Headsup from Kucinich

In a recent interview, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich said that Senator Obama, behind closed doors, opposed including the mortgage modification component of the Wall Street Bailout/Rescue Bill, which would give bankruptcy judges authority to change the mortgage terms of homeowners facing foreclosure. How do you all feel about this?


here's hard copy excerpt:

"Is this the United States Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?", Rep. Dennis Kucinich,  September 29, 2008,

from Democracy Now interview (link below):

REP. KUCINICH: ...Isn't it interesting that the only plan that we get up-you know, for an up or down vote is one that gives a complete bailout to Wall Street without any restraints or protections for the investors who might come into this now.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Kucinich, can you explain how it is that the Democrats are in charge, yet the Democrats back down on their demand to give bankruptcy judges authority to alter the terms of mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure, that Democrats also failed in their attempt to steer a portion of any government profits from the package to affordable housing programs?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I mean, those are two of the most glaring deficiencies in this bill. And I would maintain there was never any intention to-you know, well, many members of Congress had the intention of helping people who were in foreclosure. You know, this-Wall Street doesn't want to do that. Wall Street wants to grab whatever change they can and equity that's left in these properties. So-

AMY GOODMAN: Right, but the Democrats are in charge of this.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Right. You know, I'll tell you something that we were told in our caucus. We were told that our presidential candidate, when the negotiations started at the White House, said that he didn't want this in this bill. Now, that's what we were told.

AMY GOODMAN: You were told that Barack Obama did not want this in the bill?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: That he didn't want the bankruptcy provisions in the bill. Now, you know, that's what we were told. And I don't understand why he would say that, if he did say that. And I think that there is a-the fact that we didn't put bankruptcy provisions in, that actually we removed any hope for judges to do any loan modifications or any forbearance. There's no moratorium on mortgage foreclosures in here. So, who's getting-who's really getting helped by this bill? This is a bailout, pure and simple, of Wall Street interests who have been involved in speculation.....

So, you know, we're getting stampeded here to vote for something that doesn't help homeowners, that doesn't do anything about foreclosures, that doesn't help those people who have been in bankruptcy and are looking for a way out. As a matter of fact, it made sure they can't get out. So, who's this for? It's for speculators. It's to play a game that provides some temporary help in the market, and, you know, you might see an uptick today if this passes the House. On the other hand, if it doesn't, we need to be ready to find a way for Wall Street to address its problems without having to tap the increasingly diminishing resources of the federal taxpayers.

For complete interview, including Rep. Kucinich's thoughts on oversight and corporate compensationm, go to link: http://www.democracynow.org/20...

Tags: bailout, obama, progressives (all tags)



Re: Headsup from Kucinich
I agree that this needs to happen, but I read about this last week and my take was that Obama didn't think this belonged in "this" bill...meaning it would have impeded Republicans from signing on.
With all due respect to Rep. Kucinich, this bailout was not just helping out greedy speculators. Credit has been freezing up and that is going to hurt a lot of business...not just investment banks.
by GrahamCracker 2008-10-05 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich

Exactly. A bill that included that provision wouldn't have even gotten past the Yellow-Dogs. They could have gotten it through without veto, sure, but not through Congress. The bankruptcy legislation must be taken up in its own right, and there will be time for it. If Congress had more time before their break, they might have been able to leave it in or fight for the bill by itself.

by vcalzone 2008-10-05 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich

So? Then don't let the bill get through then. Let the GOP explain why.  Let Bush explain why the bill he wrote & asked for isn't getting through. Let Obama tell us that he wouldn't allow such corruption through.

I mean the consequences of that would just be dire@@

by jrsygrl 2008-10-05 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich

From a campaign perspective, it was the best move. It's ruined the Republican congressional cycle because first they blocked what was considered an important piece of legislation, then completely flipped once it was clear that their political move backfired.

by vcalzone 2008-10-05 03:31PM | 0 recs
If for nothing else....

...this is an important story in terms of what went on, behind the scenes with regard to this bill.

I'm a pragmatist when it comes to stuff like this.

But, I'm not feeling really all that peachy about knowing this is guidance, specifically from our presidential candidate.

Is it going to affect my sentiments as far as fully supporting his candidacy? Of course not! (I never expect candidates to be fully in line with my sentiments. This isn't a perfect world.)

Is it something I'd want to know as an informed voter and an activist? Hell, yeah!


by bobswern 2008-10-05 09:49AM | 0 recs

The fact that this can make it to the Rec List here is what makes this place a little different from DKos, too.

I'm pretty sure it won't be up for long, since those that want this place to be an echo chamber will see to that. (Unfortunately.)

But, at least it'll be prominent here for a little while.

by bobswern 2008-10-05 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: If for nothing else....

We need to push for the supplemental now,Bob. I would call Congress back into session. The pain is palpable on Main Street. Why doesn't Kucinich organize a massive relief effort for the people of the United States?

by Jeter 2008-10-05 11:48AM | 0 recs
Second-hand hearsay.

Can Dennis ever be productive?

by Bush Bites 2008-10-05 10:07AM | 0 recs
Is there an echo in here? n/t

by bobswern 2008-10-05 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there an echo in here? n/t

The person above has a point, though.  Kucinich was not at the meeting where this supposedly occurred, nor did he offer to shed any light on the reasons why it may not be included in the bill.  I mean, if someone who actually attended the meeting offered an explanation, that would be one thing, but why is Kucinich suddenly an expert on what happened at the meeting?

You have to admit that, from a journalistic standpoint, he is not the best source for information on this subject.

by rfahey22 2008-10-05 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there an echo in here? n/t

The echo came out Kucinich's mouth. "We were told?" Told by whom? Stuff like that drives me nuts when it comes from someone who supposedly is a democrat. It would be one thing if he knew for a fact that Obama opposed that provision being in the bill, but all he's doing is spreading rumors. I like Kucinich most of the time, but this is an example of why I couold never vote for him. He shouldn't be spreading rumors about the Democratic nominee without at least checking to make sure they're factual first.

by Mystylplx 2008-10-05 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Second-hand hearsay.

He voted against this bill which I like.

by jrsygrl 2008-10-05 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich

Umm, so Kucinich heard something, from somebody, about something that Obama may or may not have said to someone at some point during the past two weeks.

I like his use of the passive voice, too, "We were told." By whom?

Seriously, if a democratic representative is going to bring this up unprompted in an interview, he should really have SOMETHING substantial to say, rather than passing on what can only be described as rumor.

by EvilAsh 2008-10-05 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich

Bear in mind the aims of the diarist as well.  This from Alegre's Litterbox:

Dear NewHampster, (4.00 / 3)

Why are you splitting from AC?  Is it you just want to be on your way to create something new, or has there been a shift here that you are not comfortable with?  I myself am wondering about a shift. It seems some of us, despite all the known undemocratic thuggery of the Grand Obama Party,  are now willing to go along and iron Obama's shirts, or leaning in that direction.  (not me, that's for sure!)  Is that why you're leaving? I never was part of DKOS, and I discovered inadvertantly MyDD last winter when I was researching something on Hillary.  I was delighted to find Hillary supporters there who shared my mindset (especially since, to my utter bafflement, many of my progressive friends had already drunk the O Koolaid).  Anyway, I signed up as moevaughn at MyDD and really enjoyed your posts there (and Alegre's, of course) until the Kool-aid kids took over. (yuk)  Since then I've been spending my online time here with Alegre, but I'll come over to your new site too.

Thanks again, NewHampster!

by: Sharyn @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:57:23 AM CDT

Moevaughn is Sharyn.  Here's what she has to say about this diary here.

just checked again, (0.00 / 0)

and it is actually on rec'd list.  a couple posters were glad I dared to bring it up (in a BO echochamber), but others just make their neo-lib excuses for the One.

Has NQ brought this up yet?  I would think Kucinich's comments would be creating more of a stir. Days have gone by and barely a blip about it.

by: Sharyn @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 15:18:51 PM CDT
[ Parent | ]

More PUMA team spirit:

maybe it's Obama (4.00 / 2)

who will be the undoing of the Democrats.  

by: Sharyn @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:10:49 AM CDT

If BO were bright, (4.00 / 3)

he would have refused to run.  He would have completed one term in the Senate first.

by: Sharyn @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 20:38:03 PM CDT

Obama Nation.... (4.00 / 1)

and if BO's elected, we'll be entering the Age of Obama (a la title of Gwen Ifill's new book)
Maybe we can all move to Canada -- where everyone has health care as a basic right.  Winters are kind of cold there though.  How about Costa Rica?  What does CR have for a health care system?  

I really don't want to live in an Obama Nation.

by: Sharyn @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 14:36:39 PM CDT

by fogiv 2008-10-05 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich

Good catch.  Back to the litterbox with ya, Sharyn!

by failsafe 2008-10-05 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich

Hm.  The 40-year quest for a website nutty enough for some of them continues.

by rfahey22 2008-10-05 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich

I love the "has No Quarter seen this?"

Like Roger Stone gives a shit about what Dennis Kucinich says.  Anyway, No Quarter would be more interested in it if Obama had pushed for bankruptcy leniency - then they could talk about welfare queens.

by Jess81 2008-10-06 01:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich


by fogiv 2008-10-05 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich

It's amazing to me that you guys just buy into the bullsh*t of the bailout because Obama voted for it. Kucinich speaks for a great many americans when he says that this bill does NOTHING to help the underlying problem.

I was out campaigning today for Cynthia McKinney in Brooklyn, and more that a dozen people wearing Obama pins took the lit, because they see the democrats selling them out on the bailout.  Just because Obama signed on does not mean this is the end of this discussion - it will come back to bite him in the a$$ later on that he did not defend the hard working american atxpayers who are having problems making their mortgage payments.

by brooklyngreenie 2008-10-05 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich
But this diary isn't about the bailout. It's about a criticism of Obama that is second-hand rumor at best.
I'll be the first to say that I'm not crazy about the bailout. It flat-out sucks, but I believe that something had to be done. Was this the best result? Probably not, but this is what they could get passed, politically.
But it's irresponsible for anyone to go on television and, unprompted, bring up a rumor and pass it off as fact. It's politically tone-deaf and stupid for a Democratic Representative to do so when talking about the Democratic Presidential nominee.
by EvilAsh 2008-10-05 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup from Kucinich

I bet that when businesses started failing because the bailout wasn't passed and the credit market froze and there were no loans for payroll or inventory, we would all pat ourselves on the back for standing up for "principle', we'd pat ourselves on the back all the way to the unemployment lines.

I like Kucinich, I really do, but on this particular issue, I think that the consequences of not passing this legislation are far worse then he thinks.

by JENKINS 2008-10-06 12:06AM | 0 recs
This Is Not A Major Issue

The $850 BILLION was the issue. It would be slightly nice if judges could keep a few people in their homes, but statistically, it could never amount to much. This was essentially a small part of the puzzle.

The bailout will force the US government to borrow more money at interest. That "at interest" is the is the thing to worry about. Because this interest will amount to 100 times what it would take to stop half of the foreclosures.

The bottom line is really that BushCo has spent all our money on Iraq and Afghanistan. No combination of laws will ever redeem that value.

The details of the Banker's Bailout are less significant than the fact of the Bailout itself. And the Bailout was itself merely a side-show. Look in the vault; the money isn't in there! Where did it all go?

by blues 2008-10-05 03:08PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads