Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Leader Nance: "Unless they can show us the plan, we can't show them the money."

(Via Bloomberg.) No, she's not talking to the banks, silly!

To the automakers!

See, if you're an infestment banker who's just collapsed the global economy by speculating on "complex," "innovative" derivatives, and you need a trillion or two NOW NOW NOW, with no plan and no accountability, Leader Nance -- and her fellow Villagers George, Harry, Barack, and Hank -- are more than happy to oblige!

But if you actually make something? If you've got unions? If you've got health care to cover? If you've got pensions to pay? It's LATER LATER LATER!

Tell me how this is about change?

0
No votes yet

Comments

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Amazingly, Krugman discusses the current breakdown in governance including the carmaker bailout fiasco and never once mentions Nancy Pelosi. Guess he still has a lot to learn.

It isn't a long piece, go and read; just one quote from the besottedly romantic old fool, talking about the general effect of the last election:

And for those on the progressive side of the political spectrum, these are hopeful times.

Still talking about "hope" is he? What a loser.

We've discussed here at Corrente several times the extraconstitutionality at play as the result of abandonment of some areas of governance by BushCo, and in other areas where they tried to remain engaged but everyone else involved had stopped listening. As I pointed out at the time of Obama's post-primary foreign tour, in several cases involving foreign policy including the future role of NATO, US-EU policy relationships and the Status of Forces agreement with Iraq, Obama was able to step in and move things forward in ways that appear to be predominantly to the good.

In the domestic arena however, BushCo continues to be engaged and able to make unilateral decisions and/or control events because the 110th Congress dominated by a Republican/BlueDog coalition is still the only Congress we have and because Bush still squats in the White House with all of his executive authority intact. Until Obama and the Democrats actually take office, they will have little to no real authority to drive anything and the choices are either to go along with the BushCo/Republican/BlueDog cabal or do nothing at all.

Trying to hang the responsibility for BushCo/Republican/BlueDog wrongdoing on either Obama or Pelosi is wrong in so many ways that to address them all would exceed the bounds of time and space. A thorough debunking would gain nothing in this environment but "Feh" and accusations of being "prolix" so I won't bother; been down that road too many times already.

I will, though, ask for justification for the lede here; exactly how is this mess Nancy Pelosi's fault, and exactly what solution to the impasse is under her control? The only precondition she asked for was a business plan outline that included increased future production of vehicles with greater fuel efficiency, which the carmakers refused to provide. Does that insistence make her a bad person? If so, in what way? Please explain your decision to frame this mess as a failure/betrayal by Pelosi.

[I see digby also cites Krugman on this power vacuum. She too fails to mention Pelosi; perhaps there's some dark conspiracy involved.]

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Or just play one on the internet? :D

Nowhere in this post is Pelosi blamed for the current situation.

It's just the difference betweeen the way the Wall St. Bailout was handled, and the way the Auto bailout is being handled by the leadership, has been noted.

That is a direct quote from her after all. And I don't remember her threatening Paulson w/ no plan=no money.

There are valid criticisms, and invalid ones. This is a valid one.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

Except maybe for the snarky braindead comment.

Maybe.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

including the distinction between brain damaged and brain dead.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

So do all the nitwits who voted for the bailout.

But I actually am glad to see her put her foot down here. There ought to be a workable plan. But, after all, the big guys won't suffer nearly as much as the little people. How many more sacrifices must we be asked to make because the assholes were stupid, shortsighted and greedy?

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

What ever Pelosi has to "answer for" it isn't this one.

This move is, near as I can read it, a negotiating standoff. The delay - and that is all it will be, the automakers will be back and another session in December will do a deal - could well have been avoided if (1) the auto execs had simply agreed to shift design and production towards higher fuel efficiency, something they have to do to survive, and (2) if BushCo and the Republicans hadn't insisted on using funds already allocated to other decent purposes.

My view, the morally right thing to do is tax the hell out of the oil companies and use that money to bail out the automakers - but that's not going to happen with this Congress or BushCo.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I'd put up links to the definitions, but that might be seen as smartass or denigrative and we can't have any of that around here.

Perhaps you should re-read the post. Pelosi is singularly listed in in the headline and again in the lede, then called out by name apart from the Usual Suspects and indeed held uniquely responsible for refusing the automaker bailout.

I ask for justification for naming her individually multiple times, and ask exactly how it is that she's to blame. What you chose to do in response was attack me pesonally, with insults, instead of answering my questions.

That is, of course, because you have no answer to my questions.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

that there is no justification for calling her out on this. I mean, she is the leader of the House. If you think somebody else should be called out on this as well, the write your own damn post.

This particular beef is in reference to her specific behavior regarding this and the Paulson bailout. If she had at least playacted like this about the Paulson plan, there would be no argument.

But she didn't, and deserves the heat for it. Is there more heat to be given to others? Of course, but recently it seems to me, Corrente has been focused on the betrayals by our own party. Of course Republicans act like Republicans, where is the news in that? Being betrayed by the Dems isn't really news either, but it is nice to keep a handy reference, for in 2012, when things are worse and some people want to make the "You Must Re-Elect Obama or the World Will End!!!eleventy-one!!" argument, that electing Dems isn't making a difference.

Also, how many times have you said you can take it, but now I make a small joke, meant in good fun, and your fee-fees are hurt. WTF?

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

And still speaking to you in spite of the insult. If I called you brain dead in the title to a comment, even with a little smiley face, how would you feel about it? I am not amused, and I do not believe that you would be either. I can take it, doesn't mean I have to like it.

Yes, I'm saying she has no culpability in the standoff. Do you, or anyone, have evidence that she is? How is Speaker of the House suddenly become Dictator Of America? Pelosi doesn't even control her current caucus, much less the House, she has zero influence over the Senate and perhaps you've forgotten already but the President is still George W. Bush whom she also doesn't control.

Plenty of people to blame, including in my view predominantly the automakers. I see no evidence that Pelosi is among them, and ask for such evidence. I'm still waiting, in my brain-dead way.

Oh, and the "electing Dems doesn't make a difference" argument will actually have to wait until they hold the power to govern. That starts January 20, and by all means be as harsh as is justified after that. Condemning the Dems for that which they do not control is what I'm objecting to, and specifically with regard to Nancy Pelosi and the Big Auto bailout - the actual subject of the original post.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

If I had read the brain dead remark, especially with the snarky "or do you play one" line after it, I would have laughed. Quite all right, everyone has different ways of showing affection, and this was my (apparently) poor attempt to do so. You are talking to a woman, who calls her dear and devoted partner, "that asshole". If you took it badly, I sincerely apologize. It was not meant as insult, just a playful jab to show my disagreement with you.


Yes, I'm saying she has no culpability in the standoff. Do you, or anyone, have evidence that she is?

She is attempting to take credit for standing up to the automakers with that statement, that's all the culpability I need. Yes, a plan is needed. Why didn't she demand one from Paulson. It may not have worked, but at least she'd have looked like she was doing something.


will actually have to wait until they hold the power to govern.

Past performance being no indicators of future behavior, eh? They did nothing but capitulate to Bush. I understand that right now there isn't much they could do, but they could at least act like Democrats, right?

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Had my fill all the way up with being called names in this friendly place, you came by at the wrong time just as I overflowed.

Not likely to resolve any of that any time soon, so probably best to just stay literal for a while. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Odd, or not, I didn't hear Pelosi sounding as though she were claiming credit but rather speaking factually and just a touch plaintive. She is brutally direct, and really ought to learn some skills with regard to being politic in her speech and manner; not everyone responds positively to bluntness. I, on the other hand, quite like her.

I believe in fact she did demand a plan for Paulson, and as a result the expenditures from the Trillion Dollar Bailout have been limited and now directed towards buying stock from banks instead of the garbage derivatives.

Bush and Paulson were going to spend whatever they wanted anyway and defy anyone to do anything about it. With what we've seen since the first of September, the plan was to loot the Treasury whether Congress was involved or not and the "Paulson Plan" was just an attempt to get some cover. While the $350 Billion spent out of that bill seems astronomical - and it is - BushCo has spent in the last two months upwards of $2 Trillion additional under existing authorizations, executive orders and some stuff they just made up.

If the TDB bill hadn't been passed, Democrats would have been blamed for every bad thing from then on. If they'd stayed in session trying to work out a more reasonable approach, they would have been pinned down in DC for the last month of the election campaign being brutalized by the Bush administration, the Republicans and the MSM for holding up the show and endangering the economic security of the nation.

Rock and a hard place once again, courtesy of the Criminal Cabal called the Republican Party. There are often no good choices when dealing with criminals.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

With Obama working the phones for the TDB, of course it was going to pass. It would have just made me happier if they acted outraged about it.

I *liked* Pelosi a lot more when she was Minority leader. She like many Dems, seems to have forgotten how to be a Majority. I hope, once Obama gets elected, we will get hitherto unsuspected leadership skills, but, like has been said many times here, I won't hold me breath.

Submitted by lambert on

... one gives the name of that individual -- especially when that individual is in a position of leadership. And -- follow me closely here -- in this case the subject line of the post indicates the subject of the post.

To me, the order of magnitude difference between the trillions ("T") for banks NOW NOW NOW, with no oversight at all, and the $25 billion ("B") for automakers LATER LATER LATER, with a demand for a plan, is so ginormously humongous .... That I can't imagine why anyone would even seek to obfuscate it.

UPDATE But by all means, shoot the messenger!

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

All right then, Lambert; got a good chuckle out of that one.

Lots of quotes floating around, you just happened to pick one from Pelosi and were then forced to introduce her name in a denigrative formulation, and then again and again and yet again. The Domino Effect, updated, no agency involved beyond the abstract requirements of Style. (shakes head, makes mental note to save that one for future use)

Obfuscation? Of what? I have been very direct and very clear and, for me, quite brief. I've said nothing positive about the Trillion Dollar Bailout, here or elsewhere; that's your issue to relate in some way, not mine.

I cannot follow an argument that finds Pelosi culpable for the stalemate with the automakers. You say the TDB was bad (in part) because not enough conditions were put in place. Now you say Pelosi is to blame for holding up the Automaker Loan because she's asking for some conditions. Should she have pushed for $25 Billion with no strings attached, would that have been better in your view?

The holdup is with the Republicans and the White House, again, not with the Democrats. Your blame for Pelosi is misplaced.

[No messengers were shot in the formulating of these comments. You have confused me with Sarah Palin.]

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

Two trillion ("t") for bankers with no oversight but money NOW NOW NOW NOW with the Bush + Reid + Peloisi + Paulson bailout bill.

Twenty five billion ("b") for automakers and Pelosi demands a plan for money LATER LATER LATER.

Staggering, mind-boggling contrast. It's like Parkinson's Law, where the Board approves a nuclear power plant with five minutes of discussion and then spends an hour arguing about a tin roof on a bicycle shed, because they understand the tin roof, but not the power plant.

It's just bullshit, and I'm not calling on anyone to "follow" me any further than into hilarity at its stupendous and odious nature. Now they want a plan?

Perhaps I should have said "Villager Pelosi," to make it clear that Pelosi is but one part in a fucked system of working parts. Or perhaps "FISA [cough] reform architect Pelosi" would have been more helpful, in reference to her stellar bipartisan work on the Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Obama bill that gutted the Fourth Amendment. Perhaps that would have made matters more clear?

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

If an election were pending, the Automaker bailout would have passed in a heartbeat just like the TDB did. Would that have been a wiser course of action? (Only $350 billion of that TDB will be spent with Bush in office; doesn't that help you feel better? [bitter joke, to be clear])

Never fear, the car manufacturers will be back in December, a bill will pass, and another big chunk of change will disappear into the Corporatist maw. If that happens along with guarantees of changing the focus towards high fuel efficiency and rock-hard binding guarantees of workers keeping their pensions and benefits, so much the better and well worth a few weeks wait.

It is a fucked up system, no doubt, but IMNSHO Pelosi is at most a small part of the problem. At worst some of her behaviors are symptoms, not root causes, and focusing on her detracts from addressing the core of our problems. That is all, of course, just my opinion.