Middleclass? no stimulus for you!

Strid said:
Let's talk hypothetically for a bit on this. Do you really think if a state was out to do this they'd give a rat's ass if a bill passed on it or not? Obviously congress wouldn't vote "yes" for a states succession.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. This was a bill introduced by representatives in New Hamphire's state government. The United States Congress isn't a factor in this, so I'm not sure why you're bringing them up.

Strid said:
Start the countdown until someone calls a racial case upon the artist and publisher.
Click to expand...

It took me about two seconds to declare tonedeaf racial idiocy.
 
There have now been 20 states that have brought forth bills that would allow them to succeed from the US and truthfully i am proud to live in one of the first to do so. The United States was originally set up as a Union not necessarily a country and in the constitution it clearly states where the division between federal and states should be...

We passed this line a long time ago but recent more socially progressive agendas passing on the federal level are making more and more states pass these bills which affirm their right to leave the Union.

Whether or not anything actually comes of this i really doubt it will but maybe this will help to tone down the massive expansion of government that has been happening recently. Personally i hope that some states do Succeed... I personally wouldn't teaming up with Texas and New Mexico (cause it is stuck in the middle and maybe oaklahoma too) and making a state that people are truly free and where we protect our borders and not the border between Israel and Palestine. Plus then maybe we can have real free trade instead of the protectionist bullshit we currently do.
 
Halifirien said:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. This was a bill introduced by representatives in New Hamphire's state government. The United States Congress isn't a factor in this, so I'm not sure why you're bringing them up.
Click to expand...

Because that is where they'd have to ultimately do it.



It took me about two seconds to declare tonedeaf racial idiocy.
Click to expand...

You didn't do it right then.
 
I think he just makes you mad. I'd like to hear more about how it's a racist cartoon, be careful though should you choose to oblige.
 
Last edited:
i think it is more the state proclaiming their natural rights as states than a real threat to leave. So these states are basically telling Obama he will not be allowed to take over their rights. At the moment he is doing this to the banks. He is placing salary caps <which is unconstitutal> on Ceo's of companies and banks. The states <goveners> are telling him that they will not allow this to happen to them. it also lays down the groud work for them to take him to court if he tries.

I would also point out that the civil war was fought not to free slaves, but to take back the money making items. The north was actually losing the war, so used a fictional book to rally the northern people to fight. Uncle Tom's cabin was a work of fiction used to anger the north about the south's "mistreatment" of slaves. Talk about pot calling the kettle black~ Keep in mind the North had slaves at this sametime still. Also when teh carpetbaggers came in they STOLE property and lands from the southerners. All the south wanted was to be left alone. The freeing of the slaves was nothing more than a policitical move. After all if they were supposed to be equal, why were they not given the right to vote at the sametime. many were left homeless without any means to care for themselves.

Please keep in mind that it is in the consitiution that of 3/4 of the population vote for or against something the 3 branches of government have no choice but to pass it into law. This is a governement for, of, and by the people. I do wonder why no one is raising an uproar about the fact that married couples who make 250k~ 1 of them will be forced under obama to work solely to pay taxes. Think about having to work 7 days a week for your WHOLE paycheck to go to taxes. Then your spouse losing 4% of theirs on top of it to taxes. Makes me think what would be the point to working....
 
Keryan said:
He is placing salary caps <which is unconstitutal> on Ceo's of companies and banks.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about placing a salary cap on executive pay when it's a condition of taking the bailout money. If the CEOs want to keep their salaries and benefits, they're welcome to tell the government "No thanks, we don't need the money." Of course, they probably won't be making those salaries for very long.

If they don't need the money, they shouldn't take it. If they can get the company back on its feet and repay the bailout money quickly so they can go back to their former pay, then maybe the system is working the way it's supposed to work.

Keryan said:
...Uncle Tom's cabin was a work of fiction used to anger the north about the south's "mistreatment" of slaves.
Click to expand...

Interesting use of quotation marks.
 
Last edited:
Halifirien said:
There's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about placing a salary cap on executive pay when it's a condition of taking the bailout money. If the CEOs want to keep their salaries and benefits, they're welcome to tell the government "No thanks, we don't need the money." Of course, they probably won't be making those salaries for very long.

If they don't need the money, they shouldn't take it. If they can get the company back on its feet and repay the bailout money quickly so they can go back to their former pay, then maybe the system is working the way it's supposed to work.
Click to expand...

Your right they may not make those salaries for very long because by propping up the weak companies you are a parasite to the stronger ones.

It is actually unconstitutional for several reasons...

1. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, "no State shall pass any ex post facto Law.''
an ex post facto law is one that is created after the fact or retroactive. In the case of the bailout this is true because when the money was originally offered the stipulation was not present if they took it.

2. Most of the banks that took the money were not given a choice if they wanted to take it or not... Paulson basically forced them to no matter their current situation.

3. It also breaks the 5th amendment due to this line "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" because they are losing their property without just compensation.


Because of this several of the stronger banks are now trying to pay back the bailout since they dont really need it anyways and were forced to take it. Check link below

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP6xr9LsyklY&refer=home
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top