advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

HERE WE GO ... THE GOVERNMENT WILL DECIDE WHEN YOU ARE 'TOO BIG TO FAIL'

By
Neal Boortz
@ November 5, 2009 8:39 AM Permalink | Comments (68) | TrackBacks (0)

So here we go. The Democrats in the House (thanks to the leadership of slobbering Barney Frank) have been working on financial industry reform legislation. This legislation is a Socialist's wet dream. It allows government bureaucrats to scan the private sector - spot some prey - create a story of despair and danger - and swoop in for the kill. It was Slobbering Barney who originally came up with the idea .. but now it's being refined by Pennsylvania Democrat (of course) Paul Kanjorski. Kanjorski is proposing legislation that would expand the powers of our imperial federal government beyond anything we have seen thus far. It will eclipse George Bush and Barack Obama and Barney Frank and Harry Reid.

Kanjorski's brilliant idea is legislation within the next few weeks that will give the federal government the power to preemptively break up financial firms that it deems "too big to fail." We aren't talking about creating pools for bailout emergencies or "living wills" for institutions if they should fail. We are talking about the federal government having the power to decide when a company is too big, and using force to dismantle that private company.

Unfortunately, Kanjorski isn't alone. He has an ally in the House. And that ally happens to be a Republican. Actually ... no surprise there. The Republican Party has pretty much become a party of big government as well ... just not as big as fast. Alabama Republican Richard Shelby says that he like Kanjorski's idea. Yep. Shelby says that he supports having a federal regulator that would have the power to make financial firms "stronger or smaller" before they pose a threat to the economy.

Kanjorski is dismayed to point out that our Constitution limits the powers of the federal government. He describes those powers as "not clearly defined." He says that with his legislation, "we're going to be evident in the power." You know ... I thought the 10th Amendment was actually pretty clear on this. The federal government only has the powers specifically enumerated in that document. All other powers are reserved for the states or the people. How "not clearly defined is this"?

I hope you folks understand that today's Democrat Party views our Constitution as a nuisance. It stands in the way of their grand schemes for an American Society of Government. Ask Pelosi about the Constitutionality of her health care takeover and she screams "Are you serious?" Kanjorski talks about a Constitution that does not "clearly" define government power, and the White House dismisses the need for any

Constitutional inquiries made of the ACORN Administrations big government dreams.

Elections have consequences. One year ago today you woke up to the reality of a president and a congress intent on relegating our Constitution to the "casual reading" section of your local Barnes and Noble.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: HERE WE GO ... THE GOVERNMENT WILL DECIDE WHEN YOU ARE 'TOO BIG TO FAIL'.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/49776

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • Your adolescent comments
    Neal, can't you GROW UP?
    I can't even get past your first sentence.
    When you actually evolve and move beyond slinging arrows ("slobbering Barney Frank") I MIGHT actually read your whole article and we MIGHT have some ideas in common!
    A very disappointed sometimes-reader.
    By Sharon Hudson @ 11/08/09 01:18:52 PMreport abuse
  • retwisted
    You said "Of course, this is all speculation"

    So, based on speculation you'd seek to overthrow our govt? or think it justified?
    By snarkybird @ 11/06/09 01:03:16 PMreport abuse
  • @Snarkybird
    "Despotism? really? How can that exist with free and fair elections?"

    Actually, it's questionable how "free and fair" this last election was. A lot of dead people and ficitional characters voted for Obama, who also ran his campaign with a LOT of illegal contributions.

    Of course, this is all speculation, but is based on a lot of suspicious circumstances. This is without a doubt the shadiest administration I've ever seen or heard about in this country.
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/06/09 11:35:08 AMreport abuse
  • retwisted
    You said "they also pretty much said it's our duty to overthrow the govt when it gets out of control."

    Well, what they actually said was:

    ----------
    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security
    ------------

    Despotism? really? How can that exist with free and fair elections?

    Are you also on the "welfare state voting for free stuff" bandwagon like Ace?

    Prudence is what they called for. So many just glide past that part to the part about throwing off such government.

    Neal's right about one thing - elections matter.

    And to say that there is no difference between Democrats and republicans is ignorant.

    Ask yourself if you really think there would be any difference now if Gore had two terms instead of Bush. I find it hard to believe you'd say things would be the same.

    Worse? maybe. But either way, although I think they crossed the line to despotism many times, we had another election - and now those things are being changed. slowly...too slowly I think. But, again - this is why we have elections.
    By snarkybird @ 11/06/09 09:56:49 AMreport abuse
  • @Snarkybird
    "I am supporting healthcare reform." --Snarkybird

    What's sad for you, Snarky, is despite our many efforts to educate you, you have absolutely no idea how destructive this bill would be to us.

    You do not have a basic understanding of either the Constitution or economics, and that lack of understanding (in you and other libs) is costing all of us dearly.

    I expect you to tell me how wrong I am, but I have pointed you to several books that you refuse to read, as well as given several common-sense explanations that I doubt you paid any attention to. Not sure what else I can do here.
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/06/09 09:34:02 AMreport abuse
  • @Snarkybird
    "I am supporting healthcare reform." --Snarkybird

    What's sad for you, Snarky, is despite our many efforts to educate you, you have absolutely no idea how destructive this bill would be to us.

    You do not have a basic understanding of either the Constitution or economics, and that lack of understanding (in you and other libs) is costing all of us dearly.

    I expect you to tell me how wrong I am, but I have pointed you to several books that you refuse to read, as well as given several common-sense explanations that I doubt you paid any attention to. Not sure what else I can do here.
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/06/09 09:33:04 AMreport abuse
  • @Snarkybird
    "really? in all cases? I'd be willing to concede that it's not perfect but, always poison? Is that what you're saying?"

    Pretty much what Joyce said. Think that's extreme? Consider that invariably, without question, whenever you give the govt (any govt!) an inch, it will take a mile, and then another mile, and then another one and so on.

    The founding fathers fully understood this, which is precisely why they limited its powers as much as possible, and why they also pretty much said it's our duty to overthrow the govt when it gets out of control.

    They knew that, even with all the checks, balances, rules, etc in the Constititution, eventually the govt would STILL grow too powerful.

    And they were right.
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/05/09 07:50:25 PMreport abuse
  • When will the People...
    decide that the Federal Government has become to big and we should dismantle IT to protect our Economy, Liberty and Rights? Ultimately, it IS OUR DECISION!
    By Burley @ 11/05/09 04:17:03 PMreport abuse
  • reace
    I am supporting healthcare reform.

    And I think, after it passes, it's time to start looking at cuts in medicaid/medicare, changes to SS including raising retirement age, raising bar on taxable income, as well as cuts to defense.

    if those things dont happen, Obama and the dems deserve what they get.

    But you? you have a hammer...and the world is a nail.

    how sad for you.
    By snarkybird @ 11/05/09 04:16:34 PMreport abuse
  • snarkybird : “I'm all for reasonable cuts and changes to entitlements. “
    Okay so do my early statements hold true?

    Are you NOT supporting Obama/Pelosi/Reid/care?

    Snarkybird : “you however, just want to cut, in unreasonable ways to satisfy your ideology, all entitlements and leave defense in a "lockbox". “

    And I said that when?

    Gee, I guess I had your response pegged!

    Anyways: this is my response from before:

    My response would be that Medicaid and Medicare are already going bankrupt and that adding even more overblown entitlements will destroy the economy.

    And that defense is one of the tasks the Government is supposed to do and we are still at war with the Islamic fascists.
    By ACE @ 11/05/09 03:57:42 PMreport abuse
  • Constitiutionality
    You folks need to read the background on how Social security became law and its court challenges.

    After it's creation prior to SCOTUS review On February 5, 1937 FDR sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire. Couching his argument as a reform to help relieve the workload burden on the courts. This sent a shiver down SCOTUS's spine.

    This created 3 cases ;Helvering vs. Davis:Steward Machine Company:Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke Co. and Gulf States Paper:in
    The big take here is a 5-4 decision
    that SSI is AN EXCISE TAX and as such it is legal under Article 1 Section 8 to "lay & collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, Excises & pay debts. Not the General Welfare clause. If you read the document each sections starts with "APPROPRIATIONS".

    This is how Obama care will be shoved down your throat. Mandatory purchase of insurance may be unconstitutional, but its only an Excise tax and thats how they will get you.
    By Bob @ 11/05/09 03:23:24 PMreport abuse
  • reace
    man, you are in a twitter, aren't you?

    sorry I'm not as prompt with my responses as you'd like. Sheesh.

    I'm all for reasonable cuts and changes to entitlements. But I also put defense on the table (even with two wars which I support - although, I think we need to rethink afghanistan)

    you however, just want to cut, in unreasonable ways to satisfy your ideology, all entitlements and leave defense in a "lockbox".

    Which sounds like a more reasonable approach?
    By snarkybird @ 11/05/09 02:26:29 PMreport abuse
  • Always Poison?
    retwisted
    You said "Government intervention is not just "imperfect." It is poison."

    really? in all cases? I'd be willing to concede that it's not perfect but, always poison? Is that what you're saying?
    By snarkybird

    Nope, I think we have said they can run the military to protect our borders (which they do a lousy job of) and maintain our infrastructure (which is also lousy). So if they are doing a lousy job of the two things they are SUPPOSED to do, why do we want them being distracted from their job even further????
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/05/09 02:22:45 PMreport abuse
  • Sorry about that, snarkybird I should have taken a lot more care in writing you side:
    Most likely it will be something like:

    “I'm all for smaller government, but how do you do that, what is YOUR idea? “

    “Are You going to tell thousand of people on welfare and SS that you are cutting them off.”

    “Sorry, but social security and Medicaid and Medicare are here to stay, they are not going to go away any time soon.”

    “So how are you going to make government smaller and cut them off?”
    “Why don't you make the government smaller by shrinking the military?”

    “Why do you advocate having the military fight totally unnecessary wars that waste trillions of dollars?”

    Hope that sounds better.
    By ACE @ 11/05/09 02:19:18 PMreport abuse
  • Seeing that sb is probably going to wait until the last minute again, so that I cannot respond, and have to respond tomorrow – so she can complain about it.
    I will attempt to compose a blind response Making an educated guess as to what sb will say.

    Most likely it will be something like:
    “I'm all for smaller government, but how do you do that, what is YOUR idea?

    Are You going to tell thousand of people on welfare and SS that you are cutting them off.”

    “Sorry, but social security and Medicaid and Medicare are here to stay, they are not going away any dam time soon.”

    “So how are you going to make government smaller and cut them off?”
    “Why don't you make the government smaller by shrinking the military why do you advocate having the fight totally unnecessary wars?”

    My response would be that Medicaid and Medicare are already going bankrupt and that adding even more overblown entitlements will destroy the economy.

    And that defense is one of the tasks the Government is supposed to do and we are still at war with the Islamic fascists.

    How was that sb, too long?
    By ACE @ 11/05/09 01:57:05 PMreport abuse
  • retwisted
    You said "Government intervention is not just "imperfect." It is poison."

    really? in all cases? I'd be willing to concede that it's not perfect but, always poison? Is that what you're saying?
    By snarkybird @ 11/05/09 01:43:45 PMreport abuse
  • @Snarky
    "I dont think I ever said that govt can protect us from everything"

    You're beliefs are based on that premise. It's a logical conclusion.

    "how can you make the argument that, since regulations and govt can't protect us from every bad thing, that there's no point in even trying to setup some protections?"

    No, I am also saying that their attempts make matters worse, not better. Government intervention is not just "imperfect." It is poison.
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/05/09 01:07:21 PMreport abuse
  • this is new........
    nope......this is the "new" stuff from kaliphonykneeahhhh.......

    it's sum gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
    By butt neckid @ 11/05/09 01:03:03 PMreport abuse
  • Alan
    monopoly
    isn't this just an extension of Anti-monopoly laws?

    instead of 1, they are saying even 10 (arbitrary number) are too few for the system to work properly ...

    so a bank is broken into regional pieces?? so what?! it means more local banks can actually compete ...
    By Alan

    Letting them fail would accomplish the same thing without billions of taxpayer money being wasted to hold something up that is going to fail in the long run anyway!
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/05/09 01:02:03 PMreport abuse
  • sb: “if I concede that the govt should be smaller,” Does that mean you no longer support Frau Botox's healthcare plan?
    That You no longer support Cap and TAX?

    That You no longer support the take over of the Automobile companies?

    That You no longer support the take over of the Banks?

    That You no longer support Unlimited Taxation?

    In short, you no longer support the Statists?

    If that's the case, then congratulations!!!!

    You are back on the side of Freedom and Liberty!!!!!!
    By ACE @ 11/05/09 01:01:00 PMreport abuse
  • Who approves....
    Who approves final bank mergers? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a government agency? So who is really at fault for letting them get "too big to fail", and we want to trust these same people to break the up?
    By Rick @ 11/05/09 12:43:47 PMreport abuse
  • Nah, didnt work
    Tried that snark, it was gone.

    butt neckid, I seem to recall pitching in for that stash!!!
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/05/09 12:42:20 PMreport abuse
  • monopoly
    isn't this just an extension of Anti-monopoly laws?

    instead of 1, they are saying even 10 (arbitrary number) are too few for the system to work properly ...

    so a bank is broken into regional pieces?? so what?! it means more local banks can actually compete ...
    By Alan @ 11/05/09 12:16:17 PMreport abuse
  • and anutter thing.......
    STAY OUTA MY STASH!!!!
    By butt neckid @ 11/05/09 12:10:39 PMreport abuse
  • dat special hand creme.......................
    Joyce M/B..........hun.............you got into IVANs special cleanin' cream huh........

    that's the stuff that he uses on our antennas and things......

    it's hard to get off but gas works okay....stay away from open flames and keyboards.....xoxoxoxoxoxo
    By butt neckid @ 11/05/09 12:08:55 PMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    try the "back" button. Sometimes your browser will cache the message even though you've clicked on through to something else accidentally.

    worked for me more than once.
    By snarkybird @ 11/05/09 11:37:44 AMreport abuse
  • retwisted
    I dont think I ever said that govt can protect us from everything. happy to be wrong there but, please point it out.

    how can you make the argument that, since regulations and govt can't protect us from every bad thing, that there's no point in even trying to setup some protections?

    I'm not saying it's perfect but, the perfect should never be the enemy of the good or good enough.
    By snarkybird @ 11/05/09 11:36:39 AMreport abuse
  • Fed
    I consider myself a free-market capitalist, but I do think competition has to be protected. I usually support trustbusting and monopoly break-ups.

    I am not sure what to think of this though. I feel like this is a band-aid on a flesh-eating virus.

    Is there really a lack of competition here? Can we not have startups instead of breakups? Are there barriers to entering the market?

    Is the problem really "too big" banks or is it the underlying Federal Reserve System?
    By Gunt @ 11/05/09 11:28:36 AMreport abuse
  • "...Too big to Fail!"
    After all is said and done, I am constantly reminded of the oath that I took when commisioned as an officer in the United States Air Force: "To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic... So help me God!"

    Sadly, it appears that the real enemies are the ones on Capitol Hill!
    By Robert Barinowski @ 11/05/09 11:25:51 AMreport abuse
  • When...
    ...will the Supreme Court start ruling in favor of the Constitution? The 10th Amendment sure is a good one. I only wish that the Supreme Court would read the 10th amendment- not read into it- just read it! I really would love to see them reach a "Come to Jesus" moment
    By Matt @ 11/05/09 11:22:08 AMreport abuse
  • Dang it!
    Had a great response all written out and hit the wrong button BAM it's gone.

    Anyway, Audit the Fed will happen, let the banks fail, we'll survive, thanks for admitting TARP was forced on some, yada yada yada.

    Not as well written as what I had planned but now I'm ticked.....
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/05/09 11:16:23 AMreport abuse
  • @Snarkybird
    Snarkybird,

    The problem with your reasoning lies in the belief that the government can keep any bad thing from happening with the right regulation. However, this is a faulty premise. In most, if not all cases, government intervention only makes things worse, not better. It's akin to curing a cold with crack cocaine. Sure, the patient might feel better for a while, but in the end will be much worse off than if he'd let the cold run its course.

    The government is not the cure-all panacea that you seem to think it is. Mostly, it is run by politicians that only look at the immediate future to try and stay elected, and inept ones at that. BUT: Even if it were run by highly intelligent, well-meaning individuals, their efforts would be futile.

    You simply cannot just regulate away anything that you don't like. Market corrections and failures are a natural and neccessary component of any healthy economy. Trying to circumvent that process is only self-destructive in the long run.

    Keep government out. Sometimes times are tough-- plan well, and buck up when it happens. Looking to the government for help is a really bad idea. Really not much different, in fact, than going to the mafia for help.
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/05/09 11:15:54 AMreport abuse
  • beer run.............................
    RANDY............make a beer run.....DO NOT return with any frankfooters......
    By butt neckid @ 11/05/09 11:04:43 AMreport abuse
  • Breaking up is hard to do.
    Wait a minute. Didn't our all knowing, all seeing, all powwerful goverment break up (into smaller pieces) the phone company? That was a number of years ago. When only one or two giant competitors take over a market, the feds should investigate collusion and other neferious deeds. Let's stop the merger madness.
    If the feds had done to GM what they did to Ma Bell, we'd have three lean, mean auto producing (machines) car companies.
    Let government be the referee in life, not the owner, coach, player AND commisioner.
    By Scrap Iron @ 11/05/09 10:53:32 AMreport abuse
  • sb: “if I concede that the govt should be smaller,” Does that mean you no longer support Frau Botox's healthcare plan?
    That You no longer support Cap and TAX?

    That You no longer support the take over of the Automobile companies?

    That You no longer support the take over of the Banks?

    That You no longer support Unlimited Taxation?

    In short, you no longer support the Statists?

    If that's the case, then congratulations!!!!

    You are back on the side of Freedom and Liberty!!!!!!
    By ACE @ 11/05/09 10:53:17 AMreport abuse
  • rejoyceace
    ok, let's at least take getting rid of the fed off the table because, that's looney land. If you are chomping on that as something that would ever, ever happen - you and OTR and Ivac will become fast friends.

    who thought a bailout was possible prior to this? heck, the govt had to FORCE some of these companies to take the TARP money. They had no clue either of where they were headed or that they'd need a bailout.

    I get the deterrent argument regarding failure. But, as was the case this time, if the economy can be BADLY damaged by a few stupid companies that are both too big to fail and too stupid to care, we as taxpayers have an obligation to smack them.

    but, on your last point - I agree... we need to strike a balance and I hope we dont go too far. but, you cant expect there not to be some change to happen towards MORE regulation after what happened.

    my guess is, as we often do, we'll react too strongly, time will pass, and as things improve, they will get more lax again...

    ace - yes, they actually said that. the argument was over mandates being unconstitutional and bad and therefore not a part of the GOP healthcare bill.

    my point was they supported mandates until they were part of the dem plan.

    that is true and born out in those videos.
    By snarkybird @ 11/05/09 10:45:48 AMreport abuse
  • Randy, please...
    Don't use "Barney Frank" and "swallow" in the same sentence. OMG, I just did it myself!

    But seriously folks...keep your powder dry.
    By 1911A1 @ 11/05/09 10:39:32 AMreport abuse
  • how could I forget?????????????
    politicians are scum.....

    politicians are scum.....

    politicians are scum.....

    now that I said that YOU dumbasses will reelect almost all of these scumsuckin' sumbitches........

    I hear this waaaaaaay to often....."my guy is ok, it's the rest of them that are skrewin' us".......

    the reason we are in the cesspools deep end is becuz of YOU.......dumbasses!!!!
    By butt neckid @ 11/05/09 10:38:34 AMreport abuse
  • Stuart Pitt
    Are you new? If you had been here any length of time, yes the Republican politicians do catch a lot of heat. That's why we're trying to weed out the RINO's.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/05/09 10:34:49 AMreport abuse
  • GI Joe is NOT a soldier
    Judging from his propensity to whine (and name-calling), he's tooooo far left to have enlisted voluntarily. Serve w/John Kerry, did ya Joe?
    By NCchik @ 11/05/09 10:28:42 AMreport abuse
  • Snarky
    If you rely on the Fed, then that IS centralizing. Get rid of the Federal Reserve, let each stand on it's own. There will be someone around to pick up the pieces, the pain of their failure would not be near as bad as you make it out to be.

    Think of it as a deterent. If they know there is no bailout possible, they won't partake in bad behaviour. And if we let them make the decisions of who gets a loan based on reasonable credit requirements with a down payment for a house as an example, then their business and our investments will be safe.

    There is such a thing as too much regulation/protection.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/05/09 10:25:52 AMreport abuse
  • reace
    um, regarding organization size - so, if I concede that the govt should be smaller, does that mean you agree with me on this point?
    By snarkybird @ 11/05/09 10:25:21 AMreport abuse
  • Sb: “as the impetus for their support for mandates. “
    Did they actually say that?

    One would think that if you where winning the original argument, you wouldn't NEED to distract onto something else, would you?
    By ACE @ 11/05/09 10:25:16 AMreport abuse
  • @Jack Smythe
    Jack, again your anger is misdirected. Don't hate the "rich." Hate the govt. that is enabling all this crap.
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/05/09 10:23:40 AMreport abuse
  • Sb:”If you centralize that reliance, you create several large points of failure rather than many, many smaller points. “
    So instead of 'several large points of failure' you centralize things even further into on Mega - sized point of failure in a Centralized Statist Government right?

    Sb: “But, if organizations become so large that their failure would have a largely negative impact on the economy overall for an extended period of time, the fed's should be able to review that org and say - something needs to change.”

    So, large organizations are bad, but REALLY huge organizations are good?
    By ACE @ 11/05/09 10:19:18 AMreport abuse
  • reace
    the videos talked about individual responsibility as the impetus for their support for mandates. but, I understand why you'd ignore that part. :-)

    I was not the one complaining about multiple links.
    By snarkybird @ 11/05/09 10:17:50 AMreport abuse
  • The is a big difference between amending the Constitution and simply IGNORING it.
    Snarkybird:“Please walk me through how you can rationalize some amendments as good thus removing your argument that the constitution is not a "living document" and then point to other amendments as bad supporting your argument that it should be static? “

    Patience grasshopper, The is a big difference between amending the Constitution and simply IGNORING it.

    And what is it with you leftists that you have all suddenly latched onto this idea that the Constitution didn't mention DVD plays and what not.

    This is a constraint on government, government is the same no matter what the time period.

    The FAA is simply a regulatory body on transportation – and I believe we've had transportation for Gee, thousands of years, right?

    It's a part of commerce between the states, okay?

    However, that can't be said of individuals, unless they ARE commerce – as in the world's oldest profession. There still is that crossing state lines issue thing to deal with.
    By ACE @ 11/05/09 10:09:53 AMreport abuse
  • Conservatives vs Republicans
    I want to remind Stuart Pitt the same way I have to constantly remind my liberal friends, do not mistake me for a republican. I am a conservative. Right now, there is a very big difference in the two.

    With love from Tough Love.
    By Tough Love @ 11/05/09 10:08:12 AMreport abuse
  • These companies are TOO BIG because...
    ...the US government kept allowing these companies to merge and buy each other out and reduce the competition and now big government feels threatened by the competition these big businesses give them.
    By LPCat @ 11/05/09 09:59:42 AMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    I get what you're saying but you're missing the salient point.

    Our economy relies on financial institutions to operate. If you centralize that reliance, you create several large points of failure rather than many, many smaller points.

    I agree with you in theory - yes, failure SHOULD be an option. But, if organizations become so large that their failure would have a largely negative impact on the economy overall for an extended period of time, the fed's should be able to review that org and say - something needs to change.

    I know it feels good to just let them fail but, this isn't a corner gas station and the infrastructure they create in providing cash and credit to our economy isn't something that gets turned on and off easily.
    By snarkybird @ 11/05/09 09:56:54 AMreport abuse
  • Why doesn't it bother you so-called 'Liberals' (implying a more than a passing interest in 'Liberty'), that the government is taking this much control over the country?
    Snarkybird: How many times does this have to be repeated to you before you understand that your vaunted restraint over unlimited government is being ignored by YOUR party – The Statist Democrat Party?

    On your spurious individual mandate tangent, clearly this is the typical Leftist tactic that when losing an argument, distract onto something else instead of staying on the topic at hand. Rinse and repeat every time you start losing.

    And if that doesn't work, run out the clock and later complain that people are bringing up old arguments or something.

    One would think that if you where winning the argument, you wouldn't NEED to distract onto something else, would you?

    But anyways, to play along, that distraction from the argument you were losing was a series of video of Republicans talking about individual responsibility – an individual taking responsibility for buying healthcare insurance – there are several orders of magnitude between that and the government telling Forcing you to buy something

    But now since you've lost of that score I'm sure you'll move onto some other spurious argument.

    Oh, and weren't you the one that was whining about people putting more than one link in a comment:

    “ If your posting relies on clicking on ONE link, I might consider clicking on it. If you post two or more links, forget it. “???
    By ACE @ 11/05/09 09:53:19 AMreport abuse
  • Fascism Finally Comes to America
    For all you Libs out there who called Bush a Fascist and did not even know what it meant, Obama and his minions of Dems have made it a reality. And now Fascism is just fine with the libs and they still don't know what it is.

    GI Joe sounds like he wants us to believe he was a soldier. If he was, he has no idea of what he was fighting for.

    People like this should be exiled to Buffalo Jump, Montana where their legacy really lies. But GI probably wouldn't understand that either.

    With love from Tough Love.
    By Tough Love @ 11/05/09 09:50:38 AMreport abuse
  • Boortz, you sometimes get just so close...
    But then you just can't admit the Republicans are undoubtedly AS BAD as Democrats. The Republicans are just as guilty of viewing the Constitution as a nuisance. Open your eyes and your mind to the truth. You started down the road of reality in this piece before escaping back to fantasy land and place most of the blame on the Democrats.
    By Stuart Pitt @ 11/05/09 09:46:19 AMreport abuse
  • Hypocracy? Hardly Surprised!
    Funny, isn't it, how many liberals with their free market attacks and union loving mentality condone breaking up "too big to fail" financial institutions, yet fail to see similar merit in dividing union entrenched conglomerates like GM.
    By scottsw @ 11/05/09 09:45:13 AMreport abuse
  • Too Big
    Isn't our government too big too fail? When do we start breaking that up?
    By Brian @ 11/05/09 09:40:21 AMreport abuse
  • "Too Big to fail", health care, etc
    I guess now we've hit "land of the *formerly* free"...
    By John Sullivan @ 11/05/09 09:32:56 AMreport abuse
  • Becoming "Too Big To Fail"
    Below is a quote from Wikipedia concerning the manner in which Microsoft dealt with proposed anti trust regulations:

    A modern wrinkle in anti-trust litigation was made starkly evident by Microsoft. Microsoft was founded in 1975, but had a peculiar blind spot: They were not making large political contributions to anyone. The filing of the anti-trust suit was shortly followed by Microsoft becoming the country’s fifth largest political contributor in 2000. Staff members of the Department of Justice went on the nationally broadcast Diane Rehm radio show to specifically deny that they were part of a bi-partisan effort to shakedown Microsoft for contributions.

    Companies become "Too Big To Fail" by buying politicians to run interference for them with their competitors.
    Neal needs to think about this a little more. When big companies can buy politicians to run off their competitors and allow them to lay back, get fat and lazy, and then come crying to the taxpayer everytime their stupid decisions threaten the well being of the country, something has to be done.
    By Carlos @ 11/05/09 09:27:59 AMreport abuse
  • Arbitraty Decisions
    I would rather put up with the arbitrary decisions of the market than the ones of politicians.

    Reading "snarkybird" I see the typical liberal mindset at work. According to him (?), if we have any sort of government regulation of any activity, we must concede all power and authority in all matters to the government.
    So, it's either complete anarchy, or completely totalitarian dictatorship.
    Anyone who wants something other than those two choices is just supposed to shut up because this self-appointed genius says so.
    By Jim Smith @ 11/05/09 09:19:24 AMreport abuse
  • Snark have you lost your mind?
    Who's talking about the FAA? No, that is definitely interstate and should be regulated, we talked about that yesterday when you TRIED to say it was administered at the state level, but I don't believe that is true.

    Anyway, regulate banks as far as their banking practices, sure. Anything beyond that nope.

    See if you let the big ones fail doesn't that just open the opportunity for a small guy to step in and succeed? Isn't that what you progressives would call "leveling the playing field"?
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/05/09 09:17:06 AMreport abuse
  • Constitution and Health Care Reform
    As proposed, individual mandates to carry health insurance and other aspects of national health care reform are unconstitutional. Since Article I, Section 8 does not authorize Congress to implement a health insurance mandate or universal health care plan; Congress should be talking about a constitutional amendment under Article V. To read more about the individual mandate, health insurance and their relationship to the United States Constitution, I have itemized and linked all recent articles on the subject at: http://healthcarereform.homestead.com.
    By K in St. Petersburg @ 11/05/09 09:15:17 AMreport abuse
  • Government in bed with Wall Street .... again
    It's bad enough that trillions of seized taxpayer money was gifted to public and private Wall Street banks and insurance companies as TARP, and that these banks get federal reserve loans at 0%. Now we find out that these Wall Street corporations (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup etc) are getting batches of Swine Flu vaccine before the hospitals, children, and more vulnerable people get them. It is disgusting that a 40-yeal old "so called talented" Wall Street business man gets the vaccine before, say a pregnant woman, a young child, or a hostpital worker gets it. How low can you, or in this case the government, go? And when it comes to big business, TARP, and lobbyists, the Republicans are no different from the Democrats.

    This is yet another reason why so many people hate the rich.
    By Jack Smythe @ 11/05/09 09:09:12 AMreport abuse
  • Stupid Kanjorski
    I can't believe any member of the Sociocrat Party would be willing to swallow anything Barney Frank thrust toward them. I just can't believe it.
    By Randy @ 11/05/09 09:05:16 AMreport abuse
  • Here's an idea!!!
    So why don't we just get rid of bankruptcy laws, laws against fraud, and other processes that has been in place for over 200 years and replace it with this bill!
    Let the market decide when a company is too big fail, like what SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED LAST OCTOBER!!! We probably would have been without Citi, Chase, AIG, GM, Chrysler, and others but agile smaller companies would have taken over most taken over most of the functions of these 'too big to fails'!
    By Michael @ 11/05/09 09:02:49 AMreport abuse
  • Yeah right
    Just forget about the rights of the board of directors, shareholders reps who NORMALLY decide these things.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/05/09 08:58:52 AMreport abuse
  • Repubs are just like Dems
    It appears that Repubs and Dems are now both big government parties and are willing to operate outside of the Constitution.

    Maybe this is why I am now a Libertarian. At least that party still believes in living within the US Constitution.
    By Libertarian Voter @ 11/05/09 08:58:30 AMreport abuse
  • Survive
    The Constitution has survived over 225 years. I ONLY HOPE IT CAN SURVIVE UNTIL NOVEMBER 2010 at the rate these clowns are going.
    By Mark @ 11/05/09 08:57:32 AMreport abuse
  • federal regulations
    you cant have it both ways.

    you want to grip tightly to the constitution when it comes to federal regulations in banking but, when it comes to food, flying, or stocks - oh, gosh, that's just AOK.

    Boortz is a pilot for crying out loud! And he's essentially arguing to dismantle the FAA.

    Yes, let's have interstate flight deregulated and have each state regulate its own air travel.

    and when you start to argue against this seemingly ridiculous notion, remember - this is about interstate commerce. You either agree with that or you dont. And if you dont, you agree that the above example is correct.

    Anything else means you think the FAA is proper and the federal govt plays a role in interstate commerce - and once you start walking down that road, you allow everything else in behind you...
    By snarkybird @ 11/05/09 08:55:25 AMreport abuse
  • Wah wah wah
    Crybaby conservatives are paranoid about another piece of legislation that most likely wont make it through. But they are crybabies, so lets hear it. WAH WAH WAH Barney Frank is Jewish WAH WAH WAH This is a piece of legislation WAH WAH WAH Alabama is a very intelligent state WAH WAH WAH

    I wish conservatives werent crybabies and tough like American soldiers.
    By GI JOE @ 11/05/09 08:51:21 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement