Nick Rizzuto on Rep Alan Grayson

[andrewwilkowdotnet]

You got dust on your blinds ;)

[bloodironfire]

The way the branches of our government are interacting with each other in recent years has become troubling to me. There seems to be less checking and balancing and more conglomerating in an attempt to , apparently, cease more power for the powers that be. The more the people of the country are forgotten the more dangerous our country will become.

[Staticnz]

Btw, Nick, I'm afraid there is one small point that tears your entire interpretation of this act to shreds...

...it ONLY apples to organizations that have received TARP money. So basically, these organizations are beholden to the government as they voluntarily received funds with which to shure up their assets...

You don't seem to mention that, and it is the basic tenet of this act.

[ConservativePunkTV]

Can you please point out the article and section in the constitution where it says that recipiants of TARP money, voluntarily or otherwise, no longer have protection under the constitution from "punishment", as Grayson put it, through bill of attainder, which is specifically prohibited in article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution?

I don't mention it because it's irrelivant to the argument.

[Staticnz]

Not everything is in the constitution...I mean, it is obvious that if you give money to someone with conditions than they should have to meet said conditions, or be penalized. That is free market principles in action. You don't take tax payer money and just waste it. You don't take money from one entity and waste it either, unless there are no conditions.

Grayson is simply trying to put conditions on the money that SHOULD have been there in the first place, but they SCREWED it up.

[ConservativePunkTV]

You're right, not everything is in the constitution, but protection from legislative and executive justice, aka bills of attainder, are. It's THE LAW. But if you think that the federal government should only selectively follow the law that's fine. We'll just agree to disagree on that.

[Staticnz]

I think that this is an issue that's complicated enough that it isn't quite as simple as just saying this is the law.

I say that because the bailouts were rather unprecedented. We could have a separate argument about whether the bailouts should have existed...

But they did, and it was stupid of the government to give out money WITHOUT proper conditions or contractual obligations. It is still totally rational and reasonable that corporations shouldn't rampantly waste taxpayer money.

[ConservativePunkTV]

Furthermore, the fact that it only applies to TARP recipiants, doesn't speak to the fact that it allows the Executive branch, namely the Treasury Department, to define excessive pay in whatever arbitrary manner it decides to.

It's dangerous to empower the executive branch with such laws, as it's antithetical to the idea of the separation of powers.

[Staticnz]

It's much more dangerous to give a lot of tax money to people that voluntarily lobby for it, and then have them waste it on worthless crap like executive pay and compensation.

Apparently you don't care at all if corporations get bailed out with your money, without conditions. So essentially you are for somebody taking as much tax from you as they want, and spending it on crap that won't help anyone. Smart.

[ConservativePunkTV]

I hate corporate bailouts. I was against TARP, I was against the auto bailouts. I hate all forms of corporate welfare.

You seem to think that corporate handouts mean that the constitution no longer applies to recipients. The problem with that is that the constitution ALWAYS applies to restricting the government. It's the cornerstone of limited governance. Let's start electing people who don't give away money in the first place.

[Staticnz]

It isn't a matter of constitutionality, it is a matter of contractual obligation.

Now the problem is that the government royally screwed up with the bailouts by not having proper obligations in the contract.  If you contract out to somebody you expect them to do certain things.

The problem with Grayson's act is that, because he is forced to fix up something they screwed up in the first place, it becomes unconstitutional despite making sense. That's the fault of those that passed the bailouts

[Staticnz]

That Cavuto interview was just about the worst interview I've ever seen. Cavuto was like a yapping dog, and he was so goddamned disrespectful, it was disgraceful.

Grayson's recent comments have struck such a nerve because republicans know that all they care about is getting their paychecks from large corporations, insurance companies, banks and other lobbies. They don't give a flying crap about the people and do what their crazed base screams at them to do, which is in line with their greed.

[RonPaulvsTyranny]

Neil Cavuto is a neocon.. he is no conservative. He might as well call himself a martian. it would be more relavent.

[amsquare]

Congressman Grayson was very restrained and attempted to answer the ever more agressive questions calmly. He was not allowed to do soby Cavuto.

This has helped to unleash Grayson. Now Republicans cannot handle him. They should have given him wide birth instead of trying to bully him.

[amsquare]

The only fool revealed in this encounter was Neil Cavuto. He used bullying tactics to try to intimidate the congressman. He was extremely disrespectful.