The Real Plan

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
The Real Plan
87
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:


 


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/RNC_ad_was_cut_sent_out_before_package_failed.html?showall


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.  


 


 


 


 

Sopal


Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
In reply to: sopall1953
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 1:08am

<It's up to the Federal government to regulate Federal banks - not the States, so I imagine that would have been a problem.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2006
In reply to: sopall1953
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 1:15am

>>Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there've been good intentions. The Conservatives have done a very effective job of undermining the middle class for several decades now. Helping low income people buy homes would not be consistent with that agenda.


OK, you're wrong.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2006
In reply to: sopall1953
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 2:26am

>>Bush - no.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2008
In reply to: sopall1953
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 7:06am

I read what govtrack.us had to say through and through last week and again with what you have posted.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
In reply to: sopall1953
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 7:43am

>>I'm not sure why you brought up Romney and that little quote doesn't say much. He's not dumb enough to think that everyone could afford a home in Lynnfield and I'm not gullible enough to believe that that's what he meant if he did say it. I had to check out Lynnfield because I've never heard of it though I've probably driven right past it. Sounds like a nice little town but definitely not a place where you'd find low income housing.<<

I'll try to remember the details so that I can provide you a link. I said it because it speaks to how clueless Romney, a Republican presidential nominee, is.

>>There is no such "agenda". <<

I firmly believe there is. I've read it from multiple sources over the decades and watched it happen.

>>I'd also like to point out that there are many low and middle income Republicans. They certainly are not trying to undermine themselves. <<

If the Republican party is systematically undermining the middle class and they support the party, then yes, they are. That's one of the many reasons I don't understand Republicans.

>>And the evidence would be that Republicans have voted to pass legislation that would help the lower and middle class. It's just that their definition of "help" often differs. <<

Yes, I can agree to that. Kinda like the trickle down...

Photobucket
siggybarbie
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
In reply to: sopall1953
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 9:06am

So the bill was passed in a very bi-partisan manner. I was under the impression that


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
In reply to: sopall1953
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 9:12am

Okay, now I get what you're saying. Something like; better to have not tried and not failed than to have tried anything at all. IOW vote present, that way no one can be upset with your vote


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
In reply to: sopall1953
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 9:16am

So glad you're posting here. The article explaining how the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act created this crisis, and how the political contributions by the financial giants to congressmen in BOTH parties let to the confusing House and Senate bailout bills is excellent.

Here's another interesting opinion that came across in an email:

Before Congress does anything else they MUST take the time to hear
from some real economists, like Nobel Prize winner Joseph E.
Stiglitz, who offers real wisdom in this article from his article
last week in the Nation magazine. Here are some excerpts:

With lack of oversight and transparency the cause of the current
problem, how could they make a proposal so short in both? If a quick
consensus is required, why not include provisions to stop the source
of bleeding, to aid the millions of Americans that are losing their
homes? Why not spend as much on them as on Wall Street? Do they still
believe in trickle-down economics, when for the past eight years
money has been trickling up to the wizards of Wall Street? Why not
enact bankruptcy reform, to help Americans write down the value of
the mortgage on their overvalued home? No one benefits from these
costly foreclosures.

The Scandinavian countries showed the way, almost two decades ago. By
issuing preferred shares with warrants (options), one reduces the
public's downside risk and insures that they participate in some of
the upside potential. This approach is not only proven, it provides
both incentives and wherewithal to resume lending. It furthermore
avoids the hopeless task of trying to value millions of complex
mortgages and even more complex products in which they are embedded,
and it deals with the "lemons" problem - the government getting stuck
with the worst or most overpriced assets.

Finally, we need to impose a special financial sector tax to pay for
the bailouts conducted so far. We also need to create a reserve fund
so that poor taxpayers won't have to be called upon again to finance
Wall Street's foolishness.

-- End Stiglitz Excepts --

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
In reply to: sopall1953
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 9:59am

<Dems had control in '06' but they blocked it and the

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
In reply to: sopall1953
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 11:04am
No, it is simply a reflection of reality. The current Republican minority in the Senate has set a record for number of filibusters. And what's more, they did so in HALF the time (halfway through the session) of the previous record. In other words, Senate Republicans have consciously and consistently decided to use a tactic which was meant for use infrequently and in extreme circumstances, as an everyday tool for ensuring that legislation requires sixty votes - not 51 - out of 100, to pass....which makes it virtually impossible to pass any bill to which the Republicans object:

So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.

For policy making, this is the legislative equivalent of gum on a shoe.

It has produced a numbing cycle of Washington futility: House Democrats pass a bill, but Senate Democrats, facing a filibuster by the Republican minority, fail to get the 60 votes needed to end debate. Little wonder that approval ratings of Congress stink these days.


There's your answer: this is a newly-adopted use for an existing tool: use it for EVERYTHING you (the party) don't like, instead of only in rare circumstances. Force the vote-threshold in the Senate to be a nearly-impossible sixty votes, instead of the fifty-one which the founders intended, and which all previous congresses - by "gentleman's agreement" abided by - because they knew it protected BOTH sides when they were in the majority.

Right now, though, only one side is playing by long-established traditions. I can't quite say "by the rules," since the filibuster is indeed a legitimate tactic....but the history of its use should serve as a pretty rock-solid indication of just how much bad faith the current crop of win-at-all-costs GoOPers are misusing it.

Pages