HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » The Point about TARP, the...

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:18 AM

The Point about TARP, the Auto Bailout and Sanders

I actually find it really amazing that people insist that Sanders voted for "the" auto bailout. The auto bailout that actually happened, happened because part of the TARP funds were earmarked for the Auto industry. Sanders definitely voted against that Auto bailout -- the one that actually happened. So did a few other Dems.

But in a cover their rear, symbolic vote -- of the sort that Senators often make -- there was a stand alone auto bailout that didn't become law. He voted for that.

But in no sense was that "the" auto bailout -- you know the one that actually bailed out the automobile industry. It was merely "an" auto bailout that might have happened but didn't.

What this shows is not so much that Sanders was against the automobile industry. And that wasn't Clinton's point. What it does show is that he was so opposed to the TARP legislation -- which stopped us from going into a depression -- that even the prospect of saving the auto industry at the same time wasn't enough to win his vote for it.

You can debate what that shows about his priorities. The point I take away from it is that he is an ideological purist who doesn't let the messy real world get in his way. If staving off a depression and saving the automobile industry means you have to get your hands dirty and save the evil banks whose misjudgments and malfeasance caused potential depression, count Sanders out. He'd rather have the collapse of the entire economy, including the auto industry, than sully his clean hands.

That's the point Clinton was making. And I entirely agree with her that I don't want to put that kind of guy in office.

45 replies, 4331 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Point about TARP, the Auto Bailout and Sanders (Original post)
kennetha Mar 2016 OP
yallerdawg Mar 2016 #1
kennetha Mar 2016 #3
Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #2
Omaha Steve Mar 2016 #4
kennetha Mar 2016 #6
Omaha Steve Mar 2016 #13
think Mar 2016 #5
kennetha Mar 2016 #20
think Mar 2016 #25
Avalux Mar 2016 #7
kennetha Mar 2016 #8
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #11
think Mar 2016 #17
kennetha Mar 2016 #19
think Mar 2016 #24
ThePhilosopher04 Mar 2016 #28
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #9
AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #42
Motown_Johnny Mar 2016 #10
kennetha Mar 2016 #12
Motown_Johnny Mar 2016 #14
kennetha Mar 2016 #15
Motown_Johnny Mar 2016 #16
ThePhilosopher04 Mar 2016 #30
zipplewrath Mar 2016 #43
EndElectoral Mar 2016 #18
AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #21
kennetha Mar 2016 #27
AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #29
kennetha Mar 2016 #31
AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #32
kennetha Mar 2016 #34
AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #40
ThePhilosopher04 Mar 2016 #22
Armstead Mar 2016 #23
kennetha Mar 2016 #26
ThePhilosopher04 Mar 2016 #33
Gwhittey Mar 2016 #35
Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #36
kennetha Mar 2016 #37
ThePhilosopher04 Mar 2016 #41
kennetha Mar 2016 #44
ThePhilosopher04 Mar 2016 #39
kennetha Mar 2016 #45
DefenseLawyer Mar 2016 #38

Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:22 AM

1. You got it!

The media and 'oppo' spun it another way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:24 AM

3. I actually hopes she hammers this point home in tonight's debate

more clearly and forcefully. It goes to the heart of the case against Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:24 AM

2. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:24 AM

4. The UAW disagrees with you


They sent out a private members only message that killed Hillary on this issue. And the UAW is big next week in MO, IL, and OH.

OS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:28 AM

6. The UAW disagrees with my analysis of Hillary's real point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:43 AM

13. See reply #7


She changed next week all on her own.

The UAW does more than cars. They brew beer, do dairy,...

OS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:27 AM

5. Do you know who Neil Barofsky is and why his opinion should matter?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:14 AM

20. He's a mixed bag

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:23 AM

25. Go on....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:29 AM

7. NO. There were other ways to deal with the big banks going belly up.

Just ask the Democrats who voted against TARP just like Bernie. Hillary was trying to make people believe that Bernie didn't want to help the people of Michigan by spinning his no vote on TARP.

I give you points on cleverness, but your argument doesn't hold water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalux (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:31 AM

8. There are always logically possible alternatives

not all of them politically feasible or achievable. Sanders does not occupy the real world. He occupies an ideologically pure space and which there is no opposition, no correlation of forces, no compromises ever have to be made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:35 AM

11. If Tarp had been voted down what do you think would have happened? If if was so vitally important

to the economy don't you think they would have come back with a better bill that enough Senators would
agree on to pass? Engage in some critical thinking here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:54 AM

17. Choosing extremely flawed legislation like TARP over trying to find GOOD solutions to huge problems

 

isn't called living in the real world. It's called fear and political expedience.

The Inspector General overseeing TARP had this to say about TARP:

Neil Barofsky on the failures of TARP

By Jeff Horwich
July 23, 2012 | 4:05 AM


~Snip~

Barofsky: Well essentially, they wanted me to back down, I think. Every time I started to raising some concerns, the pushback I got was remarkable. I remember within the first couple of days, I started hearing a refrain that I heard over the course of a couple of years -- from the Bush administration to the Obama administration -- saying “Neil, we hear what you’re saying about your concerns about fraud and potential abuses in this program but really you don’t have to worry about it because these are banks, they are not going to risk their reputations by taking unfair advantage and possibly profiting off of the taxpayer.”

Horwich: You write a lot about your disillusionment with the Home Affordable Modification Program -- TARP money that was supposed to go to banks to help people stay in their homes. In your view, what happened to it?

Barofsky: Well, the program has been an abysmal failure; supposed to help up to four million people, even today it’s only 20 percent of that number and it doesn’t look like it’s going to get much better. We confronted Tim Geithner about this and his response was very telling. He wasn’t talking about how the program could be improved to help homeowners. He said the program, would help and I quote here “foam the runway for the banks.”

And by that he explained the banks could deal with a certain number of millions of foreclosures over a certain period of time but anything more than that could put the financial system and those banks in jeopardy. With that in mind, there’s little surprise that the program has been such a failure for everyone other than the large banks....

http://www.marketplace.org/2012/07/23/economy/neil-barofsky-failures-tarp



This is what happens when lawmakers choose expediency and vote for bad laws. The big banks got theirs and the American people got screwed. Bernie Sanders knew the TARP program was flawed and that's why he voted against it.

Just because YOU weren't one of the millions that got screwed doesn't mean that the TARP program was a good thing. Overall it was horrible legislation for millions of Americans and awesome legislation for corrupt banks that should have had it's top leaders prosecuted and the banks broken up. Now the too big to fail banks are even bigger than they were before the crisis.

And during that time Goldman Sachs lied to congress, lied to it's clients, and was convicted of breaking US law while it's CEO became a billionaire.

How in any way shape or form is that JUSTICE? How is that good legislation?

I

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:04 AM

19. you'd prefer a depression?

I see why you are a Bernie supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:21 AM

24. No. I prefer that better legislation passed. And it could have had Democrats pushed for it.

 

It still wouldn't be perfect but it would have been the abysmal failure TARP was.

In fact 8 Senate Democrats also voted No for TARP along with Bernie Sanders because of their concerns that the legislation was severely flawed as history proved it was.

You act like America had no choice but to choose bad legislation. America could have done better. Bernie wasn't advocating for no bail like you so incorrectly claim. He was working for a better solution.

Instead you would choose legislation even the General Inspector over TARP admits failed for home owners and rewarded the banks. That's not good leadership. That's allowing for corporate bank corruption to run a muck while the American people are left holding the bag.

Our leaders should show the foresight and fortitude to vote no against flawed & bad legislation while fighting for better laws. That's what real leaders do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:28 AM

28. The "real world" is a fucked up place last I checked ...

 

primarily because we have politicians who refuse to take principled positions which serve the best interests of their constituents. Instead, they're beholden to the highest bidders. Pardon me if I choose to cast my vote for the man who chooses to stand for what is right for the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:32 AM

9. And again you miss the real fallout from Clinton's point. It caused people to discuss

what really killed the auto industry in Michigan, NAFTA: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=249626017

If he's such an "ideological purist who doesn't let the messy real world get in his way" why did he vote for the ACA when he supports single-payer.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:54 AM

42. x 100000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:32 AM

10. No, Clinton was lying.... again.

 


Bernie always supported the auto bail out. You can spin it if you want but that doesn't change things.


There is a week to beat Clinton over the head with this in Ohio. She better strap on a hard hat and take some aspirin.



http://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-who-voted-against-tarp-funds-say-it-wasnt-about-the-auto-bailouts/

^snip^

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 three—Jeanne Shaheen, Maria Cantwell, and Ron Wyden—are still in office.
When The Nation reached out to each senator on Monday, both Cantwell’s and Wyden’s offices pushed back on the idea that their vote was “against” saving the auto industry, and echoed Sanders’s broader concerns about what was happening at the time with TARP money. Shaheen’s office did not reply to several requests for comment.

“Sen. Wyden opposed TARP because it failed to provide strong consequences for managers and equity owners of failing firms,” said Keith Chu, a spokesman for the Oregon lawmaker. “In his view, the best way to prevent future bailouts was to ensure those who carried out reckless business practices and those who profited from them paid a high price for destabilizing the US economy.”







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:40 AM

12. you are not refuting my point

you are making my point and Hillary's point.


That TARP also saved the auto industry was not enough in his mind. That Tarp stave off a depression was not enough in his mind. He objected because it didn't "punish" the millionaires and billionaires.

When push came to shove he cared more about punishing the evil millionaires and billionaires than putting out the fire that was shutting down trade and the entire global economy and even the prospect of saving the auto industry couldn't dissuade him from that course.

clean hands are more important than anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:44 AM

14. Your point has no foundation.

 


TARP was not the only answer. The banks could have been allowed to fail and a nationalized bank could have been set up for depositors. The deposits were Federally insured anyways. TARP only helped the people who caused the problem and did nothing to fix it.


If you honesty believe that TARP was the only answer then there is no framework within which we can have a reasonable discussion.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:47 AM

15. It was the only answer on the floor that was going to pass

you cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.

You sound like Mitt Romney on the auto industry. He thought they should be allowed to fail.

You think the banks should have been allowed to fail. You think that would have been a pretty sight?

Tarp did nothing to fix the immediate problem? Are you kidding?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:50 AM

16. I think they should have been allowed to fail because depositors were protected.

 

TARP fixed only the immediate problem. It did not fix the long term problems.



Maybe you need a little reminder about who really wanted this.











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:31 AM

30. Ok, you get a cookie for winning the word parsing game ...

 

but we all know where Bernie stands and that was made pretty clear last night. Hillary tried to play the "gotcha" card and the good folks of Michigan were having none of it. They know who really has their back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:59 AM

43. Out of balance

The auto portion of the bill being discussed was something like 12 billion out of an 800 billion bill. This wasn't an auto bailout bill, it was a bank rescue bill with a little bit of auto bailout.
If sufficient democrats had opposed the majority of issues with the bill, it could have been modified and continued to include the auto bailout bill. The GOP wasn't holding the auto bailout "hostage" to their other desires. The democrats that voted for it, especially Hillary, were supportive of the vast majority of the bill, not just the auto bailout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:58 AM

18. Was going to respond to this mischaracterized nonsense, but the Michigan voters already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:18 AM

21. Hillary claimed Bernie OPPOSED the auto bailout which was a LIE. No parsing of words changes that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:24 AM

27. Actually that's not at all what she said. she was quite precise in her language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:29 AM

29. From her own big mouth:

 

"Well, I'll tell you something else that Senator Sanders was against. He was against the auto bailout ..."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #29)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:33 AM

31. He vote against the money that ended up saving the Auto INdustry

And he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:35 AM

32. SHE SAID VERBATIM "HE WAS AGAINST THE AUTO BAILOUT" - THAT WAS A LIE.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #32)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:39 AM

34. it was flat out true

the auto bailout that actually passed, and went into law, Sanders voted against that.

An auto bailout bill that never went into law, Sanders vote for that. But that's not "the" auto bailout as in the one that actually bailed out the auto industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #34)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:50 AM

40. you are flat out lying to try to cover her butt for lying

 

She said it. Verbatim. Case closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:19 AM

22. Real thinking Americans understand what Bernie did ...

 

and appreciate him for it. They also understand to political bullshit Hillary is playing by trying to claim he was against the auto bailout. She lost on this issue, quite clearly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:19 AM

23. What Sanders did was no different than what MOST DEMOCRATS DID in 2008

 

The Democrats killed an auto bailout in 2008, by not going along with GOP demands for labor concessions. In effect they were "purists" who refused to compromise to allow passage of a bill that save the auto industry in an emergency.

They did it as a matter of principle. It was the right thing to do.

But it was no different than what Sanders was doing on what he believed was an equally destructive "compromise" that would violate a core principle regarding the TARP bill.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:23 AM

26. But the democrats -- most of them anyway

swallowed hard, voted for TARP, and saved the auto industry in the bargain.

IN the end, Sanders stood on the sidelines, when the chips were down. But that's what you do when you are an ideological purist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #26)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:35 AM

33. I agree with you when you say most Dems ...

 

"Swallowed hard," and therein lies the problem. Your words, not mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:39 AM

35. This is like

 

Saying Sanders was wrong about his Iraq war vote because the war was suppose to be good for Iraq people. How is that working out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:41 AM

36. Here's what lost Michigan for her:

 

"Well, I'll tell you something else that Senator Sanders was against. He was against the auto bailout ..."


And almost all of her booster club on DU need to seriously meditate upon what that says about the tactics, the attitudes, the exploitation posing as advocacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #36)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:43 AM

37. Probably Republicans voting for Sanders

is what lost Michigan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:52 AM

41. What "lost" Michigan for Hillary is more people agree ...

 

with Bernie's message. Pretty simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThePhilosopher04 (Reply #41)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:02 PM

44. seriously doubt that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #36)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:48 AM

39. Exactly. She lost all credibility with that line of attack ...

 

The Clinton machine is so caught up in playing gotcha and scoring political points that they fail to understand the people of Michigan know who's really on their side. Spin doesn't play well when one candidate is authentic and another is a fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThePhilosopher04 (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:02 PM

45. yes Bernie is a fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:46 AM

38. Yes. I'd double down on that attack. It obviously worked really well in Michigan.

 

Misleading the public with carefully worded statements that can be proven to be "technically true" has always been the Clinton way. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." That was absolutely true; yet the obvious purpose, as we all found out, was to mislead. I guess some Clinton supporters admire that the Clintons are smart enough to pull that off and that they consistently do. Average voters are not impressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread