Let's Blag
I want to preface this: Peet[Or other Obama fans] don't hate me, I don't know if I feel that strongly about this and also I'm not a closed minded individual. I'm totally open to other opinions and my own views can change if you make a good argument.
I'm a bit disturbed by this recent article in the Washington Post. It's a classic expansion of government powers issue. I understand why the Obama administration wants this passed, but I'm still not at ease.
I usually plead ignorance when questioned about world events because I doubt the visibility of the immediate cause.
We're looking retrospectively back on what happened with AIG and we're picking a couple points out and saying if it wasn't for (X) or (Y) this wouldn't have happened to the American economy. I think we're suffering from some serious retrospective distortion. Do I think the individuals who were operating unethically and out of greed deserve their bonuses? Fuck No! Hell I'm still amazed we call that a bonus if it's not based on good performance but maybe that's another thing. My problem is that there will be individuals arguing that the government should have had this power all along.
I understand why the government has the power to seize a failing bank, but we're now talking about non-financial institutions. Obama hasn't done anything to betray my trust in him and to be honest I don't think his administration would allow abuse of such power. I'm worried about the precedent it will set for future administrations and leaders. If we had McCain in office right now I'm sure we'd be looking at Patriot Act III. Their will always be another incident that will allow for expansion of powers and from my short study of Law I have seen that broad powers and their interpretation are usually abused somewhere along the line.
I think we're discounting possible silent evidence and rushing into passing this(or any) bill. We think the solution is pretty clear at the moment, but like I said that may be because of the retrospective distortion. I have a feeling it's going to be passed. Let's use the Patriot Act as an example. All you need is a recent event and the fresh passion of public support to pass something that is ridiculous. Now I'm not saying this is ridiculous and maybe I'm not even qualified to speak on the matter. I'm just not a fan of legislation passed in the heat of the moment. They even admit they are rushing this in the article!
What I'd like to see is this considered a year or two from now when the wound isn't as fresh. I think that would allow for other solutions to be considered and developed also. I just want to stress that because they are bringing this up as a solution doesn't mean it's the only one.
Last thought: should it be harder for the government to seize a Non-financial institution?
Hoping you all are thinking critically when these things come up. I honestly don't care what position you have, just question your government and their motives a bit more and you'll have my respect :)
I'm a bit disturbed by this recent article in the Washington Post. It's a classic expansion of government powers issue. I understand why the Obama administration wants this passed, but I'm still not at ease.
I usually plead ignorance when questioned about world events because I doubt the visibility of the immediate cause.
We're looking retrospectively back on what happened with AIG and we're picking a couple points out and saying if it wasn't for (X) or (Y) this wouldn't have happened to the American economy. I think we're suffering from some serious retrospective distortion. Do I think the individuals who were operating unethically and out of greed deserve their bonuses? Fuck No! Hell I'm still amazed we call that a bonus if it's not based on good performance but maybe that's another thing. My problem is that there will be individuals arguing that the government should have had this power all along.
I understand why the government has the power to seize a failing bank, but we're now talking about non-financial institutions. Obama hasn't done anything to betray my trust in him and to be honest I don't think his administration would allow abuse of such power. I'm worried about the precedent it will set for future administrations and leaders. If we had McCain in office right now I'm sure we'd be looking at Patriot Act III. Their will always be another incident that will allow for expansion of powers and from my short study of Law I have seen that broad powers and their interpretation are usually abused somewhere along the line.
I think we're discounting possible silent evidence and rushing into passing this(or any) bill. We think the solution is pretty clear at the moment, but like I said that may be because of the retrospective distortion. I have a feeling it's going to be passed. Let's use the Patriot Act as an example. All you need is a recent event and the fresh passion of public support to pass something that is ridiculous. Now I'm not saying this is ridiculous and maybe I'm not even qualified to speak on the matter. I'm just not a fan of legislation passed in the heat of the moment. They even admit they are rushing this in the article!
What I'd like to see is this considered a year or two from now when the wound isn't as fresh. I think that would allow for other solutions to be considered and developed also. I just want to stress that because they are bringing this up as a solution doesn't mean it's the only one.
Last thought: should it be harder for the government to seize a Non-financial institution?
Hoping you all are thinking critically when these things come up. I honestly don't care what position you have, just question your government and their motives a bit more and you'll have my respect :)