When she isn’t claiming that lesbian constituents have kidnapped her in a bathroom, Michele Bachmann is calling for investigations of congressmembers to see if they hold anti-American views. What kind of anti-American views? Pretty much, anyone who is critical of any aspect of American policy is an anti-American in Michele Bachmann’s mind. Here’s how she put it on Chris Matthew’s Hardball program:
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, he’s a United States senator from Illinois. He’s one of the people you suspect as being anti-American. How many people in the Congress of the United States do you think are anti- American? You’ve already suspected Barack Obama. Is he alone, or are there others? How many do you suspect of your colleagues as being anti-American?
REP. BACHMANN: What I would say — what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that.
Most reasonable people interpreted these remarks to be the ravings of a right-wing idiot. But Reid Wilson of The Hill thinks that Democrats that are critical of the Senate GOP’s refusal to save the auto industry are the moral equivalents of Michele Bachmann.
Democrats across the country are blasting Republicans who voted against a bailout for American automakers last night, in some cases using rhetoric ordinarily reserved for only the most heated debates.
“It is unacceptable for this un-American, frankly, behavior of these U.S. senators to cause this country to go from a recession into a depression,” Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm said during a radio interview Friday morning. “It is such an unbelievable stab at workers across the country.”
…The harsh language, especially from Granholm, is reminiscent of certain Republican attacks on Democrats. Most recently, Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann found herself in hot water when she suggested that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama had “anti-American views.”
One obvious difference between the remarks of Granholm and Bachmann is that Granholm is criticizing the actions and statements of specific members of Congress, not the actions or statements of their acquaintances. Gov. Granholm is alleging that policies that deliberately put millions of people out of work are unpatriotic. You can critique that, if you want, but it is a much different assertion than Bachmann was making.
Reid Wilson isn’t interested in making any distinctions of this type. In fact, he wants you to know that the majority of the people in this country are in the so-called ‘anti-American’ camp. This means, I assume, that Granholm’s charges cannot be true.
Still, Republicans who voted against the bailout measure are in line with the majority of Americans, according to a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. The survey shows 58 percent of Americans disapprove of an automaker bailout, including 52 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans. Just 37 percent approve of the bailout.
Just over one in three respondents told pollsters they believed American car companies would survive only if they received a loan. Thirty-one percent predicted the auto companies would be able to survive on their own, while one in four said the companies were doomed regardless of whether they received the bailout.
Half of voters say it is not likely that automakers will eventually pay back the money they borrow, while 48 percent say payback is likely.
What this tells us is that the American people are either ‘anti-American’ or the Democrat’s criticisms are false. Wilson sets up a false dichotomy and never considers the possibility that the majority of Americans might simply be wrong, misled, or liable to change their minds when they see the repercussions of a collapse of the auto industry.
List of GM plants shutting down in January:
And I don’t have the numbers right now but even more Americans disapproved of the bankers’ bailouts.
So it seems to me the American people don’t want bailouts . . . period.
If anything, they are slightly more open to a bailout of the auto industry than Wall St.
So it’s obvious what a Democrat with his finger up in the political wind should do . . . . decry all bailouts but if we must bailout let’s bailout the working families.
So, if I am interpreting you correctly, you’re saying that the Democrats, who were richly supported after branding themselves the party of the Wall Street Bailout just prior to the elections (in the teeth of polls that suggested that they would be punished) should now put their fingers to the wind and oppose all further bailouts because the polls indicated that that is what the American people want.
We are going to be bailing and bailing and bailing all next year. We will bail out at least 30 state governments that are running deficits (California is $40 billion in the hole). We will bail out the auto industry if at all possible. We will bail out more banks (both large and small). We will put in huge infrastructure projects to bail out the construction industry. We will do massive foreclosure relief. Etc.
But we shouldn’t do any of this unless the polls indicate the policies are popular, or unless the money can be interpreted as strictly trickle-up?
I have to say, this is the kind of thinking that is called ‘unserious’ with justification. As is your claim that the bankruptcy route is viable because it will rationalize the auto industry. Before restructuring was even begun, half the auto suppliers in the country would be broke, most of them never to be seen again. And the Union? They’d lose everything they’ve won in the latest negotiations, at a minimum.
No. I think the Democrats should support this bailout because it’s only fair after supporting the bailout of the financial industry. Both auto and financial industries provide jobs and if the government is going to prop up industries I want it to be fair. I find it unconscionable that they are haggling over this amount of money when they didn’t think twice to hand out much more to bankers.
I’m just pointing to the political reality. The public doesn’t want bailouts.
You know how I feel about the bankers’ bailouts. They were a waste of money and a moral abomination; it socialized huge losses bankers incurred from making huge bets in a deregulated market during a time when they siphoned all these profits into their own pockets. It was horrible on the merits and the Democrats will pay the price for supporting it (I know you don’t believe this but maybe that’s because you also supported it).
The Democrats didn’t win the political battle because they supported a bailout. The Republicans were punished for their failed economic policies of the last few decades and especially the last 8 years. The Democrats didn’t win in a vacuum. They were slightly more responsible looking than the Republicans and McCain ran around confused and did not inspire confidence.
And what’s with the “unserious” label?
The Democrats didn’t win the political battle because they supported a bailout. The Republicans were punished for their failed economic policies of the last few decades and especially the last 8 years. The Democrats didn’t win in a vacuum. They were slightly more responsible looking than the Republicans and McCain ran around confused and did not inspire confidence.
I agree with a lot of this. A lot of people didn’t so much vote for Democrats as they voted against Republicans, especially when McCain started acting like a senile old man. I know a lot of self-described conservatives, and that was their take on why they supported obama (or just stayed home).
On the other hand, i don’t agree that a policy has to be popular before it’s supported. that leads to debacles like the Iraq war.
Speaking only for myself, what i am more concerned with is competent mamnagement of bailout efforts. i opposed the financial industries bailout because it was unconditional, and we’ve seen the result of that. I supported the auto bailout (pre concessions, and pre-second concessions) because it had conditions, guidelines, and real oversight.
Right. And I’m largely in agreement with you. I don’t think things have to be popular to support them. I was separating what “should be done” from the politics of it. On the politics I was saying how the Democrats are missing out on an opportunity and was pointing to these numbers as giving us a false signal. It seems the public is “against” this but they were even more against the bankers’ bailouts (assuming my memory is correct–need to check this fact).
I’m acknowledging that politicians put their fingers in the wind but I’m not saying that is the “right thing to do”.
I am much more amenable to supporting this bailout for the reasons you state.
I would also support the nationalization of core banking functions as well and to make sure that the FDIC is able to follow through on its’ promises to backstop certain deposits.
No senate Democrats lost reelection, despite most of the ones up for reelection voting for the bailout. Obama plainly and indisputably got a boost out of his leadership in supporting the bailout. In the House, only five Democrats lost. All but the serial adulterer, Tim Mahoney, voted against the bailout.
Saxby Chambliss was criticized for voting for the bailout, but we won. Did any Republicans win reelection because they opposed the bailout? That’s hard to say, but here are some that lost in spite of opposing it.
Steve Chabot of Ohio
Thelma Drake of Virginia
Phil English of Pennsylvania
Tom Feeney of Florida
Virgil Goode of Virginia
Robin Hayes of North Carolina
Bill Jefferson of Louisiana (a Democrat)
Ric Keller of Florida
Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado
Doug Sali of Idaho
Tim Walberg of Michigan
Republicans that lost in spite of voting for the bailout:
Joe Knollenberg of Michigan
Randy Kuhl of New York
Chris Shays of Connecticut
There is simply no evidence that supports the idea that (in spite of polling against the bailout) that it turned out to be bad politics. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that there was a wave against those that opposed it, or in McCain’s case supported it incompetently.
I know. You’re right that it didn’t have a negative effect this election cycle. I’m predicting that it will in the future. I’m predicting that the American people will finally realize their government is bought and paid for by corporate interests and the Democrats will share some of the blame. Sure, Republicans are being blamed right now and Democrats are getting a free pass but I see it playing out differently in the future.
You yourself admit in your OP (or whatever it’s called, your diary) that people get confused on the merits of issues and polls and opinion can change. That’s my contention of what happened here. It’s a confusing subject to begin with and this is compounded by a couple of decades of fanciful Republican supply-side dogma being the accepted conventional wisdom in Washington. We don’t even know how to have an honest debate about these issues and that’s why there was a huge bias in the media and Washington to giving Wall Street literally Trillions of dollars but we have hangups giving a few Billion to the auto companies.
My contention is that because of the corporate stranglehold on American politics that both parties are complicit in bringing about this Depression. Democrats are winning the political battles so far by default.
what did I say at the time of the Wall Street bailout? I said that the credit seize-up would cost ordinary businesses.
Your average auto supplier is now waiting 120 days for payment from the Big 3, if they get paid at all. But they can’t float them the money anymore because they can’t get credit, and so they can’t meet payroll or buy raw materials to meet new purchase orders. This is precisely what I predicted and why I supported the bailout, even without adequate oversight. Yes, they had us over a barrel, but not by their design.
This distinction that you and Brendan keep making between banks and ordinary workers, just isn’t real. It feels good to oppose one bailout and support another, but real logic would not find much distinction between them. If anything, the distinction was laid out by brendan (that this bailout was more rationally designed than the former) but I’d actually disagree because the final product of this bailout stunk like shit.
It is so easy to demagogue CEO’s. Oooh, they flew corporate jets. Now they had to drive to DC and the legislation (which passed the House) specifically forced them to sell their entire corporate fleets. Wonderful. I support using such teaching moments to stick it to the man, but let’s not trick ourselves into believing that such demagoguery is anything but a way for Richard Shelby to help his automakers in Alabama resist unionization.
Yes, I really am calling for seriousness from the Left.
Well, I’m happy to answer your call for more seriousness because I couldn’t be more serious.
I am not interested in demagoguery. You are the one that has advocated an unprecedented bailout. Huge, unprecedented sums of money to be given to corporations without much thought and after a huge reversal by the President and his party. Heretofore we had bankruptcy courts and decades-long government guarantees for such core banking functions as deposits. It really is hard to hear you lecture me on demagoguery when you so quickly jumped on Bush and Paulson’s bandwagon that this huge socialistic bailout of the shadow financial industry is integral to the American economy. You’re just plain wrong that the bailout was needed to “save” the economy; you fell for that hook line and sinker are your thinking will be muddled on that until you admit reality.
I am all for goverment intervention into the economy, on a fairly limited basis, for core functions. If banks that provide capital to American business are in peril then we need to nationalize these core functions on a limited basis and restore them to health. If they do not involve the core functions of society (like unraveling $50 Trillion or so of derivitives–bets) then it is not in our interest. In fact, trying to bail these people out by adding more debt or simply transfering the debt to the taxpayer will make matters worse. I’m sorry you’re not able to separate the healthy core functions of some commercial banks from propping up the entire investment banking community.
You seem to suffer from the delusion that these bailouts are necessary to avoid any pain and that by doing this we can prevent the pain. Until you accept that we are screwed regardless of what we do you will not come up with an appropriate policy response. You will have to face the fact that you supported an incredibly irresponsible expenditure of limited government funds–over $8 Trillion–to give to the banks. I’m not demagoguing banks. Banks are great. I’ve worked for banks. I’m probably closer to the financial world and this world than you are and I see the necessity of these functions and I have no interest in demagogueing them. They just happen to be the most powerful interests in our country and are able to wield great influence so they can get our government to give them gifts that are good for them but not for the American people.
And I never demagogued the CEOs. I thought it was silly to focus on their compensation. CEO compensation reflects the rot of American corporate governance and is simply another reason not to be a shareholder. That’s why I short a lot of these companies. The compensation issue just distracts from the bigger issues.
You just love you the stereotype of the crazy liberal lefty wanting to bring socialism here or something. . . . which is strawman you often indulge in . . . talk about an inability to have a serious conversation.
8 trillion? What the fuck?
It’s $350 billion, with a possible additional $350 billion. You don’t even know what’s in the bill?
There is indeed a failure to comprehend. It is not mine. I encourage you to learn a little bit more about finance and economics before you spout off about demagoguery. I’m no expert but I know that we’re talking about more that $350 Billion. We’re talking about the bailouts that the Fed, the FDIC, the agencies, and Congress have all provided thus far.
This is a perfect example of how we can’t even have an honest conversation in this country about this issue. You can’t even get beyond the obvious talking points and accuse those that disagree with you of demagoguery. You need more information before you pontificate.
I’m talking about what I supported. I supported a bill. I didn’t support every decision made by the Federal Reserve or the Treasury Department over the last year.
Here’s a start:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/calculating-the-total-bailout-costs/
Commercial Paper Funding Facility:
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008:
It’s really not that hard to distinguish between them, is it?
No. I am perfectly able to distinguish between them. They are both subsets of the federal bailout of the financial industry. One of them done specifically by an act of Congress, another done under the putative power of the Fed (which Congress has authority to oversee). It’s debatable whether or not the Fed is acting legally within the powers given them by Congress but nevertheless Congress has clearly aquiesed and is letting the Fed do this (I would be interested to see your political read on this and if you disagree).
In any event Congress has the power of the purse and is ultimately responsible. And that is now clearly the Democratic party. They have allowed this money to be pledged on their watch.
whatever.
You accuse me of supporting $8 trillion in money for banks and nothing but banks, and when I point out that you are totally full of shit, you change the subject.
Jesus Almighty! There is so much wrong with your post that it boggles the mind.
“Huge, unprecedented sums of money to be given to corporations without much thought and after a huge reversal by the President and his party.”
The bailout was before the election and threatened almost certain victory if we got the politics wrong. I had the politics right. Obama had the politics right.
“…you so quickly jumped on Bush and Paulson’s bandwagon that this huge socialistic bailout of the shadow financial industry is integral to the American economy. You’re just plain wrong that the bailout was needed to “save” the economy; you fell for that hook line and sinker are your thinking will be muddled on that until you admit reality.
A whole lot more than $350 billion will be necessary to ‘save’ the economy. That was a drop in the bucket compared to what’s coming in next year’s stimulus package. What was needed was an avoidance of the simultaneous collapse of every major Financial Services outlet in the country.
“I am all for goverment intervention into the economy, on a fairly limited basis, for core functions. If banks that provide capital to American business are in peril then we need to nationalize these core functions on a limited basis and restore them to health. If they do not involve the core functions of society (like unraveling $50 Trillion or so of derivitives–bets) then it is not in our interest. In fact, trying to bail these people out by adding more debt or simply transfering the debt to the taxpayer will make matters worse.”
I didn’t have the option of supporting or opposing a bill that would have “nationalized core functions” of the financial industry. I had the only bill available, and the option of opposing it and seeing what ensuing carnage would result between then and Obama’s inauguration. As it happened, I argued that the government would abandon Paulson’s plan and partially nationalize the financial sector, which is what has happened.
“You seem to suffer from the delusion that these bailouts are necessary to avoid any pain and that by doing this we can prevent the pain. Until you accept that we are screwed regardless of what we do you will not come up with an appropriate policy response. You will have to face the fact that you supported an incredibly irresponsible expenditure of limited government funds–over $8 Trillion–to give to the banks.”
If we are screwed regardless then there are no appropriate policy responses except mass welfare. If, however, we can mitigate the screwing, there are appropriate policy responses. I did not support giving 8 trillion dollars to banks. I supported appropriating $350 billion to spend on preventing the simultaneous collapse of the entire financial sector.
“You just love you the stereotype of the crazy liberal lefty wanting to bring socialism here or something. . . . which is strawman you often indulge in . . . talk about an inability to have a serious conversation.”
You’re the one talking about the bailout as a socialist program and calling for more nationalization of banks. I can’t even find any consistency in that argument worth rebutting.
The auto suppliers are dying for lack of credit…a problem that would have been immeasurably worse without the Wall Street bailout. I have never suggested that we are not going to suffer pain. I have suggested that throwing money at big banks was more than a give away to irresponsible lenders, but also a way to save countless businesses and jobs. In that sense, it was no different than bailing out GM and Chrysler.
Believe it or not, my motivation and calculus is based on what’s best for ordinary working folks, giving the shitty options of dealing with Bush and the Senate.
We’ll see about it being a drop in the bucket. As noted, there is now $8 Trillion on the line (I know that only some of that has been spent and we could get some of it back–but still–an unprecedented large sum). That’s over half of our GDP. That’s what we’ve pledged in the first year of our recession before we even knew we were officially in recession.
Obama is planning more stimulus–as you note. Eventually we will use up all our bullets. My point is that you haven’t yet realized that we just shot about 4 of our bullets and now only have 2 left. And we used those bullets to help one very specific class of people–bankers.
When the rest of the people realize they got the short end of the stick and there are only two bullets left. Look out.
Of course we should do things. Make sure unemployment insurance is funded, make sure FDIC is funded, make sure bankruptcy laws are changed to help not only banks but real families, spend money on infratructure, and nationalize core banking functions if needed. We should also beef up prosecution of fraud and give more funds to bankruptcy courts. Of course we should re-regulate banks and investment banks.
And also it’s obvious that the media and the politicians are having a much more rigorous debate about the auto bailouts than the bankers’ bailouts. This should tell us all we need to know about who owns whom in our government.
All of a sudden politicians want to listen to the “people” on bailouts. Kind of funny how trillions of dollars thrown at banks didn’t elicit the same sort of concern about what the majority of the people wanted.