Debra Law wrote:
In your first sentence, you falsely claim you NEVER ONCE made that allegation. Then, in your second sentence immediately following your denial, you make the same allegation that you denied making. How ludicrous is that?
It's only ludicrous if you don't understand that Congress can change the constitution.
Me pointing out that the Constitution says something is thusly not the same as saying Congress lacks the power to do so. After all, they have the power to change the Constitution.
You have REPEATEDLY alleged that Congress doesn't have the power...
No I haven't. See above.
...because you erroneously think that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for Congress to pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
Ok, then why don't you explain what Article I, section 10, clause 1 means then.
Your allegation is without merit and I have told you so several times.
You think mere repetition will make you right? No it won't. No it won't. No it won't.
(just in case it does work that way)
You don't understand that the federal Constitution GRANTS to Congress the power to retroactively modify contracts by and through the bankruptcy clause.
Really? Well it must have been dumb luck when I repeatedly asserted that through bankruptcy Cyclo can get what he wanted but that bankruptcy itself was an undesirable scenario.
Call it pulling a Homer, showing understanding on accident, if you will.
Also, you fail to understand that constitution grants to Congress the power of the federal purse.
Now this is just silly, I understand this perfectly well. If it helps you to pretend I don't then that's fine with me but it doesn't do much to make a case against anything I said.
Thus, Congress may constitutionally place conditions on federal funding. Take or leave it.
I've already agreed with this at least 2 or 3 times, do you have a point?
No one is forcing any CEO to take federal money to bail out his/her failing companies.
Can you show me where I said that?
If the CEO doesn't like the conditions placed on the federal money, the CEO doesn't have to take the federal money.
Debra I made this very point, and was saying that fixating on their compensation is risky for us because we need the bailouts to happen.
Can you try reading what I said again and seeing if there's something I actually said that you can disagree with? This is the point I was making to Cyclo in that focusing too much on the punitive part of the bailout makes it more risky.
The CEO can allow the company to fail and march his ass into into bankrupcy court. A bankruptcy court will not allow the CEO to walk away with millions of dollars while the company creditors stand there empty-handed.
Where did I say anything that this straw man purports to correct? I've said time and again that part of the problem with trying to make them accountable is that we'd have to accept scenarios that aren't that great for the rest of us.
I'm perfectly aware what can be done if they go bankrupt, but given that I'd rather they not go bankrupt (even if they deserve it ) it's just not something I find that useful of a tool in this crisis.
I would love to see all the people who bought the bubble take the lumps for it but I believe that doing so would punish everyone more than it is worth to do so.
I've never made any argument that bankruptcy does not allow for these things, just that in some of the biggest cases isn't that desirable a means to the end of punishing the irresponsible, because they can take others down with them.
I have addressed all of your statements.
If by "addressed" you mean just making stuff up about them yes. If you think you addressed what I actually said how about answering the questions I ask above about where you think I said it?
I haven't fabricated anything.
The problem, however, is that YOU don't have any idea what you're talking about (i.e., the Constitution), therefore YOU don't understand the merits of an informed response when you receive one.
When such a response comes along I'll be sure to give it a try.