Interesting interpretation.George Truett said:Good defense, but that's not even what she was saying. It was strategy to deal with the economic crisis, not political strategy.Booray said:Its her strategic decision-that can't be lie. Your own posts proves it.riflebear said:That is a flat out lie from her. She tried to stop it during the first round earlier during Covid to put in funding for liberal agenda items that have NOTHING to do w/ Covid. Trump had to sign his executive order so we know they will continue to help people if this continues, she is lying and you know it.Booray said:Here is her quote:riflebear said:
She admits she agrees w/ everything but because it's election time she doesn't want to help Trump get a 'win'. Anyone surprised that the women who could care less about the disaster her San Francisco district has turned into won't help millions of Americans living paycheck to paycheck who have been unfairly impacted by Covid.
How can liberals condone this or vote for people like this? It makes zero sense.
I don't think strategically it's where we should go right now, because the Republicans would like to pass something like that and say forget about it," Pelosi continued. "Forget about state and local [government funding], forget about our investments in stopping the virus, forget about other initiatives that feed the food insecure children in our country, vote by mail initiatives and the rest."
While I am not on board for all the initiatives she wants to include, the idea that she wants to have a longer term perspective isn't wrong.
Why bail out city & state govts who sat there and watched rioters burn down parts of their cities and their liberal policies and high taxes run people away - now they want a bail out? Sorry, that's not how that works.
She is saying that she wants to fund states and cities; you are saying don't do it. The leverage to get her policy enforced is to withhold approval of the UI benefits. If she gives in on the UI, she loses the war on the other priorities.
That position is hardball politics to achieve a policy goal; not to prevent Trump from getting credit. You can disagree with her strategy-funding cities/states etc.--and her tactics-withholding the UI extension--but that does not transform the motivation into what the OP says it is.
We all need to check carefully these quotes because they're often taken out of context and distorted.
What economic indicators do you think she is looking at to know when to execute her economic strategy in your opinion?
I have bolded text below in which I believe it doesn't support your position that her comments are "not political strategy". It isn't a attempt for a response from you but rather a attempt for others to determine if your position is valid in their determination. Link to full transcript of interview is also included.
Judy Woodruff. Let me ask you about COVID relief before the Congress. You have been struggling to strike a deal, as we know, with Republicans on this. But this week, more than 100 Democrats in the House signed a letter urging you to pass a smaller relief bill than what you have out there you had agreed to go from $3 trillion down to $2 trillion but they want to expand unemployment benefits. But basically, they're saying after the duration of this COVID emergency that they would scale the support based on what the situation is in every state. But my question is, where do you stand on what they're asking you to do?
Speaker Pelosi. Well, they're asking us to do and I, fully, from a policy standpoint, have always supported the stabilization, that means that if you say, when unemployment reaches a certain point, that you would automatically have unemployment benefits. That's a very positive initiative. I have encouraged that. I have welcomed that suggestion.
I don't think, strategically, it's where we should go right now because the Republicans would like to pass something like that and say, 'Forget about it.' Forget about state and local, forget about our investments in stopping the virus, forget about other initiatives about feeding the food-insecure children in our country, vote-by-mail initiatives and the rest. So, again, I think that's something we should pass. I don't think the timing is for us to do it right now. Because imagine, the Republicans could take that into the Senate, put poison pills all over it, and it's hard to vote against extending unemployment benefits.
And again, I think, overwhelmingly, our Members who would not want to extend unemployment benefits? As I say, it's something I fully support, and the stabilization, but not necessarily in the negotiation.
Judy Woodruff. But just to clarify then, you don't really see an opening to get this thing resolved in coming in the coming few days?
Speaker Pelosi. No, I do. And I don't think it's done by giving them an out. I think it's done by making them come into the negotiation. Because, really, the most central point of it all where people's needs are met the most is the issue of state and local government. And they have said, we don't think one state should pay for another state's concerns.
Well, we in California have been paying for other people's concerns for a long time. So have people in New York and the rest. That's the American way. We do it with great pride and not with any resentment. But they have said, 'Oh, it's a tax issue. Why should people in one state help people in another state?' Welcome to the United States of America.
I do I appreciate what my Members are doing. I support, fully, that. But I don't necessarily think the timing of it is right now. I think that's something that we do when we know we will get it signed without poison pills.
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/82020
