Reply #44: 'Still, some measure of some kind probably should have been in there'

[mule_train]

"Still, some measure of some kind probably should have been in there. Then again, how long would that debate have taken?

And, there were legally binding compensation contracts in place. Laws abolishing them would have probably violated at least two clauses of the Constitution of the United States and probably some state constitutions, too, let alone laws governing AIG's international offices.
Monday morning quarterbacking of impending global economic collapse is fun, but not necessarily easy, if you want to do it analytically. "


the repeal of glass steigel (many fell this is the root cause) in 1999 happened on clinton's watch, along with WTO, GAAT, NAFTA, MFN-China, massive H-1b increases. People arent 'Monday morning quarterbacking' now, they were saying DONT DO IT! back then, ALL of this stuff was against the public's objection, and shoved down out throats by both parties

"impending global economic collapse is fun"

if you get scraped off the pavement and taken to the emergency roon, they have time to ask for your insurance card before they do anything. the issue here, is whether the taxpayer had a legitimate advocate, and bargained in good faith on his behalf - sorry, i'm not giving geithner the benefit of the doubt


"Laws abolishing them would have probably violated at least two clauses of the Constitution of the United States and probably some state constitutions, too,"

you know what, how many times have corporate America figured out a way to shaft the 'little poeple' when 'things change'. as far as those contracts go, i dont remember signing them myself - they're not my problem. where in the contitution does is say if a big banker screws up, the little guy has to borrow money from communist countries and bail him out no questions asked? i've got no problem dumping the constitution if it doesnt protect me from that, but DOES protect the f--kup banker's bonus. it's LESS than worthless at that point - it becomes an enforcement document of fuedalism. For that matter, where it the constitution does it say I have to turn over my representation to unelected people at the WTO for an endless list of issues affecting EVERYTHING?

the bottom line is they could have put SOME conditions on the TRILLION dollars and said 'take it or leave it'. Why is it that an 'Emergency Powers Act' can not limit eith what you take from the little guy, or give to the richest?' Why has Obama defended one of Bush's guest worker increases in court? Do the banker emplyment agreements force him to do THAT too?
.
this bailout was the fastest most unnatural and breathtaking transfer of wealth from the working and middle class to the very richest i have ever seen in my lifetime. the only think the working person has to show for it is soaring gasoline prices due to the dollar the bailout destroyed