Sunday, September 21, 2008

Unconstitutional Bail Outs

Who else cares that the federal government lacks the constitutional power to "bail out" failing companies?

Congress's powers are established by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Click here for a list of these powers.

It doesn't matter if you think--however erroneously--that such "bail outs" are a good idea. If you support such action from Congress, then you support unconstitutional government. Tyranny is the historical consequence of unconstitutional government, so, if you support the "bail outs," then you support tyranny.


  1. p.a.b.a.r.7:47 PM

    I had this discussion yesterday with my brother and brother-in-law. These companies have proven their weakness by needing a bail-out to continue operating. The long-term consequences of keeping such companies running is far worse than letting them fail and make room for new, better companies. The politicians know what they're doing, but they have economic incentives to support the bail-outs. They are acting as traitors to the people and the Constitution (except for a few, like the guy we know will vote "NO" on these bail-outs). The only government officials that could understandably act in a semi-rash manner would be the Representatives, but they should be checked by the wisdom of the Senate and the President (lol). Of course, that assumes that senators and presidents are above pocket-lining, favors, and general idiocy. This whole thing pisses me off, if you haven't noticed!!

  2. bar exhibiting restraint9:30 PM

    If you only knew how close I was just now to sending you an Obama-Biden sticker from the Google ad on this very site! So tempting!

  3. It makes me think, All those billions of dollars couldn't have gone to something better? Like repaying national debts? The educational system? Fixing potholes? Feeding dying African children even?

    I just threw up a little in my mouth. The government makes me sick.

  4. OK, Surrealist, you're missing my point. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to fund the education system, fix potholes, or feed dying African children either.

    Of your four mentioned alternatives, only paying down the national debt was any good.

  5. It's not even the companies' fault. It's the Fed's fault. Human beings respond predictably to incentives. The Fed, under Alan Greenspan (boo-hiss, made such investments inevitable by increasing the money supply with such ridiculously low interest rates.

    The real tragedy here is that it's federal policy--via the Fed--that has caused all of this, and most people seem to see all of this as excuse to increase the federal government and Fed's powers.

    In any private company, the federal government would have been fired, and the Fed would have been put up on charges.

  6. You hit on a point, Aristos, but I want to make it clearer. Doesn't it seem like the response to any difficulty is bigger government? Both Obama and McCain propose new agencies or reform (spend more) of current agencies to fix anything (Wall Street blunders, hurricanes, terrorist attacks, drug use, accidental shootings, bad parents, lazy students, rabid pandas...). The two sides of the same coin (Democrats and Republicans) maintain power, filter money to the people they want, and claim to be doing the right thing. To them, losing means doing those things suggested by Ron Paul. I'm just amazed they haven't run him out of Congress on some trumped-up charges yet.


Bill of Rights