2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDemocrats Who Voted Against TARP Funds Say It Wasn’t About the Auto Bailouts
By George Zornick - March 8 2016
In Sundays Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton assailed Senator Bernie Sanders for opposing, in January 2009, the release of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds that were used in part to bail out General Motors and Chrysler. When it came down to it, you were either for saving the auto industry or you were against it, Clinton said. I voted to save the auto industry.
Sanders objected strenuously to the charge, and said Monday that Clinton went out of her way to mischaracterize my history. He said his vote against releasing the TARP funds was based on opposition to the Wall Street bailout and how it was conducted, and pointed to an earlier vote in December 2008 in which he supported direct help for the automotive industry.
Eight Democratic senators voted the same way as Sanders that day, and threeJeanne Shaheen, Maria Cantwell, and Ron Wydenare still in office.
When The Nation reached out to each senator on Monday, both Cantwell and Wydens office pushed back on the idea that their vote was against saving the auto industry, and echoed Sanderss broader concerns about what was happening at the time with TARP money. Shaheens office did not reply to several requests for comment....
Full article:
http://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-who-voted-against-tarp-funds-say-it-wasnt-about-the-auto-bailouts/
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)essentially like Satan by tacking on the meager $4b to auto companies. It was essentially the fruit of a poison tree, and that is unacceptable when the bankers that crippled our country deserve to be in a cell.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)This POS was designed by the Bankers and we as the Public were never told about the fine print. These Bankers froze up the Credit Market with their Crappy Mortgage Bonds and the world was headed towards a Depression like know one had ever seen. And the Neo-Cons cleaned up because they wrote the fine print.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)think
(11,641 posts)from scholars and those directly involved I've learned it was a great give away to the banks and the abandonment of Main Street. Too big to fail banks are now bigger and they profited at a time when many of those banks should have been prosecuted.
These Senators are the courageous ones who said no to bad legislation and demanded better. The ones covering their asses are the ones who voted for the crappy legislation and approved of shoddy oversight.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15737379-bailout
Fear motivates Americans to let corrupt politicians create bad laws in times of crisis. I was guilty of that fear as anyone. But now knowing what transpired I hope to learn from that and take harder looks at the crap politicians are trying to pass off as sound policy.
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/01/us_bailouts_created_more_risk.html
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, being told that getting screwed by the capitalists is good for us is downright insulting.
timlot
(456 posts)So Bernie voted for the 94' Crime bill because it had things in it like (laws against domestic violence), but he didn't like some on the mandatory sentencing that put a lot of minorities in jail.
He was able to "comprise" on that bill, but on the Tarp bill he was willing to tank the American auto industry because some wall street firms would be getting some of the bailout money?
Senator Sanders seem to have a fixation with "One Issue" wall street and was willing the let Detroit go Bankrupt ie: Mitt Romney because of it.
think
(11,641 posts)I'll take the Inspector General that oversaw TARPs word on it. It did just what the title of his book claims....
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15737379-bailout
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)See http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511442855
And the crime bill was a whole different situation. Senators are often voting for bills that have a combination of what they see as good and bad. That doesn't mean they always vote the same way as long as there is one good (or bad) thing in it, each situation must be looked at on its own merits. As I said in another thread...