It was bound to happen...

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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:

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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/stori...imu/?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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.