, died because we put to use torture. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit, or ignorant to the facts. If someone was waterboardng you to try to get you to link Elvis prestley to watergate, you'd tell them that.

Bottom line? TORTURE DOESN'T WORK, NEVER HAS, AND NEVER WILL.

Don't let the right wing brainwash you into thinking otherwise.


If we want to get into arguments about numbers dying we can, but I don't remember this being the basis of the argument at hand. People die in war and the results of the interrogations didn't get us into the war. This is irrelevant to our argument, and we've already argued Iraq to death. Lets keep on point.

As I pointed out above, yes it did.

Not constitutionally, and thats what we're talking about here: The executive branch stealing power from the states and other branches on a large scale. I didn't want to bring scope into the argument, but you did when you started splitting hairs with percentages and the like when discussing the stimulus money in California, so as I stated before I argued this point on your terms. In terms of scope of bending the constitution, Pres. Obama's actions have been far more vast, and impact all Americans and not a select few.

Once again, as I pointed out before.. it has not affected even half as many people in a negitive way.

And once again how does repeating the mistakes of others, but on a grander scale, make them suddenly acceptable? Doing more wrong makes it right? We're beginning to go in circles here, and much of the argument has gone off point, and horribly so as much of what you stated as your arguments for the evidence for Iraq are factually incorrect.

They are factually correct, once again, as stated above.

And as for repeating the same mistakes... at this point we're so deep into the pool of mistakes that I honestly don't belive it can be fixed. I don't want to go all conspiracy theory on you, but you probably need to research the federal reserve and the national debt. The fed at this point will always have the strongest influence.

I'm at work at the moment so I can't really sit and write out a whole essay, but when I have time tonight or tomorrow I'll explain how the government borrowing money from bankers was a big mistake.

[TheGame]

Bottom line? TORTURE DOESN'T WORK, NEVER HAS, AND NEVER WILL.

Just wanted to correct something.. Torture does work, for getting people to say what you want them to say. But it doesn't work for getting the truth.

[KillerGremlin]

The patriot act is just a small thing in comparision to water boarding.

No way man. Water boarding, as unethical and shitty as it is, doesn't infringe on what I believe are rights that everyone should be entitled to. Things like the Patriot Act lead to water boarding.

Anyway, this discussion shouldn't be about water boarding or torture or 9/11. :p

[Professor S]

The problem is the constitution isn't a perfect document. He is directly following the laws that have been put into it, and you know it. If more rules needed to be added to the constitution or some clarification or changes made to adjust to the issues of this time... then I can agree with that. But don't go tossing out that what he's doing is unconstitutional if it isn't.

You really don't understand the Constitution of Constitutional law at all, and I'll leave it at that. That statement simply reflects ignorance of the intent and function of the document.

Which I'm going to give you a pass on since I can just educate you on it now.

First read this site: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13307

Bush and Cheney were pushing to find a way to link Iraq to 911. And they used waterboarding to do so. They pushed to get a FALSE confession about the link. You know with torture you kinda want to say anyhting to make it stop right?

So every single man woman and child who has died due that war, died because we put to use torture. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit, or ignorant to the facts. If someone was waterboardng you to try to get you to link Elvis prestley to watergate, you'd tell them that.

Bottom line? TORTURE DOESN'T WORK, NEVER HAS, AND NEVER WILL.

Don't let the right wing brainwash you into thinking otherwise.

Your evidence does not claim what you think it does.

Here is the info that your link used to justify the claim that water boarding was used to start the Iraq war.

Senator Levin, in commenting on the Senate Armed Services Committee report on torture declassified today, drops the following bombshell:

With last week's release of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions, it is now widely known that Bush administration officials distorted Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape "SERE" training - a legitimate program used by the military to train our troops to resist abusive enemy interrogations - by authorizing abusive techniques from SERE for use in detainee interrogations. Those decisions conveyed the message that abusive treatment was appropriate for detainees in U.S. custody. They were also an affront to the values articulated by General Petraeus.

In SERE training, U.S. troops are briefly exposed, in a highly controlled setting, to abusive interrogation techniques used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions. The techniques are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting false confessions for propaganda purposes. Techniques used in SERE training include stripping trainees of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, subjecting them to face and body slaps, depriving them of sleep, throwing them up against a wall, confining them in a small box, treating them like animals, subjecting them to loud music and flashing lights, and exposing them to extreme temperatures. Until recently, the Navy SERE school also used waterboarding. The purpose of the SERE program is to provide U.S. troops who might be captured a taste of the treatment they might face so that they might have a better chance of surviving captivity and resisting abusive and coercive interrogations.

Senator Levin then documents that SERE techniques were deployed as part of an official policy on detainees, and that SERE instructors helped to implement the interrogation programs.

The senior Army SERE psychologist warned in 2002 against using SERE training techniques during interrogations in an email to personnel at Guantanamo Bay, because:

[T]he use of physical pressures brings with it a large number of potential negative side effects... When individuals are gradually exposed to increasing levels of discomfort, it is more common for them to resist harder... If individuals are put under enough discomfort, i.e. pain, they will eventually do whatever it takes to stop the pain. This will increase the amount of information they tell the interrogator, but it does not mean the information is accurate. In fact, it usually decreases the reliability of the information because the person will say whatever he believes will stop the pain... Bottom line: the likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low. The likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the level of resistance in a detainee is very high... (p. 53).
Given that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and other high-ranking Bush officials insisted that SERE techniques used by the communists to extract false confessions be used - even after the head psychologist and others warned that it would not provide accurate information - does this mean that the torture program was geared towards obtaining false confessions?

This question is bolstered by the fact that all of the top experts on interrogation say that torture doesn't work.

And why else would the U.S. waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in one month (about 6 times a day for 31 days straight)?

Aside from claim fro Senator Levin who has been pushing against the war from the beginning, where is the proof that these techniques were used to obtain false confessions? There isn't, only conjecture based on an opinion that since many believe enhanced interrogations don't work, that continuing them MUST have been to gain false evidence. Thats invented evidence created by a leap in logic and close association.

Another allegation taken from McClatchy (who are they?) never makes a link between a false confession and the Iraq war.

A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

Excerpts from Burney's interview appeared in a full, declassified report on a two-year investigation into detainee abuse released on Tuesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., called Burney's statement "very significant."

"I think it's obvious that the administration was scrambling then to try to find a connection, a link (between al Qaida and Iraq)," Levin said in a conference call with reporters. "They made out links where they didn't exist."

Levin recalled Cheney's assertions that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, in the Czech Republic capital of Prague just months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The FBI and CIA found that no such meeting occurred.

This states that they tried to get evidence from the interrogations to point to Iraq, but failed. If you want to blame something, blame Cheyney, but it wasn't a false confession. There is NO claim beyond a Senator's opinion that the interrogations were intended to create false evidence and NO ONE of import has claimed that we went to war over the interrogations. The Senate report even contradicts the claim that they helped make the claim for the war.

So, once again, water boarding did NOT help start the Iraq war. Remember the weapons of mass destruction arguments? Thats the one that started the war, and thats the one Colin Powell brought to the UN and that the administration harped on (erroneously, as it turns out). Since water boarding is so popular in the media now, if there was strong evidence that it was used to justify the Iraq war, wouldn't that be the main argument against it across all newspapers and cable news (besides Fox)?

And as for repeating the same mistakes... at this point we're so deep into the pool of mistakes that I honestly don't believe it can be fixed. I don't want to go all conspiracy theory on you, but you probably need to research the federal reserve and the national debt. The fed at this point will always have the strongest influence.

I think it can be fixed... at least we can avoid making it worse.

[manasecret]

Prof. S, do you also think that that the National Minimum Purchase Age Act of 1984 (the one that gave reduced federal highway funds to those states with a drinking age limit of less than 21) was unconstitutional and should be repealed? I think it should be repealed. I can't say if it's unconstitutional or not.

Which makes me think, if I understand correctly that the crux of your argument is that the federal govt withholding federal money unless the state's do as they say is unconstitutional, how can that be right? I mean, isn't all money given by the federal government to the states ear-marked for some purpose or another? It's not just given willy-nilly with no intention for the money.

[Professor S]

Prof. S, do you also think that that the National Minimum Purchase Age Act of 1984 (the one that gave reduced federal highway funds to those states with a drinking age limit of less than 21) was unconstitutional and should be repealed? I think it should be repealed. I can't say if it's unconstitutional or not.

Which makes me think, if I understand correctly that the crux of your argument is that the federal govt withholding federal money unless the state's do as they say is unconstitutional, how can that be right? I mean, isn't all money given by the federal government to the states ear-marked for some purpose or another? It's not just given willy-nilly with no intention for the money.

I don't know much about the act you speak of, so I won't comment too much on it. Overall, I tend to dislike any use of federal funds to influence state policy. On a personal note, I think the drinking age should be 18, not 21. If you can serve in the military and vote, you should be able to drink. There should not be two thresholds of adulthood, only one. Because the age of consent is nationalized by selective service and voting in national elections, this should be a federal issue not a state or local. I believe this issue even warrants an amendment as it goes beyond alcohol consumption.

What I will comment on is that the stimulus act was outside of normal appropriations, with the direct intent of stabilizing and inspiring the economy, not to influence state and local policy. The name of the act you state even has it's intent in the name. At best this abuse of the stimulus money is against it's publicly stated intention.

California is a complete mess, though, and I fear there will be an attempt to nationalize Cali's bonds/debt and the ramifications of this could definitely blur the lines between state and federal governments even more.

[TheGame]

I guess you can chose to belive what you want.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/index.html

I belive the reason torture was brought back into play was to justify that war. Of course we'll never get the whole truth to the situation, but I think its fairly obvious that they eventually got the desired answers they were looking for. the problem was, anyone with any sense knew that the answers were unreliable (as is always the case with torture).

And I'll admit, how the article words it, they did not get reliable information from the torture. But its not reliable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRkLyt05GK4&feature=related

That's a good chain of videos to look at. Especially the part where Ali Soufan gives his remarks. The only person in that hearing that takes into consideration that torture may work is Sen. Graham. Yet there isn't a shred of evidence that it worked, and a lot more evidence pointing to where it didn't.

"You really don't understand the Constitution of Constitutional law at all, and I'll leave it at that. That statement simply reflects ignorance of the intent and function of the document."

And you don't understand that it was written by human beings, therefore its not perfect. I explained to you that the real problem is that we've fallen under a central banking system and have allowed the amount of money that we're in debt influnce decisions that are made by the state and federal governments.

First I want you to read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt

It'd also be helpful to understand the 6th article of the constitution.

"Smaller jurisdictions, such as cities, are usually guaranteed by their regional or national levels of government. When New York City over the 1960s declined into what would have been a bankrupt status (had it been a private entity) by the early 1970s, a "bailout" was required from New York State and the United States. In general such measures amount to merging the smaller entity's debt into that of the larger entity and thereby gaining it access to the lower interest rates the large one enjoys. The larger entity may then assume some agreed-upon oversight in order to prevent recurrence of the problem."

Here's the base of the problem when it comes to going in debt. The person who loans (or even gives) you the money has the right to know that the money is spent for the reasons it was loaned for. If you can't agree to the terms that came with accepting the money, then its your responceability not to take it.

I belive that California put themselves into this situation by making bad decisions, and I don't have an issue whatsoever with the feds overseeing the money that was given to the state. I live in california, it makers no sense how many state workers have been fired and who have had to take a 10%+ pay cut when the government is giving us billions.

To only push for what 1% is doing is being overly reasonable if you ask me.

I think the base disagreement we have on this issue is that you belive that the current administration is the source of the problem.. while I belive that circumstances both caused by the state itself, and by broken financial policies of the past is what the problem is.

The fact still remains that Obama isn't breaking the law, and the agreement of California taking that money had to have included some ability for the federal government to oversee it and make sure that it was used for the purpose that it was intended. Our 5 month old president didn't get california into the predicament to where they had to accept such terms.

In other words (to sum it up), the Federal government wasn't the one to take the state's power. It was the state's that compromised their own power by agreeing to take the money. It was the state's decision to agree to it, and it was the state's fault they got into such bad shape.

[Bond]

Woah, when did everyone become constitutional law scholars? ;)

[Professor S]

Woah, when did everyone become constitutional law scholars? ;)

My comments were based on the fact that it's very difficult for anyone to say: "Hey, he broke the constitution! Arrest him!" Thats not how it works. The Constitution was based on natural law, not human law. It is a list of what the government MAY do, not what it may not do, and it's terribly vague and short.

The Bill of Rights lists what the government MAY NOT do, and it is also terribly vague.

So when it happens that government institutions do things that may be against the Constitution, you can't arrest anyone or make 100% positive statements, but a case must be made are argued in front of the judicial branch. It's the checks and balances that keep any one branch from overpowering the others.

It's also why I think it remains probably the finest governmental document ever created, because it continues to be under interpretation and can grow and reform itself as society does. But there are thresholds that must be met for the document to change. The document's PERFECTION is that it can be changed by the will of the people, but cannot be changed because any one small group DICTATES it. This is why changes must voted on by 2/3's of both houses, a constitutional convention or by 3/4's of the states legislatures. This maintains that it is a will of the people, not a party, that rules our nation.

Not some arbitrary dictate from the executive branch. But once again, we don't know whether these actions are or are not truly constitutional. A case will have to be made and argued for that to happen.


Game, you cite the NY case, but read the last sentence:

"The larger entity may then assume some agreed-upon oversight in order to prevent recurrence of the problem"

I don't believe this was agreed upon, I believe the state was sold a false bill of goods and then essentially was threatened with sanctions when the new terms of how their state was to be run were thrust upon them. There was NOTHING I can see in the stimulus plan that the executive branch would be able to dictate budgetary decisions of states who accept the money.

I think the rest of our discussion can rest as it stands.

[TheGame]

Game, you cite the NY case, but read the last sentence:

"The larger entity may then assume some agreed-upon oversight in order to prevent recurrence of the problem"

I don't believe this was agreed upon.

The funny part is, the last sentance was the biggest point I had there. Because I belive this oversight WAS agreed upon before the fact. Which is our base disagreement.

If the act of taking the money back was not something that was allowed by the original agreement, then that's the base california would be fighting on. But they're not, so obviously they have the right to threaten taking back the bail out since california is not adhereing to the agreemnt they had. (And unfortunately, this is not unconstitutional.)

Now, of course I don't have the paperwork or anything to back me up on that.. but this is why some states turned down the funds, and this is why california had every right to turn it down too.

So once again, this problem rests on the irresponceability of the state, not of the federal government.

[Professor S]

You're missing my point. The details of the "agreement" should have been made BEFORE the stimulus was voted for. Once the fed has the money, it can be used to twist arms. Conditions like the ones the Federal government demanded of states should never have happened to begin with. Regardless of whether or not the state agreed to the terms, the very act that there were terms on such a detailed level is a breach of trust, IMO.

[TheGame]

You're missing my point. Conditions like the ones the Federal government demanded of states should never have happened to begin with. Regardless of whether or not the state agreed to the terms, the very act that there were terms on such a detailed level is a breach of trust, IMO.

That's true, I think that that part of it is what sucks. But that's where things would have to be changed in the constitution to clarity what can and can not be agreed to on the terms of a bail out or loan. Not only from our own country too, from OTHER countries too.

The problem is, in learning from past mistakes... the current administration had no choice BUT to include more regulations on their bail outs. Because the fact is, if they just give states or companies or anybody money without any rules or regulations attached to it, the use of the funds will be abused.

So what they did, is use an unfortunate fact from history to help mold how they handle money hand outs. Its not their fault that people took government money and ran with it before. So now they have to be more anal about how money is given out, but they are NOT EVEN CLOSE to abusing this power as I see it. Deciding how 1% of the money they loaned out wen they can decide 100% of it if they wanted to, is showing GREAT constraint and allowing the state to keep a lot of power.

This is where you have to trust that two things happen. One is that the state government handles the majority (98%?) of the money that they were given correctly. Because if they don't its going to cause the fed to start showing even more oversight. And the other thing we have to trust is that the federal government doesn't unnessicarily step out of bounds and abuse this power. We can only hope that they continue to be very lose about their oversight on state financial policy as they are NOW. (I don't care what you say, 1% is not even worth this thread)

This is why we will have to continue to vote into office people who are trustworthy, and not extremely greedy and power hungry. And people who are looking to the better benifit of everybody and not just their rich buddies who funded their campaign.

[Professor S]

Game, considering how this hoopla got started over funds directly related to UNION related workers, I fail to see how "buddies" aren't being serviced considering how unions were central to getting pres. Obama elected.

Bottom line: Governing power is being centralized and states have less. Business power is being nationalized, and the private investor and entrepreneur has less to the point legal contracts were essentially broken.

As for the trust issue, let me put it this way... If Jesus Christ were president I would not trust him with any more power than was intended by the rule of law.

I fail to see how these actions fit in with our current laws or even setting them aside, how this can be viewed as a moral victory.

Once again, we'll see what happens, but this is not a good precedent to be setting for the rest of the Presidency. We're repeating ourselves at this point, so unless you have anything new, I'll retire from the conversation.

[TheGame]

Bottom line: Governing power is being centralized and states have less. Business power is being nationalized, and the private investor and entrepreneur has less to the point legal contracts were essentially broken..

Its its not illegal or unconstitutional for California (or the parties involed in bail outs) to chose the route that they are going down. Nor is it illegal for the fed to loan California (or the other parties that were bailed out) money and set agreed upon regulations on how it is spent. That's the real bottom line.

The government tried to give away money with little to no oversight, and that plan failed misserably. So now they have to take a new direction and make sure the money is used for what it was intended for in the first place. That's what lead to things being the way they are now.

At the end of the day, the other option that Bush and Obama had in the time of crisis, was to do nothing. Guess we'll never know if sitting back and letting everything burn with no help would have worked. But last I checked both of our presidential canadates last run voted for a bail out... so t shows what we'd have been left with either way. Both Mccain and Obama would have tried to take action, and both of them would have recognized that what actions were taken before did NOT work without regulations.

Once again, we'll see what happens, but this is not a good precedent to be setting for the rest of the Presidency. We're repeating ourselves at this point, so unless you have anything new, I'll retire from the conversation.

We will see what happens, in all honesty I'm not too optimistic about where the country is headed in general. But I personally don't think that the decisions that have been made in the last 5 months are any more troubling then changes that have slowly been happening over the last 20+ years.

If anything, Obama has been very wise about how both his forgien and financial policies have been planned out.

At the end of the day though, I understand where our base disagreements stand, so I don't really care if you chose not to reply anymore. I just don't like that the right wing is trying to pin every world issue on Obama's shoulders even though many of the issues people have already existed long before he stepped foot into office.

I remember when 9-11 happend, and EVERYONE gave bush a pass on it because of how soon into his presidency it happend. But with how the right wing is treating obama now, I bet if another attack like 9-11 happend tomorrow they would pin the reasoning RIGHT on Obama's shoulders, blaming him for stopping torture and for having a more open minded international policy. And you KNOW they would, only 5 months into his presedency. They would ignore everything Bush and Cheany did to piss the international community off, and all their failures.. and put it on Obama.

But now I'm just ranting, I'd just say give it some time and we'll see what happens.

[Professor S]

Game, you've continually reinterrpreted my opinions on the California issue to fit with your idea of what the oppositition stands for. I don't think this is intentional, but probably a failure of articulation by the both of us.

My comments stand as they are, and I would encourage anyone who reads this thread to read the opinions as I've written them shared and not Game's version of them. Read the thread and make your own interpretations. There are considrable arguments on both sides.

[Bond]

The funny part is, the last sentance was the biggest point I had there. Because I belive this oversight WAS agreed upon before the fact. Which is our base disagreement.
Okay, so you believe it was agreed upon ex-ante, but then you say:
Now, of course I don't have the paperwork or anything to back me up on that.. but this is why some states turned down the funds, and this is why california had every right to turn it down too.
So, do you believe that there was a legally binding contract signed that no one knows about, or was there a promise made that would not be legally binding? Option one seems implausible, and option two seems naive.

One more thing:

The problem is the constitution isn't a perfect document. He is directly following the laws that have been put into it, and you know it. If more rules needed to be added to the constitution or some clarification or changes made to adjust to the issues of this time... then I can agree with that. But don't go tossing out that what he's doing is unconstitutional if it isn't.
I find this paragraph very confusing. Are you referring to the constitutional amendment process?

[TheGame]

Lets reverse the question then bond, do you think the money was given to California with no rules attached and no ability to oversee or recollect on the money if it was not used for some designated reasons? Honestly I think its a lot more naive to belive that the fed gave them money with no strings attached.

And as for your second quote, no I'm not talking about the amendment process. That's why its better to have context and reply to the whole post instead of quoting one paragraph. I'm talking about the fact that what Obama is doing is not illegal, and it probably should be. I personally don't think that states or the country in general should be able to take loans that compromises the power structure of the country. But unfortunately, its not illegal. Hasn't been, and probably won't be made illegal any time soon.

As I discussed with strangler, the responceability here is placed squarely on the state's shoulder's because its its the state's job not to compromise its own power. Thus why people rejected government money in the first place.

[Bond]

Lets reverse the question then bond, do you think the money was given to California with no rules attached and no ability to oversee or recollect on the money if it was not used for some designated reasons? Honestly I think its a lot more naive to belive that the fed gave them money with no strings attached.
Well, there seems to be no readily available, legally-binding contracts that state that as fact. We do know that, ex-post, actions were undertaken to restrict and oversee the funds. Again, if you were to propose that there were restrictions, they were either legally-binding contracts that only the two public parties are aware of, or a promise that holds no legal authority.

And as for your second quote, no I'm not talking about the amendment process. That's why its better to have context and reply to the whole post instead of quoting one paragraph. I'm talking about the fact that what Obama is doing is not illegal, and it probably should be. I personally don't think that states or the country in general should be able to take loans that compromises the power structure of the country. But unfortunately, its not illegal. Hasn't been, and probably won't be made illegal any time soon.

As I discussed with strangler, the responceability here is placed squarely on the state's shoulder's because its its the state's job not to compromise its own power. Thus why people rejected government money in the first place.
Well, I did come into this discussion a bit late, unfortunately. I'm still not quite sure what you're talking about, but it seems as though these issues are complex constitutional questions that I'm not quite sure any of us are well-versed enough in the law to properly debate.

Sorry if I interrupted the discussion.

[Professor S]

Oh, the discussion is over on my part. I've said my piece. Please continue. :)

[Jason1]

It is my opinion that if the Union had a contract which was violated by the state of California, then they damn well should have the money brought back to them. A contract is a contract and thats some serious bullshit if they can just simply violate that contract with no repurcussions.

[Professor S]

It is my opinion that if the Union had a contract which was violated by the state of California, then they damn well should have the money brought back to them. A contract is a contract and thats some serious bullshit if they can just simply violate that contract with no repurcussions.

Tell that to Chrysler's stakeholders...

Beyond that, it is not the in the Executive branch's power to enforce contracts. That falls with the judicial branch. Something tells me that if the state of California really couldn't break the union contracts, this federal interference wouldn't have been necessary. The union could have simply taken the case to court and the action would have been stayed until trial if they had a case.

But that is exactly what we're talking about here: The executive brach's assumption of powers that they do not have nor are entitled to.

Man, out schools need to do WAY better job of teaching civics...

[TheGame]

But that is exactly what we're talking about here: The executive brach's assumption of powers that they do not have nor are entitled to..

It was within the federal goverments powers when california compromised their own by accepting money that had a purpose behind it. Shall we circle back to that again?

For Bond and Strangler: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/09/1n9calstim015648-california-violates-federal-stimu/?uniontrib

Just posting a site where the focus isn't on the money being taken back, but on the fact that california violated the terms of the stimulus package. I've found the terms for multiple states, but when I search california its cluttered with news stories about how california violated it and there's not many actual government sites listed.

However, the fact that there is terms for it means that there are rules attached to the money. Rules that can be broken, and that could lead to the fed taking action. The state still has the full power here, its just that they agreed to taking the money and violated the terms of the reasoning behind them taking the money. And the reason the state took the money is because the state made a ton of stupid decisions in the past and got to the point where they needed help.

[Professor S]

However, the fact that there is terms for it means that there are rules attached to the money. Rules that can be broken, and that could lead to the fed taking action.

And you just described how the stimulus money was used to coerce a state into doing things they wouldn't do otherwise. Do what we say, or don't get billions in financial aid you desperately need. It's essentially reverse extortion. No matter how many times you repeat what happened, it doesn't change the fact that the executive branch has usurped power from both the states and judicial branch.

I posted only to clarify a point about executive powerrs related to judicial powers, not to rehash the same tired arguments.

[TheGame]

And you just described how the stimulus money was used to coerce a state into doing things they wouldn't do otherwise. Do what we say, or don't get billions in financial aid you desperately need. It's essentially reverse extortion. No matter how many times you repeat what happened, it doesn't change the fact that the executive branch has usurped power from both the states and judicial branch.

Ask yourself this, what role is the federal government supposed to play when its a national economic emergency? The Fed is just doing its job to help make sure things get better and the same mistakes aren't made, it was the state's failures that lead them to taking the money. And its not like the fed added new rules to it, THEY ENFORCED RULES THAT THE STATE AGREED TO BEFOREHAND. Which is what you don't seem to get.

Am I extorting the state when I loan them money to build highways with? And if they use the money for something different, and agreed that those are the terms, am I really guilty if I take the money back (and this is part of the pre written agreement)? The answer is no.

[Professor S]

I expect the federal government to follow the intent and rule of law they promised to uphold when taking office. If th federal government feels it needs to help with the economy the action taken must be within it's bounds. We can expect no less.

Why are we still arguing this? We've repeated ourselves at least 4 times. Do you think restating the same argument again is going to change anything? Is using all caps and bold facing it make it more sensible? How about one more time? Is it on the fifth time that suddenly reality gives way to our version of it?

[Bond]

It was within the federal goverments powers when california compromised their own by accepting money that had a purpose behind it. Shall we circle back to that again?

For Bond and Strangler: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/09/1n9calstim015648-california-violates-federal-stimu/?uniontrib

Just posting a site where the focus isn't on the money being taken back, but on the fact that california violated the terms of the stimulus package. I've found the terms for multiple states, but when I search california its cluttered with news stories about how california violated it and there's not many actual government sites listed.

However, the fact that there is terms for it means that there are rules attached to the money. Rules that can be broken, and that could lead to the fed taking action. The state still has the full power here, its just that they agreed to taking the money and violated the terms of the reasoning behind them taking the money. And the reason the state took the money is because the state made a ton of stupid decisions in the past and got to the point where they needed help.
Have you read the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? I'm confused as to why you are going to third party sources to prove what is in the act instead of going to the act directly.

[TheGame]

I expect the federal government to follow the intent and rule of law they promised to uphold when taking office. If th federal government feels it needs to help with the economy the action taken must be within it's bounds. We can expect no less.

What law did they break? You've not given any example even though I've asked for it multiple times.. And I even put up links siting the constitution and a previous bail outs which shows that its supported by law.

The problem is you have no arguement, other then how you feel the government should be. Granted I agree with some of your 'feelings' on the subject, but the fed is not factually stepping out of bounds. The state had the freedom to turn the money down, and this is not even close to the first stimulus package or bail out to affect a state spending plan.

Why are we still arguing this? We've repeated ourselves at least 4 times. Do you think restating the same argument again is going to change anything? Is using all caps and bold facing it make it more sensible? How about one more time? Is it on the fifth time that suddenly reality gives way to our version of it?

I'm not the one who claimed I'd stop argueig, you were, yet you make post after post after post. If you think its leading nowhere, then quietly back out. I've done it before, and you should probably start today. But if you want to continue to keep posting, then continue to keep expecting replies from me.

[TheGame]

Have you read the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? I'm confused as to why you are going to third party sources to prove what is in the act instead of going to the act directly.

This is because the terms are seperate depending on which state you're in, and to quote myself.

I've found the terms for multiple states, but when I search california its cluttered with news stories about how california violated it and there's not many actual government sites listed.

[Bond]

This is because the terms are seperate depending on which state you're in, and to quote myself.
I see... well, with no legally-binding contract to view, this discussion seems to be hard to have, other than a he said, she said affair.

[Professor S]

What law did they break? You've not given any example even though I've asked for it multiple times.. And I even put up links siting the constitution and a previous bail outs which shows that its supported by law.

The terms of the previous bailout were disclosed at the time the money as appropriated. That was not the case with the stimulus money (hell, not even the congresmen who voted on it read the damned thing), or at least we don't know what the terms were since there is nothing to verify either argument, which I find fascinating.

As for naming a specific law, I'll repeat myself one last time, and I'll bold and cap it so maybe you'll understand: THATS NOT HOW THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS WORKS. A case must be made and then tried. Then we'll know for sure. Until then everything we've argued is strictly opinion, regardess of how often you repeat yourself.

In fact, if there is ONE TRUTH that can be taken from this entire discussion, it is that everything we have discussed is purely opinion untl a court of law decides otherwise.

[TheGame]

As for naming a specific law, I'll repeat myself one last time, and I'll bold and cap it so maybe you'll understand: THATS NOT HOW THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS WORKS. A case must be made and then tried. Then we'll know for sure. Until then everything we've argued is strictly opinion, regardess of how often you repeat yourself.

The only difference between my and your arguement is that in your arguement, Obama is guilty until proven innocent. And in mine I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on how he's handled it. Just like you give Bush/Cheany the benefit of the doubt on torture and its effectiveness, while I think its illegal and doesn't work. So yes I agree, til it goes to court its all opinion.

And as you've displayed yet again, you don't know when to stop. You seem very passonate about defending your point that you felt you got across over 5 posts ago.