Centinel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,984
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- Location
- Penn's Woods
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!Whoa. Didn't expect that. Thanks.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!Whoa. Didn't expect that. Thanks.
Given that the CFPB is tasked with protecting the rights of consumers in financial transactions generally involving banks ... yeah -- pretty much. Who do you think it was that spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying against the CFPB? Hint: it wasn't consumers.
The very fact that you say it is debatable shows just how far we have damaged the Constitution.Okay, if that's what you're saying. But that's debatable.
No. It doesn't. This tossed out decades of standing bankruptcy law. The Executive branch bullied the courts into setting aside the bond holders' claims and gave a higher standing to the unions. This was very bad assuming we are still a nation of laws.Sure it does. If you're saving a good company from a short-term crisis, it makes lots of sense. And the results are beginning to show.
DOJ has released it's legal memo to the Presdient justifying the recess appointments: Obama recess appointments DOJ decision
Why not? Once you have breached the Constitution why not do whatever you want? Do what benefits your friends. Do what fills your campaign coffers. Be corrupt.Me too, which is why I wouldn't do this for any old company any old time.
As it should be. They failed. There should be consequences for owners, not taxpayers.Well, no, often bankruptcy means the business doesn't continue at all.
This is nonsense.The new owners get some old factories and equipment, along with lots of liabilities.
Someone has to do it. If not me, who. If not now, when?Didn't I already tell you to drop the pious baloney? Don't lecture me, son.
Your link tried to give me a virus.
Woop! Sorry about that. Norton didn't give me any warnings.
Me too, which is why I wouldn't do this for any old company any old time.
Well, no, often bankruptcy means the business doesn't continue at all. The new owners get some old factories and equipment, along with lots of liabilities. Thousands lose their jobs and the tax revenue from the company disappears. That's what was likely to happen to GM. If a company is failing, it's failing, and bankruptcy doesn't necessarily save it.
The very fact that you say it is debatable shows just how far we have damaged the Constitution.
No. It doesn't. This tossed out decades of standing bankruptcy law. The Executive branch bullied the courts into setting aside the bond holders' claims and gave a higher standing to the unions. This was very bad assuming we are still a nation of laws.
Seems that I have read somewhere that the government loaned Chrysler $1.5 billion in 1979, not only did they pay back the loan but the Treasury was $350 million richer.
Why not? Once you have breached the Constitution why not do whatever you want? Do what benefits your friends. Do what fills your campaign coffers. Be corrupt.
As it should be. They failed. There should be consequences for owners, not taxpayers.
This is nonsense.
Thousands lose their jobs and the tax revenue from the company disappears. That's what was likely to happen to GM. If a company is failing, it's failing, and bankruptcy doesn't necessarily save it.
I am not objecting to your different opinion. Please feel free to believe whatever you wish. Either way you cannot escape the consequences.Yes, yes, you're the unquestioned authority and nobody can even possibly have a different opinion.
Yes. I know. I disagree with you. We used to be a nation of laws. The economic chaos this creates is enormous. Will bondholders pay a premium for bonds given the government's dismissal of their lawful claims?I was responding to whether it makes economic sense.
You don't get it. Republicans filibustered the nomination when it came out of committee.
Senate Republicans Block Cordray for CFPB - Bloomberg
It is outside of the Constitution.Pious baloney. If you think it's unconstitutional, just say so.
Number one) when should I expect my refund check for my share? Number two) why would the taxpayer be on the hook for any company's bankruptcy? Isn't the real issue that our Dear Leader, the one term Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama, wanted to give money to his base, union members and their thug leaders?Two points 1) the taxpayers should get paid back, with interest (yes, with a risk that they won't), 2) the taxpayers would lose ALOT if GM were allowed to fail.
Absolutely. It may not be the RNC that files the suit. But, because of the language of the law, the first decision that the CFPB makes under Cordray, it will be immediately challenged in court.
j-mac
actually the law requires that the post be filled with senate approval. not just the Constitution - but the statute establishing the post itself.
Does the law permit the Senate to refuse to submit the nomination to an up or down vote, thus thwarting the intent of the law?
actually the law requires that the post be filled with senate approval. not just the Constitution - but the statute establishing the post itself.
What the hell? You can't just make it up as you go along Adam.
The Senate has rules, and as recent as 2010 the Obama administration stated that they would adhere to the rule of the pro forma session as legitimate.
Read the rest, it continues by saying that the post will be filled..."in accordance with section 1011".cpwill said:actually the law requires that the post be filled with senate approval. not just the Constitution - but the statute establishing the post itself.