It's an empty threat. The banks don't have good reputations to begin with. That is if this threat allegedly happened. He should be able to sue Rattner in court if he wants to over it.
It is not an empty threat. Just because the financial institutions don't have a good reputation right now, doesn't make it a valid excuse like you make it out to be. Just because the financial sector doesn't have a good reputation, doesn't mean that people can just ignore it. We all have to go to banks. By demonizing this bank, people would stop going to it and put their money somewhere else, preferably a bank that has allowed Obama to do what he wanted. And with less people going to this bank, especially one that might be on shaky ground, it could destroy it.
This is essentially holding someone at gun point to force them to do something. Coercion like this is against the law and an abuse of executive power.
Of course I pretty much told you this, but you pretty much ignored it completely and still go off saying how banks already have a poor reputation.
By forcing the states that did not want stimulus money. He doesn't support states rights when it comes to abortion laws. The Constitution allows the states certain levels of soverignity and Obama ignores that clause of the Constitution.
and bankruptcy laws has Obama broken?
The government run Chrysler bankruptcy plan violates bankruptcy law. Under bankruptcy law certain groups that Chrysler owes money to get paid first. These are the people, groups, and banks that lended Chrysler money. They are supposed to get paid first so they can get their money back. However, under Obama's plan, the UAW is getting paid first and foremost. Granted that Chrysler also owes the UAW money under agreements they have made with the union for health care, pensions, salaries, and whatnot, but the people who gave money to Chrysler are legally entitled to be paid before the UAW, let alone simply being legally entitled to the money they lent Chrysler.
Now, it's very uncertain if the lenders will get all their money back and now we have a rumor that Obama coerced a bank into his plan.
Doesn't Obama have to wait for the Patriot Act to run for x amount for years before he can scrap it?
No, the National Security Agency is a part of the Department of Defense which is an executive department meaning that if he wanted to, he can end it because he's in charge of it. It's just like how the Bush Administration made a deal with the Iraqi government to remain until the end of 2011, but the Obama Administration pushed that ahead several months because he is in charge of the military.
NK is a problem he can't solve on his own. America can't tick off Russia and China since they veto any action against NK IIRC. That's where the blame lies.
Obama could have still ordered the missile to be shot down in international waters on the grounds that the missile test clearly violated international law and he was enforcing it. The United States is not subservient to the United Nations and there are far more pressing issues in Russo-American and Sino-American relations than North Korea. At worst, all they would have done was a wagging of the finger in public while in private most likely supporting the missile being shot down because the Chinese government really doesn't like North Korea in private.
