Forbes: Clinton's Charge That Sanders Did Not Support Auto Rescue Is Wrong

[Mufaddal]

During the debate in Flint, Michigan, a visibly tired Sanders did a poor job of explaining the confusion. I am not a Sanders supporter, but the truth is always important.

Secretary Clinton is chastising Sanders in the Motor State for not voting for the bill that created the funding for an auto bailout. Except, it wasn’t known that the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bill, designed to bail out Wall Street banks from their subprime mortgage loan debacle that was crashing the economy, would be used to rescue the auto industry at the time Senators Sanders and Clinton voted on it. Clinton voted yay. Sanders voted nay. It was President Bush who signed the bill into law.

Later, in December 2008, the Senate took up a separate bill that would have provided rescue funds specifically for the auto industry. That bill failed to get the 60-vote filibuster-proof minimum when Republicans balked at saving General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, in large part because they wanted to use the occasion to try and destroy the United Auto Workers union, which stood to benefit from a bailout by having their healthcare fund and pensions protected, and its interests prioritized over bond holders. Both Clinton and Sanders voted for this bill.

Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkiley5/2016/03/07/clintons-charges-that-sanders-did-not-support-auto-rescue-is-wrong/#68f807df582b

So that's Forbes.

But wait, there's more (not from Forbes):

In fact, Clinton's claim that she voted in 2009 to bailout the auto industry is itself questionable:

The Senate vote on Jan. 15, 2009, was on a measure that would have blocked the Treasury Department from gaining access to the second half of a $700 billion Wall Street bailout package. President-elect Obama urged Senate Democrats to allow the release of the second $350 billion — which included an additional $4 billion already promised to automakers by Bush. But Obama made no mention at the time of using TARP to provide any more money for the automakers.

It’s true as Clinton said that she voted to release the money, and Sanders voted to block it. And ultimately, the Obama administration disbursed nearly $80 billion to General Motors, Chrysler Corp. and others in the auto industry (all but $9.3 billion of which was eventually paid back).

But at the time of the vote, it was by no means clear that Obama would use more than one-fifth of the $350 billion for an auto bailout. And most of the money still went for the bank bailouts that Sanders opposed.

So Clinton’s claim that her Jan. 15, 2009, vote was “to save the auto industry” is — to be charitable — quite a stretch.

Link: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/factchecking-the-seventh-democratic-debate/

[pat_k]

1. hallelujah!

If there is any justice, voters will actually become aware of this, and the deceitful attempt will backfire!

[Hydra]

4. There may be a straw on the camel's back moment at some point

Where she says something so outrageously untrue that it won't be allowed to pass.

Then again, I remember when Mitt Romney pretended to be Obama, and all that happened was Obama visibly wondering why the hell anyone was buying it.

[SidDithers]

2. That's not Forbes. That's a blogger named David Kiley, who blogs at the Forbes "sites"...

literally anyone can blog at Forbes.

Currently, Editor-in-Chief of New Roads Media, I have covered all aspects of the auto industry for some thirty years for publications including USA Today, Businessweek, AOL Autos, Popular Mechanics, Adweek and Advertising Age. Besides my journalism experience, I have also worked on auto advertising accounts for major ad agencies, including Lowe, Doner, Deutsch and Fallon. I have also written three books: Getting The Bugs Out–The Rise, Fall and Comeback of Volkswagen in America (2001); Driven–Inside BMW, The Most Admired Car Company in the World (2004) and (co-author) Writing The War: Chronicles of a World War 11 Correspondent (2015). I've also been a two-term President of the International Motor Press Association.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkiley5/#2fe13dfa342c

Sid

[Mufaddal]

3. I was going for correct attribution

If it was published on a different site, I would have put that site title. As for "literally anyone":

"Literally anyone"

[Lucinda]

7. "So that's Forbes."

You implied that Forbes was making that assertion when in fact it was simply a contributor who is posting his own opinion.

[Lucinda]

6. Thanks Sid!

[Live and Learn]

8. That doesn't negate the fact that she purposefully LIED about it?

I find it maddening that some here support the outright false statements she makes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Ok who did she did piss off?

Because for those of us paying attention to media shenanigans there is a definite separation now.

[jillan]

9. Want to hear something hillaryous? You know where I first heard this? On Faux during the townhall.

It was one of the first things Bret Baier said to Bernie that Factcheck.org said Hillary's claim was wrong.

WTF is going on here? Fox? Forbes? more honest than Msnbc and the Washington Post?



I feel like I need to re-read George Orwell's 1984.

It's like living in the Twilight Zone.