Yep, Thank goodness they had one of their boys (Paulson...still blows my mind how no one seems to notice the blatant conflict of interest in that) in there to make sure no one saw the myriad relatively simple solutions as compared to giving the banks billions and billions and billions of dollars. *whew* Close call. They didn't have any problem foreclosing like crazy on everyone else who had overstepped their means until they realized it was going to blow up in their face. They started foreclosing like crazy on people and when it finally got out of control the banks started asking the American people (the same people they had no problems foreclosing on) for money because *sniffle* they had accidentally overextended themselves. Institutions like Citi, Capital One, WaMu/Providian etc thrive off people who overstep their means.... But when they make a mistake, they expect clemency...oh, and lots and lots of free money.
What's so bad about wearing a suit and standing in line waiting for soup? Are you really that afraid of poverty? Things could be much worse, couldn't they? So the government intervenes, prices stay artificially high, but wages don't go up proportionately. Are we better off?
Others have awarded other posts, but I'll just nominate this one for stupidest post I've seen yet. I don't think, in fact from the content of your post, I know, you haven't actually read the Constitution. Allow me to quote the relevant part to your incoherent screed as regards the UN: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. That's the Constitution. Now for the UN: The United Nations Charter is the treaty that forms and establishes the international organization called the United Nations...As a charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. As the Founders themselves laid out, treaties are equal to the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the land. That was the Founders' intent, as explicitly stated in the Constitution. The UN Charter is a treaty, lawfully signed by the representatives of this country. It is, therefore, on an equal footing with the Constitution. This may be a mistake in your opinion, but it doesn't violate any part of the Constitution, and no tinkering with it was needed to make the above true. If you want to change the Constitution so that treaties lawfully signed aren't equal in status to the Constitution, you'll have to sponsor an amendment. Doctor it, in other words. There's nothing in the Constitution that either provides for or prevents the Fed from existing. There were two central banks before the Fed. Neither was declared unconstitutional. Their charters simply expired. Take a civics course. Take a US history course. You need them desperately.
What about this? Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
I have no idea why you're quoting that section, as it has precisely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Care to explain?
First, Americans are the most naive, easily-fooled marks on the planet. Sometime ago, the Govenrnment convinced the people that it sits at the Right Hand of God Himself. Hence, any and all "Official" accountings are to be taken as sacrosanct, 100% veritas without a shred of proof!! Second, the Banks own the FED Reserve System. Its in their interest to fuck the Golden Goose as hard as possible, then vote themselves a bailout when they're on the wrong side. None of the Bailout has anything to do with the General Economy or broader economic welfare. Its all about saving the asses of FED MEMBER BANKS. Period. End of story. Americans have no idea whats coming down the pipeline.
A-fricking-greed. The idea of spending our way out of a credit freeze is equally ridiculous as giving banks money to unfreeze things when the real problem is unknown amounts of toxic paper... The political cycle is in a phase where people are looking to government for answers. The Democrats answers are oddly reminiscent of what they have always done, expand government and reward the faithful with handouts..
Well, well, here it is, 2009 and we were never defeated by Russia, China, terrorists, Asians, Africans, or Europeans. Yet, we have been defeated by our own government! Yes, it is indeed, time for "change". And I don't mean Barack Obama!
Well, they had it right the first time - Government BO of toxic paper. Then Paulson curiously decided that strategy was "unworkable". 7 TRILLION dollars later.......... Plus the ridiculous new powers vested in the Treasury and FED...... Its obvious the entire thing is a fucking scam. 2 Trillion in toxic paper. If that.