Sanders/Dodd Audit-The-Fed allows audit of TARP + TALF, but not FOMC, discount window operations, or agreement with foreign central banks.
"Even the so called "independent" leftists, Kucinich and Sanders, have both capitulatied to the corporate, class markets and their class despotism, proving they are not real opposition leaders, but phony socialists, phony anti war activists." ~Eric Albert Schwing
I read all three versions of the Sanders amendment carefully, and I believe Sanders made a good call if the decision was compromise with Dodd or have no amendment at all.
The big differences with the compromise are:
-Single audit covering December 1,2007 to May 2010 rather than open-ended audit until all bailout funds are recovered.
-Specific parameters on the audit focusing on whether proper procedures were followed and what could be done to improve Fed governance. However it is not clear that the audit is limited to these items.
-Fed website still must report lots of previously undisclosed details about the bailout measured-who got what and why. ~bmull
White House Spin on Cave-In: In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.
It's intellectually dishonest to have a discussion over the fairness of the tax code and welfare programs without FIRST addressing the inherent inequality of our labor markets, capital markets, access to education, access to the judicial system, access to infrastructure, and intellectual property laws. Fundamentally, if a business leader makes his profits from paying his employees minimum wage at $7.50/hour in an area where a decent livable wage is $15/hour, but where workers have little negotiating leverage and few other options, then it is RIGHT to expect government to tax the business/owner at a high percentage and the workers at a low percentage, and to use tax funds to provide the under-compensated workers with housing and food assistance, as well as other forms of aid. In that scenario, the scenario in which most of our country operates (accounting also for middle-class wage-earners that are under-paid), it is disturbingly unfair to demand that "equality" be applied only at the tax code (even moreso that it only be leveled at the income tax, specifically), as if wealth is earned solely in proportion to some fantastical Randian ideal of personal worth and NOT heavily influenced by real-world power dynamics.
"The impact of the economic crisis on housing in New York City has once again laid bare the nature of class relations that exist in America's largest city and the capital of global finance."
Our oligarchic class is incompetent at governing, managing the economy, coping with natural disasters, educating our young, handling foreign affairs, providing basic services like health care and safeguarding individual rights. That it is still in power, and will remain in power after this election, is a testament to our inability to separate illusion from reality. We still believe in "the experts." They still believe in themselves.
This seems to be The President's modus operandi - 1) Lay out clear markers that are supported by a majority of Avericans - i.e. balanced approach with cuts and revenues; 2) Watch the republicans take a hard line to satisfy the tea party; 3) Give the republicans 99% of what they want; 4) Blame the left for not compromising.
It looks like the framework for the deal is beginning to take shape, and it's not at all surprising. Tilted heavily toward cuts that will affect the middle and working classes disproportionately, and almost tailor-made to spare the rich any sacrifice whatsoever. While this is not surprising given the terms of the debate, it still boggles the mind to witness our republic complete its transformation into the very definition of a plutocracy. We have a political system designed specifically to protect the interest of the monied elite (I suppose one could argue that this had been the case for a long time, but it only really became nakedly, brazenly obvious during the 2008 financial crisis). Stories like these don't end well. Including for the elite. The history books are replete with warnings. Our country is going into a dark time.
My question is answered. These candid photos of the perfect American family surely garnered him support. Did the attractiveness of his family help him? Most likely the people were just as intrigued by the image of upper class eastern life that the Kennedys presented, with it's fashion, athleticism, education, all resources which were starting to become increasingly valuable with the mass market.
Kennedy's ads presented him as ready to lead during a time of great tension in
the world, highlighted his commitment to create jobs and equal opportunities for
all Americans, and questioned whether Nixon was exaggerating his experience.
"He looked sick, but also a little unsure," Albert W. Upton, who had been
Nixon's drama coach at Whittier College, told The New York Times. And
Nixon's former law partner, Thomas Bewley, said, "Dick just didn't look good.
His...clothes were wrong. He didn't have the old spirit."
Style over substance in the Mass Media. The Kennedys were always avid presenters, able to make others view them in the best light possible. They carefully crafted their image to conform to the American ideal.
the tanned, photogenic Democratic candidate for President
A lot of these articles mention Kennedy's physical attractiveness. Did that add to his appeal? Perhaps it gave him additional celebrity and helped to make him a public figure, beloved by the people. Did the Media's coverage of him help in this respect? Did the images presented of him always show him at his best? Perhaps he new how to use his handsomeness and the press to his advantage as he knew he would appear to advantage in photos and on television.
The public loved John F. Kennedy's press conferences, although some of his advisors worried about the risk of mistakes by the president and others thought the press showed insufficient respect for the dignity of his office
He's making himself not only seem more relatable but more attainable as though we, ourselves, could become friends with the president. As if we were of his same class and he was speaking to us. Given the aspirational nature of late 50s/ early 60s society, it makes sense that this would be a greatly affective strategy. He was also making himself not only a public figure, but a celebrity. Seen on the screen nearly as often as Cary Grant or Humphrey Bogart.
Here is the example of celebrity and glamour. By presenting himself to the public on his own terms, he therebye marketed himself to them and chose how he would portray himself instead of the media. 18 million watched him on average which is an incredible number. He had some draw that pulled them in, a quintessential thing that made everyone relate to him. Hope? Idealism? Can you commercialize these? Can intangible ideas be marketed?
even though we disapprove, there isn't any doubt that we could not
President Kennedy helped to significantly enlarge the role of television as a news medium,
but he continued to be a voracious consumer of print journalism
Oh, yes. No, no, I think it is invaluable, even though it may cause you—it is never pleasant to be reading things that are not agreeable news, but I would say that it is an invaluable arm of the presidency, as a check really on what is going on in the administration, and more things come to my attention that cause me concern or give me information.
Appears educated and Sophisticated.
Perhaps this was another aspect of the Kennedy appeal. Sophistication and Education were really two ideals of modern American life during the 1960s. The whole Kennedy family had this air of sophistication which captured the whole of America. They had this image of royalty. In the 60s, we see the image of the sophisticated family, who all read and discussed politics. America was changing it's image from vulgar to glamorous, Seeking to aquire a culture that the rest of the world always seemed to think we lacked. Kennedy played into our own ego's by presenting himself as a man of the world, ready to promote American intelligence and competence at home and abroad. His wife, Jackie, who spoke French and Spanish, added to this air of worldly appeal.