2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"The American people are bitter. They are angry, and they are confused."
That's what Senator Sanders wrote in his statement explaining why he voted in 2009 against the TARP legislation which, we now know, included funding for the highly successful auto industry bailout:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2008/10/01/wall-street-bailout
Secretary Clinton was right about that last night and that's the way the cookie crumbles. And for the record, I disagree with Sanders' vote and with his characterization of the electorate, or at least the part that I identify with.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)TARP made loans to GM, which failed to actuall save GM, and bailed out Wall Street.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Vote Number: 213 Vote Date: October 1, 2008, 09:22 PM
H.R. 1424 -Sanders: Nay
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213
Hillary simply told the truth last night. Sanders voted against the auto bailout. Yes he had his reasons, but that doesn't change the fact.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Hey buster, if you want to see your 20 billion dollar automotive industry rescue package, you gotta pay $700 billion to the Wall Street crooks that brought down the economy.
It's blackmail, plain and simple.
If enough Senators had done EXACTLY what Bernie did, and said no to the blackmail demand, they could have gone back to the drawing board on a stand-alone automotive industry rescue package.
In other instances, the consequences of voting against an omnibus bill with poison pills in it -- like the negative consequences of a government shutdown -- are worse than the poison pills. When you vote for such a bill, you are NOT voting for the poison pills. You are voting against the more horrible alternative. Any child can see that.
Characterizing such votes as SUPPORTING the poison pill, or OPPOSING the good part of an intolerable piece of legislation is utterly deceitful and disingenuous.
The blackmail victim is NOT the "bad guy," the blackmailer is.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Remember? Well he took a political risk and it paid off. Bernie opted out and wound up with the losing hand. It could have worked out badly but in the event, it didn't. The TARP funds have been repaid with interest and in fact the USG made a tidy profit on the deal:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/companies/government-bailouts-end/
Was Sanders wrong? Not necessarily, but the fact is that he voted against the auto bailout in its final form, and that's what Hillary nailed him on.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And when did Bernie ever give Democrats partial credit for anything? Never, that's when. And so the chickens come home to roost.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)So, you acknowledge that she did something crappy, but it's fine, because it's just "chickens come home to roost"?
Re: What's partial about it? See post 6 again.
And, if Bernie has mischaracterized Clinton's positions in a similar way, I'd like to hear about it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Where have you been?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)All in the interest of the "taxpayer." Doesn't sound very progressive does it? But if you want a mischaracterization let's start with superpredators:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/hillary-clintons-nineties-dance-at-the-flint-debate
pat_k
(9,313 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)in the car industry. Bernie voted for the first car bailout bill, it was blocked by the senate, he voted against tarp. You guys are absoluutely fucking amazing how much bullshit you spread. How the fuck do you sleep at night?
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)The disingenuous crap coming from Camp Weathervane is repugnant but expected; we remember her 2008 campaign of lies and personal destruction. She's doubling down on that strategy.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bernie and the rest of sneerers sneered. And then sneered again and again and again and again. Fine, they got to wag their fingers and garner votes and brag about their purity for years. All Hillary did was score a debate point and the rewrite department goes nuts. What next, Bernie was for TPP before he was against it?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Where's the lie?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)She said he opposed the auto bailout. and she is a liar. You can spin this and mince words til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that this is another lie from her and, frankly, it's pathetic that her supporters are willing to promote pretzel logic to defend her bullshit.
Broward
(1,976 posts)It's no surprise that her dutiful supporters continue to spread this falsehood.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)Bernie was not "against the auto bailout." You're supporting a dishonest politician. To each their own I guess.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I think that characterisation of the American people is inaccurate. SOME of the American people are bitter and angry. Those are the people voting for Trump, and Bernie (note: I am in no way comparing the two groups in any other respect besides this one! Trump voters are idiots, while Bernie voters are generally good Democrats/liberals who are angry at the system). But most of the Democratic electorate when polled state they are happy with their leaders and the country is generally going in a good direction.
I am happy with the progress Obama has made. I would like for Hillary to continue that progress. I don't want to tear the system down. I'm not angry, or bitter. I'm a realist. How much progress can be made in the reality of our political system? Is it better to stand on your ideals and damn the consequences (as Bernie did when he would not vote for the auto bailout once it was tied to the bank bailout)? Or is it better to compromise, make real progress, and risk being ostracised by members of your own party (as Hillary did when she voted for the bailout, thereby saving the auto industry and the American economy)? I know which I think is better, ergo I'm voting for Hillary.
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)I acknowledge that America, in general if you want to only look at selected segments, is in a better place than in 2006-2008, and that's great...for what it is...
but anyone thinking we are out of the woods from that debacle are taking the ostrich view...
what progress...?
the shit from the near-collapse used to be up to our chins but now is just chest-high and doesn't appear to be going down...
quite an improvement...
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)The bailout ended up making money for the government and saved the auto industry and the American economy. When I said "progress", I was referring to that specific piece of progress.
I think Obama has made progress in the right direction. It has taken, and will take a long time to dig the country out from the debacle of the Bush administration. But we're moving. I believe Hillary will continue that progress. This is why we all have a vote.
CdnExtraNational
(105 posts)... it will be another Iraq style vote for the TARP.
And President Sanders will again be proven right.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)And I'm talking about Sanders. He is a good man, but there is vanity in his approach to politics, starting with the needless song-and-dance over his party ID (you vote 98 percent with the Democrats, how about joining the party?) There is a too-cool-for-school aspect to Bernie which has kept his colleagues in Congress at arm's length during this campaign and which explains this vote, which is biting him in the ass right now. He didn't want to dirty his hands with TARP (which worked, btw, in that it stabilized the financial system and helped set the stage for the recovery, so he was wrong about that) so he tossed the auto bailout down with it.
CdnExtraNational
(105 posts)... for a sound bite.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The attempts at distortion by the Sanders campaign are clear. The people have listened. Votes are taking place today. I think they now see how Sanders will negotiate. From a stance of you don't get yours if someone else tries to get anything. Same can be seen with immigration in '07. Just look at the IT industry today. He protected it over the most vulnerable in society. How did that work out?