(Flashback) Palin: Mortgage plan not a handout, but hand up

Cleveland.com ^ | Oct 14, 2008 | Bill Meyer

[pissant]

SCRANTON, Pa. -- Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Tuesday that her running mate John McCain's plan to reduce or eliminate taxes and help distressed homeowners with their mortgages will "get this economy moving again."

At a raucous rally in Scranton, Palin said McCain's mortgage proposal is "not a handout, but a hand up" to help financially overwhelmed Americans hang on to their homes.

"This is going to get our country through a time of testing, and it's going to get the economy back on the right track," Palin said. "Under this plan, we'll help American families keep their homes and save failing neighborhoods, and bring stability to our housing market."

[FTJM]

Yep, just like the "Bridge to Nowhere", which she initially supported before it became controversial and an embarrassment. By then Congress had cut off funding and essentially killed it.

Yep, and the dirty little secret is that the state used the federal funds anyway.

[rob777]

"You are correct, as I’ve stated above, that any comment made before she was nominated or after the election, is fair game for critique and praise."


Agreed, I would also argue that comments made while VP that reinforce earlier positions are fair game as well. I will agree to lay off from comments that have no support before and after her time as VP. The truth of the matter though is that a lot of her more controversial comments are supported by comments or positions taken before and after her time as VP. There is also the reality that not all the arguments made as a VP candidate show a shift to the left to fit with McCain's positions. Some comments represent a shift to the right when compared to her positions as Governor. Her Executive Order establishing a panel on climate change has far more problematic language in it than her comments as VP. Her position on LOST as Governor was clearly to the left of the position that McCain took in the campaign. At the GOP convention, she got a huge applause for her line about "saying thanks, but no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere". The truth of the matter is that she actively supported it before Congress cut off the funding and effectively killed it. She then came out against it.

[rbmillerjr]

That is a very accurate description of her comments. But one would have to assume what she meant by “path” or presume to know her policy details.

I’d be suspect myself if she were to just mention, “path”.

But she states in the same answer that she does not support amnesty. She states this emphatically, twice.

So, to say she supports amnesty takes some creativity or an active imagination.
—Read the question carefully.
Interview with Lars Larson on 12/3/09:

LARS: The amnesty proposal that was defeated in Congress — in your view, was that amnesty for illegals and would you back amnesty for a path to citizenship, as the current president calls it?
SARAH PALIN: NO I’M NOT FOR AMNESTY. Let’s ratchet this down quite simply to remember what we’re referring to. Illegal aliens are *called “illegal” for a reason. We need to secure our borders and I AM NOT FOR AMNESTY. And there are humane ways to deal with the 11-13 million illegal aliens who are in our country right now, *but if they’re not going to follow the rules,*** they need to get out.

[rbmillerjr]

“Agreed, I would also argue that comments made while VP that reinforce earlier positions are fair game as well.”

Absolutely. I stated the same thing if you go back and look at my posts.

[rob777]

"That is a very accurate description of her comments. But one would have to assume what she meant by “path” or presume to know her policy details."


Watch the video of the interview with Bill O'Reilly at the link. A fair amount of detail is discussed. The bottom line is that illegals who comply with the request to come forward and register would be allowed to stay in the country. Some people consider any policy other than blanket deportation to be defacto amnesty. We need to get past simply arguing whether someone is for or against amnesty and argue the pros and cons of providing a process for some illegals to stay in the country.

On the one hand is the rule of law argument, which would argue that they broke the law and should be sent back. On the other hand is a national security argument that it is essential that we know who is in this country. Groups like Hezbollah are getting people who can pass as hispanics to enter the country through the southern border. Of course we need to close the border, but what of those already here? One could argue that a path to citizenship is a tradeoff to entice people to come forward and register so that we know who is here. The process would have to include a thorough background check. We grant immunity to criminals who give information that allows a bigger criminal to be caught. This would be similar to granting a path to citizenship to those who subject themselves to a background check. By doing so they would be helping us get a handle on who is in the country. After a certain period, all those who have not registered would be deported. Those who pose no security threat would be more apt to cooperate in identifying those who do if there was something in it for them. This is a discussion that we really need to have.

[roamer_1]

Anybody buttin butts with a pisr is a troll.

Yeah, well... I heard the same exact crap from the fredheads last go-around... and the McCainiacs... and look how well that turned out.

Just sayin'

And as far as pissant (and crew) is concerned, I consider myself to be in the best of company.

Without a principled candidate, any victory is Pyrrhic at best, and does not advance Conservatism at all. Especially when hopes are based in populism.

[rbmillerjr]

Where’s the link?

[rob777]

Most of the details come from O’Reilly. He simply gets her to agree. The security vs. rule of law argument is my own. It is a discussion that I would like to see take place. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dlZwM-eZkA

[CharlesWayneCT]

And reading about her new book today, it sounds like more of a bio book than a campaign-launch policy book.

Still a lot of time.

[convertedtoreason]

Okey pissant, you win.

AND I AGREE.

REAGAN ADMIN IS NOT THE SAME AS THE GIPPER HIMSELF!

I remember one: BUSH 41. bwa ha ha ha ha

[OwatonnaNative]

Really? the Romneybots are now attacking Palin for supporting the campaign positions she HAD to support? Misconstruing and twisting the words of Sarah Palin is not going to help mittens. He is a pro-abortionist (anyone can watch his debates for governor on youtube), he not only supported Obama-care light in Massachusetts but he was the driving force behind the fiasco, and he continues to work behind the scenes to take pot shots at others in the Republican party that might challenge his run (he is a real POS). Romney is a backstabbing, power hungry RINO - if he is the nominee I will work to convince Sarah Palin to run as a third party candidate - the Republican party would be effectively dead if the Romney idiot becomes the candidate.

[madison10]

Good grief.. how many people has Obama hired to go forth and trash Palin?

No telling. Apparently Pissant is on the payroll, though. ;)

[Grunthor]

“He is a pro-abortionist”

Who claims to have changed. I guess there is really no way to know. He is really at the bottom of the barrel though, as far as GOP POTUS candidates are concerned.

[OwatonnaNative]

Romney will claim to have “changed” on anything. Every position is up for preemptive capitulation with this guy.

He is a soulless ghoul who is only interested in political power for the sake of that power. He is bereft of any core beliefs, easily swayed by leftist screeching, and based on his behind the scenes attacks on others, he is a coward. I could live with most of the other Republicans being talked about, but Romney is wholly unacceptable.

[Grunthor]

“Romney will claim to have “changed” on anything.”

No he won’t, he already did in the ‘08 race. It’s the main reason he wasn’t nominated. That and the fact that a minority of GOP voters would not vote for a Reagan clone if it was a mormon.

[itsahoot]

McCain mortgage plan shifts costs to taxpayers

As opposed to Obama's plan which shifted the burden of cost to the taxpayers.

The only difference is the homeowners got foreclosed and the banks got refunded the difference, and further enriched themselves by selling to cronies at super low cost, and golly gee they will be reimbursed for the full amount, of the difference between the loan and the sale price. Then if the value recovers, they get a second bite of that low hanging fruit.

Hard decision, refund the banks for all the stupid loans they made, or help the homeowner keep home and job, dang that is a hard one, I will have to think on that one, AIg or my hard working neighbor...........

[dr_who]

Don’t shoot the messenger. It won’t do Palin or you any good. She’s backtracking regardless of whether she was merely carrying water for McCain or no.

[Christian Engineer Mass]

This was 3 weeks before the election. I think she was kind of obligated to support whatever MCCain crap at that point. Sheesh.

[itsahoot]

Or do you get to pick the ones you like.

Like you, we get to pick the ones we like. Seems fair.

[itsahoot]

I see problems with her record and do not consider her the conservative champion that she is portrayed as.

Then there should be plenty of evidence you can glean from her tenure as Governor, or her other work in Alaska. We will wait with baited breath.