southsider2k5 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) lol. I haven't even looked at the constitution but that sounds pretty flagrantly in violation. Someone pulled the thing out, set it on fire, and s*** on the ashes apparently. Since when can the federal government tell a state who their governor is? They pretty much tried to do the same thing when they were picking their Senator too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) They pretty much tried to do the same thing when they were picking their Senator too. Yeah, I guess that's Harry Reid for you. He ended up looking like a dumbass. Well like more of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 12:06 PM) Wow. That's pretty much unconstitutional. Here is the thing. This is a trick used long ago, and the guy who really made it play big was Reagan, under the guise of his favored Block Grants. See, the US government cannot make a state government change things not falling under direct purview of the feds. However, this is not a true forcing of the issue. Its using federal funding to blackmail them. Its slimy, but, its common. This was done all over the place to force the 55 mph speed limit decades ago, and it stood up in court. This will stand up too, I'd imagine. It seems unconstitutional, and maybe it should be illegal, but precedent shows it is neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 12:51 PM) Here is the thing. This is a trick used long ago, and the guy who really made it play big was Reagan, under the guise of his favored Block Grants. See, the US government cannot make a state government change things not falling under direct purview of the feds. However, this is not a true forcing of the issue. Its using federal funding to blackmail them. Its slimy, but, its common. This was done all over the place to force the 55 mph speed limit decades ago, and it stood up in court. This will stand up too, I'd imagine. It seems unconstitutional, and maybe it should be illegal, but precedent shows it is neither. The speed limit thing also popped into my mind. I would imagine (hope) that there's a legal distinction between requiring certain statues/ rules governing what the money is intended for (I think they were only withholding Federal highway money) vs. the Federal government not giving a state money because it doesn't like who's in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) The speed limit thing also popped into my mind. I would imagine (hope) that there's a legal distinction between requiring certain statues/ rules governing what the money is intended for (I think they were only withholding Federal highway money) vs. the Federal government not giving a state money because it doesn't like who's in charge. I'm not sure there is a difference. Its not dictating law, because its not dictating anything - it is a condition of receiving federal block funds, which are not obligated to the states. The federal government can decide on discretionary funding in pretty much any way they choose, as long as they don't run afoul of existing federal law or the Constitution. And there is nothing in the Constitution (I don't believe) that dictates the conditions under which the federal government can dole out those discretionary funds. Now, if the funds were about something obligated to the states - i.e. military assistance, like if Illinois was invaded by Canada - then it would be unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) I'm not sure there is a difference. Its not dictating law, because its not dictating anything - it is a condition of receiving federal block funds, which are not obligated to the states. The federal government can decide on discretionary funding in pretty much any way they choose, as long as they don't run afoul of existing federal law or the Constitution. And there is nothing in the Constitution (I don't believe) that dictates the conditions under which the federal government can dole out those discretionary funds. Now, if the funds were about something obligated to the states - i.e. military assistance, like if Illinois was invaded by Canada - then it would be unconstitutional. If they were allowed to say "We're not giving money if Blago is gov.," what prevents them from saying "We're not giving money if a (Rep or Dem) is gov.?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 01:22 PM) If they were allowed to say "We're not giving money if Blago is gov.," what prevents them from saying "We're not giving money if a (Rep or Dem) is gov.?" I don't know that there is anything preventing that, as awful as that could get. Because again, these discretionary federal funds are not obligated to the states. I think there would obviously be HUGE public backlash against something like what you suggest of course, which in itself probably keeps US Congress from doing it. I suppose that because this singles out a specific state (55 did not), one could make a legal argument that this unfairly treats one state differently than the rest - particularly since the people of that state have no control over it. But I am not sure what part of the Constitution you would use for that case. Its not 10A, so, what part of the Constitution (if there is one) specifically states anything about equal treatment of the states? I don't think any of this funding can easily be tied to specific 1A protections, though, maybe it could be used as a broad equality issue for 1A? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 08:39 AM) JUST PLANE DESPICABLE 'RESCUED' CITI BUYING $50M JET By JENNIFER KEIL and CHUCK BENNETT Beleaguered Citigroup is upgrading its mile-high club with a brand-new $50 million corporate jet - only this time, it's the taxpayers who are getting screwed.... QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 08:39 AM) LINK This administration is already leaps and bounds better than the last one and it's only been one week so far. The high-flying execs at Citigroup caved under pressure from President Obama and decided today to abandon plans for a luxurious new $50 million corporate jet from France. Entire article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Wow, I didn't think that was actually going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:12 AM) Wow, I didn't think that was actually going to work. You'd think that after the Big 3 pulled their corporate jet stunt to D.C. that these execs would use a little more discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 10:16 AM) You'd think that after the Big 3 pulled their corporate jet stunt to D.C. that these execs would use a little more discretion. Yeah really. Sometimes they have the nerve to get pissed off when the media puts them on blast, like they don't see what's wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Not agreeing with Citi, but they didn't just order the jet last week. Both articles failed to mention that point. I believe it was ordered in 2005. Just some context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:30 AM) Not agreeing with Citi, but they didn't just order the jet last week. Both articles failed to mention that point. I believe it was ordered in 2005. Just some context. Based on the economic climate of the last 12 months that plane should have been scratched off their wish list several months ago. They didn't need to wait until the Obama administration pressured them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ugh. I realize that "BAILOUT" is the word of the day, and that it's taxpayer funded... but they have no right to tell them how to do business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:36 AM) Ugh. I realize that "BAILOUT" is the word of the day, and that it's taxpayer funded... but they have no right to tell them how to do business. Citi is not in the business of purchasing ridiculously expensive French jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:37 AM) Citi is not in the business of purchasing ridiculously expensive French jets. Who are you to tell their executive team how they will and will not travel, when it is an industry norm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:38 AM) Who are you to tell their executive team how they will and will not travel, when it is an industry norm? Who am I? One of the people that bailed them out with my tax money. Use it to hire some consultants to make their business more efficient. State of the art corporate jets? GMAFB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 10:36 AM) Ugh. I realize that "BAILOUT" is the word of the day, and that it's taxpayer funded... but they have no right to tell them how to do business. You see how this looks though right? A company is in financial trouble, takes a large chunk of taxpayer money, and then any large non-essential purchase it makes will have the appearance of being funded by taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:38 AM) Who are you to tell their executive team how they will and will not travel, when it is an industry norm? The industry norm across the economy got us where we are today. Time to change the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Fair or not, perception is reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:46 AM) Fair or not, perception is reality. And the perception is that as soon as they get some "free money" they run out and buy toys they don't need. It makes it look like they haven't changed a damn thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 So what kind of odds will I get for a TARP III and TARP IV this year. Also, Sen. Ensign was on CNBC this morning and said the Repubs would like to put a plan in place that would allow every homeowner to re-finance for 4%. Every homeowner would qualify. On avg., he said it would save the homeowner $400/mo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 10:53 AM) So what kind of odds will I get for a TARP III and TARP IV this year. Also, Sen. Ensign was on CNBC this morning and said the Repubs would like to put a plan in place that would allow every homeowner to re-finance for 4%. Every homeowner would qualify. On avg., he said it would save the homeowner $400/mo. What do you think of this plan? It sounds pretty excessive to me but if I could drop from 6.25% down to 4 hell I'd jump all over that s***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (The Critic @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 10:53 AM) And the perception is that as soon as they get some "free money" they run out and buy toys they don't need. It makes it look like they haven't changed a damn thing. It's probably unfair too, but that's what it looks like to the average taxpayer. I'm surprised that some execs haven't figured this out yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:57 AM) What do you think of this plan? It sounds pretty excessive to me but if I could drop from 6.25% down to 4 hell I'd jump all over that s***. I think it is a great plan. The housing industry is the problem with the economy. Anything that would allow a homeowner to cut their payment, if Sen. Ensign's figures are correct, by $400/mo or more, is an instant tax cut without the stigma of a tax cut. The amount of money that would flow into the economy from this would be substantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts