The Real Plan
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 09-30-2008 - 1:25pm |
The real plan was for the Republicans to allow the bill to pass and then, immediately, hammer Obama. I have included link to the actual Republican advertisement at the bottom:
September 30, 2008
Categories: Republicans
RNC ad, was cut, sent out before package failed
The Republican National Committee's new advertisement critical of the the Wall Street "bailout" was produced and sent to television stations in key states before the package failed, officials at two stations said.
"Wall Street Squanders our money. And Washington is forced to bail them out with -- you guessed it -- our money. Can it get any worse?" asks the ad's narrator, as the words "BAILOUT WITH OUR MONEY" cross the screen. (The answer: Obama's plans would make it worse.)
The ad, however, seems to assume that it can safely attack a successful plan. And the reason may be the timing: Though it started airing this morning, the spot was released to stations yesterday morning, ad executives at stations in Michigan and Pennsylvania said.
Kae Buck of WLNS in Lansing said her station received the at at 7:55 a.m. Monday. Luanne Russell of Pittsburgh's WTAE said her station received it at 10:49 Monday morning.
The ad taps into deep resentment of the plan, but it comes at a time when the candidate it supports, John McCain, is urging its package, and asking that it not be referred to as a "bailout," but a "rescue."
Asked about the ad's relationship to the congressional legislation, the consultant heading up the RNC's expenditure, Brad Todd, responded in an email that Obama is its focus.
"This ad is about Barack Obama’s spending plan," he said. "Last Friday in the debate he struggled to name even one spending proposal he would responsibly trim in light of the economic crisis and any potential bailout plan. Senator Obama clings to his big spending approach even today and our ad campaign will focus attention on that irresponsible position.">>>
The advertisement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9j_epTmr2c
It would have been brilliant politics, except the vote didn't pan out.

Pages
He co sponsered a bill that was could have prevented theeconomic disaster we face now, it never
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
>>I'm sure you've already seen that. <<
Nope. He participated in some failed legislation on regulation, not relevant.
There is no evidence that the bill was any good or "could have" averted any of this mess. Additionally, McCain neither introduced the bill nor put it forward again. Hardly speaks to him believing it "might have" averted this crisis. Just a lot of Republican hot air - unless you can find some sources that state otherwise.
>>The videos have been posted here somewhere for all to see if you need your "evidence".<<
Which are you referring to the Rush Limbaugh videos or the Republican campaign videos?
>>In fact I haven't seen that even one Dem voted for it in committee. <<
Any evidence of who did vote for or against it in committee?
This is an opinion piece that bashed left, right and center, but I think it talks about things in an understandable way.
September 19, 2008
The Bi-Partisan Origins of the Financial Crisis
Shattering the Glass-Steagall Act
By WILLIAM KAUFMAN
If you're looking for a major cause of the current banking meltdown, you need seek no farther than the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
The Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933, mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking in order to protect depositors from the hazards of risky investment and speculation. It worked fine for fifty years until the banking industry began lobbying for its repeal during the 1980s, the go-go years of Reaganesque market fundamentalism, an outlook embraced wholeheartedly by mainstream Democrats under the rubric "neoliberalism."
The main cheerleader for the repeal was Phil Gramm, the fulsome reactionary who, until he recently shoved his foot even farther into his mouth than usual, was McCain's chief economic advisor.
But wait . . . as usual, the Democrats were eager to pile on to this reversal of New Deal regulatory progressivism -- fully 38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal (which passed 90-8), including some famous names commonly associated with "progressive" politics by the easily gulled: Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer. And, of course, there was the inevitable shout of "yea" from the ever-servile corporate factotum Joseph Biden, Barack Obama's idea of a tribune of "change"--if by change one means erasing any lingering obstacle to corporate domination of the polity.
This disgraceful bow to the banking industry, eagerly signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999, bears a major share of responsibility for the current banking crisis. Here's the complete roll call of shame:
The House Democrats were no less enthusiastic in their endorsement of this invitation to plunder--the repeal passed there by a margin of 343-86, with the Donkey Party favoring the measure by a two-to-one margin, 138-69. Current House speaker Nancy Pelosi managed not to register a vote on this one, so great was her fear of offending her party's corporate paymasters even though she knew passage was a sure thing.
According to Wikipedia, many economists "have criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions. With lobbying led by Roger Levy, the 'finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors . They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, ' according to the Center for Responsive Politics. ' These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the act. ' "
This lust for banking largesse is as wanton among Democrats as Republicans--right up to the current presidential campaign. According to the Phoenix Business Journal,
So . . . the next time a mass-media-lulled Democrat ridicules Ralph Nader for arguing that there are few significant differences between the two major parties on the truly important issues, you might refer them to this atrocity, along with all the other ones.
Edited 10/1/2008 11:59 pm ET by jjcruise3
>>Good intentions?
Pages