Bush and the Financial Tsunami

[SkinnyMoose]

Could a financial storm powerful enough allow Bush to step in and declare a national emergency? Maybe even a global emergency? At this time could he resume President of the U.S. under this declaration?

[GreenSpirit]

Some folks think that's the plan.

[Spectrism]

Why do people keep asking this? They don't need Bush. They have plenty of flunkies who will do whatever they say. Bush is toast. They are using up his last bit of life and perceived value with this bailout plan. Bush is history. the new pawn is soon to be hailed.

[SkinnyMoose]

Why do people keep asking this? They don't need Bush. They have plenty of flunkies who will do whatever they say. Bush is toast. They are using up his last bit of life and perceived value with this bailout plan. Bush is history. the new pawn is soon to be hailed.

Thanks. My question is more of a technical one and not a philosophical one. I am asking if this could happen legally by the President of the United States of America, and not whether one believes this will or will not happen and why.

Legal terms only. Thanks

[RichG]

Why do people keep asking this? They don't need Bush. They have plenty of flunkies who will do whatever they say. Bush is toast. They are using up his last bit of life and perceived value with this bailout plan. Bush is history. the new pawn is soon to be hailed.

This we can agree on. Both parties have signed onto the bail-out, the war, and not one has talked about repealing the 'Patriot Act', or abolishing the FED.

BTW...I am starting to see the deflation thing...just can get my head wrapped around it yet.

$+
:smokin:

[scholarcoon]

Why do people keep asking this? They don't need Bush. They have plenty of flunkies who will do whatever they say. Bush is toast. They are using up his last bit of life and perceived value with this bailout plan. Bush is history. the new pawn is soon to be hailed.

"They" aren't one unified group though. "They" are made up of many different groups that are all vying for power. It's plausible that Bush and the neocons could opt to go against the wishes of the big boys in Europe.

[GreenSpirit]

In legal terms, I believe it could happen on the basis of emergency powers granted by the Patriot Act and by his own executive orders concerning martial law and any perceived disaster.

But will he do it?

[Spectrism]

In a national emergency it is possible for the president to remain as the commander-in-chief. Since we already violate the most important laws of the constitution, why would we even care if this is "technically" possible? The consititution has become a show-piece that is no longer adhered to.

Further, technically speaking, of course, for the president to remain in "power", he would have to declare a national emergency (they already exist if he wanted to use them) and this might wake up too many sleeple. Let the people have their ball games, professional wrestling, car races, soap operas and all the beer they can afford. Let them watch the republicans fight the democrats. Why- oh why would they want the curtain pulled away at this stage? unless.... they want a revolution and they want to kill millions.

[Mined Games]

If you read the executive order which defines a national emergency, economic crisis is included as justification for the implementation of martial law. Bush has several justifications he can choose from, in order to extend his presidency. If we get entangled in a military conflict with Iran, Pakistan, or Russia, you can count on the commander in chief remaining at the helm.

[dupontcobb]

Bush Administration Seeks "Dictatorial Power"

Bloomberg is reporting Treasury Seeks Authority to Buy Mortgages Unchecked by Courts.


The Bush administration sought unchecked power from Congress to buy $700 billion in bad mortgage investments from financial companies in what would be an unprecedented government intrusion into the markets.

"He's asking for a huge amount of power," said Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University. "He's saying, `Trust me, I'm going to do it right if you give me absolute control.' This is not a monarchy."

Paulson is seeking an expansion of federal influence over markets that hasn't been seen since the Great Depression, said Charles Geisst, author of "100 Years of Wall Street" and a finance professor at Manhattan College in New York.

"This is going to be a big package because it's a big problem," Bush said following a meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at the White House. "We need to get this done quickly, and the cleaner the better."

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said in a radio address that he "fully supports" Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke's efforts to stabilize the financial system. The plan, however, should benefit both main street and Wall Street, he said.

Republican Presidential nominee John McCain "looks forward" to reviewing the proposal while focusing at least in part on "minimizing the burden on the taxpayer," said Jill Hazelbaker, communications director for the McCain campaign.

The Bush administration seeks "dictatorial power unreviewable by the third branch of government, the courts, to try to resolve the crisis," said Frank Razzano, a former assistant chief trial attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission now at Pepper Hamilton LLP in Washington. "We are taking a huge leap of faith."
Unreviewable Dictatorial Power

Notice how everyone wants to rush this through even though it is the biggest financial crisis in history. One might think that something this big should be carefully considered but no... Bush says: "This is going to be a big package because it's a big problem" and "We need to get this done quickly and the cleaner the better."

It seems the bigger the problem the quicker and cleaner it can be fixed. Indeed Congress will argue more over the cost of toilet seats than they will over this $700 billion (and counting) bailout.

Democrats Want To Expand The Bailout

"We're going to be buying up a lot of mortgage paper," said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. "Between Fannie Mae and Freddie now owned by the federal government and the mortgage paper we'll be acquiring here" and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. running failed bank IndyMac Bancorp Inc., "we should now be able substantially to reduce foreclosures," he said.
My Comment: Barney Frank is an incompetent socialist fool. Buying mortgages in and of itself will not prevent a single foreclosure. All buying mortgages will do is bail out the banks holding those mortgages. And one thing you can be most certain of is that it will be a selective bailout with no oversight as to who gets bailed out or why.

The Treasury plans to hire asset managers to purchase the assets through so-called reverse auctions, seeking the lowest prices, one of the people said. Congress will need to raise the limit for the federal debt to allow the government to borrow enough to fund the program, the person said.

Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who has advocated that markets should be allowed to penalize bad bets, warned that bailout could saddle taxpayers with large debts.

"This could be the biggest bailout in the history of the country and could ultimately cost $500 billion to $1 trillion," Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a Bloomberg Television interview today. "Congress is not going to rubber stamp something."
My Comment: The odds of Congress not rubber stamping this are very slim.

Senator Christopher Dodd, the Banking Committee chairman, said the plan's framers should consider the full debt load of U.S. consumers, possibly including credit cards.
My Comment: Hells bells why not? Let's throw in credit cards, auto loans, boats, and casino debts? Why stop at credit cards and housing? Let's just have the government guarantee every debt in the country.

The temporary plan is likely to include a "second stimulus" proposal with infrastructure funds, low-income energy aid and Medicaid assistance, Frank said.
My Comment: Why stop at two? Why not four? Hell, let's just give everyone $1,000,000 and be done with it.

Officials devising the plan "need to make sure that they keep that hard-headed approach so that people are not profiting off this," said Martin Baily, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Democratic President Bill Clinton.

My Comment: Hard headed approach? What are these clowns smoking? Paulson asks for $700 billion and idiots like Frank and Dodd are clamoring for more already.

"To some extent that's unavoidable," said Baily, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "Anytime you do something like this you have the problem of bailing people out and creating moral hazard. That's the reason why you hold your nose. But it's better than the alternative."
Perfectly Avoidable

Martin Baily is another fool. This was perfectly avoidable. All we had to do we eliminate the Fed and fractional reserve lending. And that is what still needs to be done.

Instead Congress is lining up to give "Unreviewable Dictatorial Power"to the Treasury while increasing the size of the already ridiculous proposal.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-administration-seeks-dictatorial.html

[jsimmons]

Try reading through this and associated wiki entries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act#Amendments_of_2006

[ColdWater]

When you make the rules and you have the backing of the Armed Forces you can do anything you want.