Hillary Clinton Admits That She’s an Idiot. Seriously.
In 2012, President Obama campaigned as a champion of the auto industry by taking credit for the auto bailout and repeatedly hitting his opponent, Mitt Romney, for opposing it. Some think the strategy helped Obama win reelection.
Four years later, Hillary Clinton appears to be using the same playbook — only this time she’s doing it in the Democratic primary. In Sunday’s Democratic debate in Flint, Mich., Clinton underscored her support for that bailout and — somewhat disingenuously — suggested that Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) didn’t support it.
“I voted to save the auto industry,” she said. “He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference.”
What Clinton said is technically true, but it glosses over a lot of important nuance, including the fact that Sanders is actually on the record as supporting the auto bailout. He even voted for it.
Clinton clearly figures the auto bailout may prove to a big factor going into Tuesday’s primary in Michigan and the one next week in Ohio, where both candidates are hoping to do well and where the auto industry is big. So it seems like she’s willing to take the gamble that fact checkers may call her out for her tactic Sunday — but that voters won’t.
— The Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders clash over the auto bailout, explained, Amber Phillips, reporting on Sunday’s debate, Mar. 7
Phillips then details the procedural background of the auto bailout:
As the magnitude of the 2008 financial crisis swept the nation in the waning days of his presidency, President George W. Bush announced he was injecting $17 billion in taxpayer money to auto giants Chrysler and General Motors, which warned they needed an immediate influx of cash to stay afloat.
Bush was pulling money out of the $700 billion financial rescue program that Congress had approved two months earlier, most of which was intended for and eventually went to prop up Wall Street banks and insurance companies.
Bush didn’t want to use that money for the auto industry; he had hoped Congress would approve a separate bailout for GM and Chrysler. Democrats in Congress tried to, but in December 2008, Senate Republicans blocked a $14 billion plan over a disagreement about its terms.
Republicans weren’t opposed to the aid, so much as they wanted the auto industry to make big cuts in pay and benefits by 2009; Democrats wanted to give the auto industry a few more years to cut its debts. The end result was that Congress didn’t set up a separate bailout for the auto industry, and Bush was forced to draw on the Wall Street bailout to prop up the automakers.
Clinton and Sanders were both in the Senate at the time, and contrary to what Clinton implied Sunday, both supported the idea of an auto bailout.
Sanders argued that letting the auto industry go under was too big of a risk for middle-class workers — it could lower wages across all sectors of the economy and have a ripple effect on states like Vermont that were fairly far removed from the auto industry. He was quoted by Vermont Public Radio at the time as saying:
The problem is if you don’t act in the midst of a growing recession, what does it mean to create a situation where millions of more people become unemployed? And that could spread, and I have serious concerns about that. I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls.
But Sanders was vehemently against the larger $700 billion bailout to prop up the banks. (As evidenced by his presidential campaign, Sanders is no fan of Wall Street.) So he voted against the bank bailout.
The bank bailout was so big it had to be doled out in portions. In January 2009, Senate Republicans tried to block the Treasury Department from releasing the second half of the money, some of which was designated for the auto industry. Sanders, based on his opposition to the Wall Street bailout, voted against releasing that money as well.
That vote gave Clinton the opening she needed to hit Sanders as anti-auto bailout on Sunday. “If everybody had voted the way he did, I believe the auto industry would have collapsed, taking 4 million jobs with it,” she said.[My boldface.]
Phillips sums up:
Clinton is technically correct that Sanders voted against releasing the money that went to the auto bailout, but Sanders can also correctly argue that he supported the auto bailout when it wasn’t tied to the Wall Street one.
I’ll add this: Taking Clinton at her word, she believes that if everybody had voted the way he did, the auto industry would have collapsed, taking 4 million jobs with it. The operative words in the sentence in which she said this are: “I believe that”.
I suggest that we do take her at her word, which is that she believes that the Democratic-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate, together with an outgoing Republican president who supported the auto bailout and an about-to-be-inaugurated Democratic president who did too, would not have separated the finance-industry bailout from the auto industry bailout, and instead would have allowed the industry to collapse. Which makes her about as in touch with reality as Donald Trump is.
The alternative is what Phillips says; that:
Clinton clearly figures the auto bailout may prove to a big factor going into Tuesday’s primary in Michigan and the one next week in Ohio, where both candidates are hoping to do well and where the auto industry is big. So it seems like she’s willing to take the gamble that fact checkers may call her out for her tactic Sunday — but that voters won’t.
In other words, the alternative is that Clinton is a sleaze bucket who is willing to demean voters by incessantly misrepresenting facts about things that are really important to them. And that it hasn’t occurred to her that this is exactly the kind of thing that has gained her a reputation among Democrats and millennials as dishonest. She is dishonest and has run her campaign against Sanders as a taunt that she can get away with sleights of hand that amount to brazen misrepresentations because she’s, well, Hillary Clinton. And a woman.
Fielder’s choice, folks. But establishment Democrats need to reckon with her decision to employ an army of campaign consultants who feed her gimmicks, sleight-of-hand falsehoods, and comments that taken at face value suggest that she is an idiot. She falls back on this stuff whenever new polls are about to be released showing Sanders gaining again, which is why today’s poll didn’t surprise me.
She also said in that debate—she reiterated it; she’d said it before recently—that she thinks Donald Trump, the billionaire who likely will be the Republican nominee, accepts large speaking fees from the finance industry and pharmaceutical companies. Which is the only way to make any sense of her absurd claim that she need not release the transcripts of her highly-paid speeches to finance-industry folks and other major players in the lobbying-campaign-donations industrial complex. If Clinton is Trump’s opponent, then under the terms that she herself has set for releasing the transcripts of her paid speeches to these industry folks, her refusal next fall to release them will play a large role in the campaign. But so, now, in the primaries, should the cascade of manipulative and ridiculous statements that she spouts.
Recall, a fair number of democrats opposed TARP. W. Bush had to beg to get TARP through. Sanders was one of many democrats, while Clinton was voting Wall St on TARP.
To some her assault on Sanders was considered not only less than honest, but “below the belt”.
Clinton’s legalistic, quibble wording is maddening.
She represented that Sanders had voted against the auto-bailout bill. That’s false. But there’s no way to interpret this statement to mean anything else: “If everybody had voted the way he did, I believe the auto industry would have collapsed, taking 4 million jobs with it.”
The auto bailout is not something that you march into Michigan and play games about. And the news media creamed her for it. She’s losing in Michigan, and that’s probably a big reason why.
I watched Sanders yesterday evening in the town hall thing on Fox News. He was fabulous. The best I’ve seen him in any televised event–debate, town hall, interview. I kept thinking as I watched it that he should use clips of it in ads in Ohio and, really, everywhere where he’s really contesting.
So last night might have been what is tipping it for him today. And a big highlight was Bret Baier’s commenting that fact finders were finding her auto-bailout allegations not truthful. And Sanders explained what actually had happened.
The best part was when the Fox guy asked: “what gives people the right to expect health care?”. ‘Bernie said “because they are human beiings!”
Next Bernie should remind the toads the line in the Declaration of Independence about “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their creator”….
Not by the billionaires.
Oh, I know; I loved that response by Sanders. So did the crowd; they really applauded.
And AP just announced, with 90% of the vote counted, that they are projecting that Sanders has won Michigan.
You really should look at this map of Michigan. It’s just breathtaking.
Sanders is ahead even in Genesee County, the county that Flint’s in. By 1 point, but still.
Clinton messed up big time in Michigan and has paid the price. But not only is she not an idiot, even as you keep asserting, she certainly did not admit to being one.
A day will not go by without Bev asserting such. I just ignore it. Did get the book, by the way. Alchemists
You’ve got your ignorance and you’ve got your idiocy. One of them is correctable.
Has Hillary learned anything from 2008? She still knows how to blow 20 point leads.
One flaw: “mendacity”.
Hope someone tells Bernie; what probably helped him the most was his telling the audience that Clinton voted for all the bad trade deals. I would suggest that the auto workers knew that along with any working person understood that NAFT cost them good paying jobs.
Meanwhile the GOP is about to nominate somebody so horrific that mainstream candidates are rumored to be endorsing HRC.
As a lifelong democrat it’s hard to articulate the shame I feel at the suggestion we may nominate a Democrat bad enough to draw GOP endorsements.
I am increasingly puzzled by the southern states stuff and what appears to be a black/white split.
Why are black voters against Sanders? Is it religious?
I dug this out of my files:
Last year Wall Street handed out $34 billion dollars* in bonuses to their (losing) gamblers: $180,000 apiece to 180,000 gamblers — on top of their $120,000 average gambler salaries. This year it will go down to $26 billion**!
GM has what, 266,000*** hard working assembly line employees? Earning what? Big deal!
* * * * * *
All the while a debate was going on whether the government should lend $100 billion to our core manufacturing companies — that was lend. Some sense of priorities we have in this country (our culture).
You said that what Clinton said was “technically” true. Actually technically true is the same as just true. Clinton voted for the bill that bailed out the auto industry. Sanders voted against it. That is just the facts.
You also present the imaginary alternate history “Clinton believes … the Democratic-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate, together with an outgoing Republican president who supported the auto bailout and an about-to-be-inaugurated Democratic president who did too, would not have separated the finance-industry bailout from the auto industry bailout, and instead would have allowed the industry to collapse.”
Well that alternate history actually occurred. The alternate bill was voted down, disproving your hypothesis, and proving Clinton correct.
The choice between Clinton and Sanders is very clear. The pragmatist vs the idealist. One gets things done, although it involves unpleasant compromises. The other doesn’t get things done, but avoids unpleasant compromises and maintains ideological purity.
This contrast was well illustrated by the auto bailout. Honest people can differ on which approach they prefer.
As I understood it (and this “probably agrees with you); there was a separate bill for auto. It lost because of the outcry to skin the unions who according to Delphi’s Miller were just too expensive. The Congressional meeting interviewing automotive companies were held. Gettelfinger made a great comment about Labor being 10% or less of the cost of manufacturing a car. The bill failed in Congress to rescue automotive and subsequently Bush and Obama(?) used reserve TARP funds to rescue Chrysler and GM. No one could stop him from doing so. Is this the version you understood?
Actually, BillB, I didn’t say that what Clinton said was technically true; the reporter, Amber Phillips, said that. She wrote: “’I voted to save the auto industry,’ she said. ‘He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference.’” But that’s actually NOT true.
The money that ended up saving the auto industry was the money in the auto-bailout bill that Sanders voted for and that did pass. To borrow from Clinton, I think that is a pretty big difference.”
Clinton said, falsely, that there was one bill, that the bill was the auto-bailout bill, that Sanders voted against the one auto-bailout bill, and that had everyone voted he way Sanders voted the auto industry would not have been saved. Every one of those four points was false.
And as Frank K said, people who keep claiming that Clinton gets things done should actually identify what exactly they have in mind. Cuz some of us have no idea what you folks are referring to.
He had it right. Sanders almost succeeded in blocking the bulk of the automotive bailout just to punish banks.
Bernie voted against the 2nd portion of TARP going to banks, pseudo-banks, and the OEMs Chrysler and GM. Yes? If he knew this was also the portion was going to OEMs, then he did vote against a bailout as this was the only money to be had to give to the OEMs. Yes? Bernie had to know this portion of TARP to be paid out had to include OEM automotive money. Yes?
You better have something better to argue with as in Michigan it was well known TARP was the savior of Automotive and not other money.
Bill H, the money that ultimately saved the industry was the money provided in the auto bailout bill–the separate auto bailout bill–in (I think) Mar. The auto-bailout bill that Sanders voted against, I read today–the Republican bill–had provisions in it that would have killed all or most existing obligations of the companies to their union employees, nullifying pensions, etc., while protecting shareholders to some extent. This was what Romney meant, essentially, when he said “Let Detroit go bankrupt,” except without the formal bankruptcy. Had the TARP bill been defeated–the one that Sanders voted against–there would have been a bill similar to the one eventually passed a few weeks later that provided the funds.
I’m not sure what BillB is talking about when he says, if I understand him correctly, that no actual auto-bailout bill was passed. That’s ridiculous. One passed, and Sanders voted for it.
I had it right. Sanders voted to block the rest of the TARP funding to be released to pseudo-banks, banks, and OEMs. Sanders did vote for a $14 billion handle out. OEMs received $85 Billion in TARP funding so if he had been successful in his efforts, Sanders would have blocked the bulk of the funding proportioned out in the second funding of TARP to pseudo-banks, banks, and OEMs. You are confusing the initial plan with what Bush did with TARP.
“Sanders did vote against a set of funds that financed most of the auto bailout — though the funds’ primary purpose was bailing out Wall Street firms, which Sanders strongly opposed.
Auto companies ended up receiving about $85 billion in TARP funds, according to the New York Times. It’s possible the auto industry would not have received such a robust bailout if Congress had successfully blocked the second half of the TARP funds and withstood an Obama veto.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/hillary-clinton/michigan-hillary-clinton-says-bernie-sanders-was-a/ In his wanting to get back at Banks, Sanders was willing to sacrifice OEMs and Detroit.
Run75441, yes, that’s mostly what happened, except the first bailout of GM, a bridge loan, occurred under the Bush administration in December, a few days after the bill that Sanders supported was voted down. Obama later used more money from TARP to do the restructuring deal.
In a bitterly divided Congress any bill passed is going to have compromises that both side dislike. Remember that the TARP bill had already been voted down once. It was the second, modified version that contained more specific directions that finally passed.
Sanders had drawn a line in the sand that said no free bailouts for Wall Street. The Republicans had drawn a line in the sand that said no free bailouts for the unions.
The TARP bill was the one that passed. The Sanders bill was the one that didn’t pass.
People can disagree on whether compromise or a game of chicken is the best approach.
Run75441: “Bernie had to know this portion of TARP to be paid out had to include OEM automotive money.”
At the time TARP was passed in in October 2008, I doubt that anyone had GM specifically on the radar screen. Everyone knew there was a crisis but exactly where it would pop up and exactly where money needed to be spent was unknown. TARP was deliberately open-ended. The Bush Treasury department fought against detailed spending allotments because they weren’t sure where the crisis might lead. They just knew that they needed a big pot of money to used as needed.
The argument that Clinton is making is that the open-ended TARP fund was used exactly as intended, when in December the crisis at GM became clear. That proved to be the case when a specific bill to assist the auto industry was voted down.
That is not to say that TARP was a pretty piece of legislation. It should have included more provisions to punish Wall Street for its excesses. But you have to take the bill you can pass, not the bill you would like to pass without the existence of Republicans.
When I state this: “Bernie had to know this portion of TARP to be paid out had to include OEM automotive money.” I am talking specifically after Bush made the decision to use TARP money for automotive. No one knew beforehand it would be used for automotive and indeed the Fed made many companies such as GMAC, AE, GS, etc. banks so they could qualify for Tarp loans. Chrysler and GM were not in that category, so I am assuming Bernie refused to use the 2nd half of TARP money for Banks and Automotive. Obama administered the bailout using TARP funds. THE WP appears to support this conclusion.
FiveThirtyEight jumps shark :
” One gets things done..”
it is adorable this argument keeps getting made absent any substantive evidence to point to it being actually true.
In this case it is true about the 2nd portion of TARP funds handed out which included the OEMs. Sanders voted against the second bailout funds of TARP.
Beverly: “The money that ultimately saved the industry was the money provided in the auto bailout bill–the separate auto bailout bill.”
This is absolutely wrong. There was no separate auto bailout bill in March. The money for the bailout come from the TARP funds. Here is the timeline:
1. TARP passed in October 2008. Clinton voted for, Sanders voted against.
2. In December, 2008, there was a separate auto bailout bill proposed that both Clinton and Sanders voted for but was defeated.
3. Several days later, after the failure of the separate auto bailout bill, Bush used funds from the TARP bill that Clinton voted for and Sanders against to provide a $14 billion bridge loan to the auto companies.
4. In January there was a vote on whether to cut off the second half of the TARP funds approved in October. Sanders voted to cut off the TARP funds. Clinton voted to continue the TARP funds.
5. This second half of TARP funds was used by Obama to complete the bankruptcy restructuring of GM and Chrysler.
So Sanders voted against the funds for the auto bailout not once but twice.
There was no auto bill passed in March. All of the money for the auto bailouts came from TARP, which Sanders voted against in October and again in January.
It is disingenuous to put real economy on the line in a bill to send trillions to Wall St.
Clinton is consistent in paying back her Wall St sponsors!
Bernie is consistent insisting Wall St be busted up.
Insider big money Hillary politics at work!
While HRC’s statements about “after the fact” classifying her e-mails is an egregious legalistic bait and switch.
HRC’s e-mails are “classified” by the content, which was deemed by classification authorities using rules rules critical elements of information that if obtained by adversaries could cause severe damage to the US.
HRC’s nitpicking, “gotcha” tone is a serious problem.
Ilsm, I am not questioning the wisdom of the bailouts. Opinions differ.
What I am pointing out are the basic facts of what actually occurred, which seems to be confused in this discussion.
The facts are that Sanders voted against the TARP bill that provided the bailout for the auto industry not once but twice, exactly as Clinton claimed.
Clinton’s argument is that if everyone voted as Sanders did, then the auto industry would not have been bailed out and perhaps millions would have lost their jobs. And just as she said, the alternative of a separate auto bailout bill was voted on and rejected in the Senate.
Beverly says Clinton was “out of touch with reality” because “she believed that the Democratic-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate, together with an outgoing Republican president who supported the auto bailout and an about-to-be-inaugurated Democratic president who did too, would not have separated the finance-industry bailout from the auto industry bailout, and instead would have allowed the industry to collapse.”
It turns out that Beverly is out of touch with reality because the reality is that is exactly what happened. Congress did indeed vote on a separate auto bailout bill and rejected it, just as Clinton said. The only bill that funded the auto bailout bill was TARP which required a compromise that included both auto bailouts and Wall Street bailouts.
One can argue about the wisdom of the bailouts, but one cannot argue about the facts. The facts are that Clinton’s statements were correct.
Minor clarification. Originally TARP was meant for banks and soon to be banks (GMAC, AE, GS, etc). It was only later TARP was approved for usage for OEMs. Otherwise, I agree as this is what I know also.
Whoa. Bill H, I have an incredibly clear memory of driving down Ann Arbor Rd. toward Pontiac Trail Rd., in Mar. or Apr. (I think it was Mar.) and listening to NPR when the news broke that the money for both GM and Chrysler that would save both companies would be approved. I remember where I was coming from, where I was going, what time of day it was—and that, quite literally, I almost ran off the road into the little depression next to the shoulder. It had been announced that the decision would be made that day, and everyone—as you so well know—was on pins and needles waiting for the announcement. I was so relieved. So was everyone else in all of SE and central Michigan.
THAT was the announcement that the auto industry would be saved. Not just GM, but Chrysler, too. And, of course, so many, many OEM parts manufacturers, including those that mainly made parts for Ford but whose supply chain would be very interrupted.
So, no, BillB, I’m not out of touch with reality; you are. Sanders voted not just for the December explicit-auto-bailout bill that was defeated but also for the auto-bailout bill that provided the huge amount of funds that saved GM and Chrysler and probably indirectly Ford, and sure as hell roughly a zillion OEM parts manufacturers.
Clinton is lying when she says that the December 2008 bill that was not an auto-industry bill but was instead solely TARP—the one that Sanders voted against—was the bill that saved the auto industry.
And Bill H, why is it just a minor clarification that originally TARP was meant for banks and soon to be banks (GMAC, AE, GS, etc), and that itwas only later TARP was approved for usage for OEMs? That’s what this whole debate here—my post and all the comments to it—is ABOUT. Sanders voted against the Dec. bill, but not the later one. And, yes, there absolutely was a later one.
Facts is facts but that doesn’t excuse using them in a logic fallacy: Non Sequitur!
The facts are what you and Run say they are.
Putting those facts to a conclusion is where you fall off the rail.
HRC put together facts to take a deceptive, cheap “shot” at Sanders the facts do not support.
Sanders voted against bills that bundled saving HRC’s Wall St bankster sponsors [with no fix to their behavior] with “saving” GM and other OEM’s from bankruptcy.
That does not imply Sanders is anti labor or anti Michigan, which HRC attempted. Nor that he was against cheap loans to destitute OEM’s.
Non sequiturlogic used to get into Libya, neocon endorsements, into the e mail problems, etc.
Why HRC has a “truthiness” problem.
This is like the convoluted Hillary statement “I do not support TPP in present form”.
When in truth not only is Obama supporting Hillary. He is doing everything he can to keep the Canada Law suit under NAFTA rules as low profile as possible.
For an insight to the betrayer in Chief Hillary’s ability to sell the nations assets along with the republics right to pass even laws of its own choosing.
“The show is over. It matters little whether Keystone is approved or not. If it is approved, we have a flourishing rail economy plus the KXL pipeline. Bread and circuses have never been so skillfully orchestrated. Immense quantities of the Canadian oil that the KXL pipeline is designed to carry will still roll into the United States – on railroads with tracks through Minnesota. If the KXL is denied, Obama gains symbolic credibility and legitimacy under the guise of “green” leadership, which automatically extends to 350.org and friends. This would build much trustworthiness for both Obama and for future campaigns to advance the illusory green economy. One must also consider, as Forbes pointed out on January 19, 2012, that even TransCanadashareholders will not lose: Goldman Sachs (GS) estimates that if TransCanada, which has already invested $1.9 billion in the project according to Business News Network, canceled the project, its earnings per share in 2012 and 2013 would rise between 5% and 10% due to a reduction in TransCanada’s capital expenditures and financial costs.”
Clinton did not imply that Sanders is anti-labor. She accurately stated that Sanders voted against the legislation that actually funded the GM/Chrysler bailout. What she accurately did “imply” is that while Sanders did support the idea of the car industry bailout, he considered saving the auto industry less important than making Wall Street pay for its sins. He was willing to sacrifice the auto industry for that purpose. In a political campaign, especially one where Sanders has gone back so baldly on his promise not to go negative — and to do it in a way that’s right out of the Republican playbook — that was a perfectly legitimate line of argument for Clinton.
Beverly’s imagination that it would have been a piece of cake to get a stand-alone auto bailout bill has run wild. It often does when there’s an attack on Clinton that can be constructed. In 2008, there was a genuine crisis atmosphere. There was significant opposition to the auto industry bailout, and Republicans were demanding draconian labor concessions that some Democrats not in pro-union states would have found hard to resist. GM was saying in early December that it would have to file for bankruptcy by the end of the month without the funds, and everyone seemed to agree the industry would never be able to recover if official bankruptcy were declared. It comes back to this: when push came to shove, Sanders was willing to sacrifice the auto industry to make his point about the banks.
There certainly was a genuine crisis atmosphere then, Urban Legend. Even now, seven years later, I get shivers remembering it. What I didn’t remember was that TARP provided all of the money for the auto bailout. I remember that Bush approved money for the bridge loan using TARP money, and that some Republicans in Congress threatened to sue claiming that it was illegal to divert money earmarked for the banking industry to the auto industry, but I didn’t remember that the money approved in March was from TARP.
It would be nice if when Clinton comes out with these sudden allegations, she would actually explain what she’s talking about. She never does; she just makes these sudden allegations via soundbite.
Um, no, Urban Legend. What Clinton said is false. Here’s what I posted about a half-hour ago to an exchange between BillB and Bill H; it’s posted directly after that exchange, and indented:
March 10, 2016 2:28 pm
“Whoa. Bill H, I have an incredibly clear memory of driving down Ann Arbor Rd. toward Pontiac Trail Rd., in Mar. or Apr. (I think it was Mar.) and listening to NPR when the news broke that the money for both GM and Chrysler that would save both companies would be approved. I remember where I was coming from, where I was going, what time of day it was—and that, quite literally, I almost ran off the road into the little depression next to the shoulder. It had been announced that the decision would be made that day, and everyone—as you so well know—was on pins and needles waiting for the announcement. I was so relieved. So was everyone else in all of SE and central Michigan.
“THAT was the announcement that the auto industry would be saved. Not just GM, but Chrysler, too. And, of course, so many, many OEM parts manufacturers, including those that mainly made parts for Ford but whose supply chain would be very interrupted.
“So, no, BillB, I’m not out of touch with reality; you are. Sanders voted not just for the December explicit-auto-bailout bill that was defeated but also for the auto-bailout bill that provided the huge amount of funds that saved GM and Chrysler and probably indirectly Ford, and sure as hell roughly a zillion OEM parts manufacturers.
“Clinton is lying when she says that the December 2008 bill that was not an auto-industry bill but was instead solely TARP—the one that Sanders voted against—was the bill that saved the auto industry.
“And Bill H, why is it just a minor clarification that originally TARP was meant for banks and soon to be banks (GMAC, AE, GS, etc), and that itwas only later TARP was approved for usage for OEMs? That’s what this whole debate here—my post and all the comments to it—is ABOUT. Sanders voted against the Dec. bill, but not the later one. And, yes, there absolutely was a later one.”
Your comment does prove one thing, though, Urban Legend: That your interpretation is exactly what Clinton wanted to be everyone’s interpretation, and which is the only interpretation that makes her comment make sense.
I am not going to argue with you anymore as this has gone to far already.
SANDERS DID VOTE AGAINST THE 2ND PORTION OF TARP AND THIS WAS A VOTE AGAINST AUTOMOTIVE AS MOST OF THE FUNDS GIVEN TO OEMS CAME OUT OF IT. i POSTED A DAMN QUOTATION FROM AN ARTICLE AND A LINK. READ IT.
Okay, I get it, Clinton is saying to thrive in the palaces of power you have to be Kissinger!
She is unprincipled.
Bernie is naïve to have principles, like not wanting to topple regimes, or use E mails……….
Sheesh, Beverly. You are a lawyer aren’t you? This is embarrassing.
Every bill ever placed before Congress and every bill voted on in Congress is available on line. If such a bill existed it should take you no more that 5 minutes to find it.
Did you even read the timeline I posted above. TARP was passed in October, not December. In December the separate auto bailout bill was voted on and rejected. This is the only bill related to the auto bailout that Sanders voted yes on, but it failed to pass.
So Bush took some of the money from the TARP bill passed in October to provide a bridge loan to the auto companies. That money came from TARP. That is a non-debatable fact.
Then in January, there was a vote on whether to cut off or release the second half of TARP funds and in this case there was money being devoted to the auto bailout. And Sanders voted against it again. This also a non-debatable fact.
The money that was used in March came from TARP. There was no separate auto bailout bill. This is a non-debatable fact.
Here is the press release from the Treasury Department, who administers TARP, from March 30, 2009, the one that you swear you remember so well:
It says: “The program [GM and Chrysler bailout] will be run by a third party program administrator with the backing of financial resources allocated from the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).”
All of the money for the auto bailouts came from TARP. Sanders voted against TARP twice, in October 2008 and again in January 2009.
You really should drop this because you are damaging your credibility.
BillB, under your timeline there was only one vote, not two, on TARP after TARP began being used for the auto bailout. Unless you’re charging Sanders with clairvoyance, Sanders voted once, not twice, against TARP when it included auto-bailout money. The imminent collapse of GM and Chrysler was quite sudden, if I recall correctly. A possible federal bailout for them was not an issue in Oct. 2008. Which I think is Bill H’s point.
Well, that’s progress at least. So you are admitting that Clinton’s statement is correct. Sanders voted against the auto bailout money in TARP.
And it appears you have backed off your claim that the auto bailout money came from a separate bill that Sanders voted for.
And Sanders did indeed vote twice against TARP, the source of the bailout money. Once before the auto bailout started and a second time after the auto bailout started.
So since it took so long to get here, I’m wondering who’s the idiot from your post title.
Don’t rub it in.
Hillary Clinton won her second term in the Senate in 2006 with a landslide 67% to 31%. Evidently, New Yorkers liked her a lot in 2006, and all I ever heard was that she was admired by everyone in the Senate for her diligence and willingness of listen and discuss matters on both sides of the aisle. She was also the 11th most liberal member of Congress by one statistical analysis. Ken Starr had given up after years and millions of dollars spent on trying to find something, anything to pin on her, and Gene Lyons and others had systematically dismantled every single one of the alleged “scandals” of the 1990s — much of which came courtesy of the august New York Times in bouts of unprofessionalism to which it increasingly She also was the most admired woman in the country, as I recall, and for that matter, in the world.
So what happened in the meantime? How did she suddenly become the most dishonest person in America, with every single utterance in the heat of battle picked apart with reference back to 90s scandals that did not exist but nevertheless were implicitly used to provide the smoke that suggests there really is a fire?
She ran for President against Obama, NBC (Tim Russert, Chris Matthews in particular) did an extraordinary misogynist attack on her until it became obvious and they backed off under withering criticism. She bowed out gracefully when Obama won, and took his offer to become Secretary of State. I’m sure one could attack a number of things she did there, but presumably she helped initiate steps for openings to Iran and Cuba.
The only really negative things I can remember is relentless attacks on her honesty by Fox News and its like-minded outlets, using the 90s and weak memories to prop up the smoke-fire narrative. She gave speeches nd charged a lot of money for them, most or all of which went to Bill Clinton’s foundation.
So on what possible basis would millenials have the kind of visceral negative response to her that has been reported? The only possible experience they have is hearing stuff they heard from Fox News or from Republican parents who watch Fox News. The Benghazi “dishonest” thing was a total Republican lie, because Susan Rice said exactly wht she could say on that first round of Sunday shows — and expressly told Bob Schieffer it could be al qaeda but they were still investigating.
I don’t get it. Are supposedly smart people really that gullible that they internalize shit because they hear it a lot?
So what happened
HRC demands a Mark Twain quote than ends in “……it just ain’t so”.
“I’m wondering who’s the idiot from your post title. ”
Logic fallacies are quite common among educated, smart people. It may be a ‘math’ thing. It may be a world view thing.
Voting against a TARP with a bail out for GM in it is not voting against GM workers.
While voting for a TARP with a Wall St bail out in it is might not necessarily be paying back your check writers.
What Hillary is displaying defies fallacies, it is mean spirited, snake oil designed to give an impression that is not proven.
Clinton did this in 2008 to Obama!
The thuggee Benghazi thing is totally weird they are on wrong dimensions. The elephant in the room is what were the CIA contractor’s heavy infantry platoon doing a klick away from where the ambassador was fire bombed”.
Bringing Clinton in as Sec State was a bone thrown to the neocons. Keying on Benghazi is wrong, demanding a WFT over dumping Qaddafi is the issue.
But red meat for Fox News types is more war like Libya’s decapitation!
Libya’s MANPADS seem to be unaccounted for!
Benghazi has been gone over so many times by Republican idiots it isn’t funny and now you want to re-examine everything. Invest in scatology if you must; but, there are no fresh sides to smell. They are all dried out.
BS on the TARP. It was a vote against Labor and Automotive. You may not like it and to pick on either HRC or Sanders only supports the Republicans.
My issue with Benghazi…I was under the impression the ambassador there had requested more security. Not the media hype of what was said different about who attacked the embassy.
If the dems are happy with the rationalizations on Benghazi, etc. so much for them.
Benghazi, Libya, neocon endorsements, legalistic cheap shots at Sanders, speaking fees form TARP beneficiaries…….
HRC folk no different than GOPsters.
Beene the factions raging on Benghazi are broad and shallow, yes embassy security is weak, funding cuts and the safe house in Benghazi was a temporary facility. Some raise the issue why a carrier was not there to launch standby air strikes or a gun ship arrive in 30 minutes to cause maximum collateral damage.
The refuted “blame on a riot over a film” seems the most resilient issue because it makes HRC seem untrustworthy..
The ambassador had very little time before his safe room was burned up, he died of smoke related injuries.