It was bound to happen...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bond

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.