Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Firedoglake: Rachel Maddow Shames White House Economist Bernstein on Obama’s Phony “Spending Freeze”

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:25 PM
Original message
Firedoglake: Rachel Maddow Shames White House Economist Bernstein on Obama’s Phony “Spending Freeze”
By: Scarecrow Monday January 25, 2010 6:56 pm

The White House "floated" a lead balloon Monday by telling everyone that Obama’s next budget proposal, due February 1, will include a "spending freeze" on several categories of discrectionary spending. It’s a complete head fake: there’s no freeze, and all they’re doing is playing to the unrelenting stupidity of those, like Sen. Evan Bayh, who think the way to put people to work is to spend less money.

Someone please give Bayh the Washington Post’s unread copy of any economic text book on what happened during the Great Depression when FDR’s economic advisers foolishly convinced him the Depression was over and that he needed to worry about balancing the budget — or just send him this from Krugman or watch this. The result of cutting spending was to send the economy back into deep depression. Fool me once . . .

But the President’s economic and political advisers are being too clever by half; they’re not really planning anything remotely approaching a spending freeze. Most of the budget — including the military/defense, Veterans, the massive bureaucracies at Homeland Security, and lots of other stuff will be entirely exempt. The remaining items, which constitute about $447 billion out of a $2 trillion plus budget, will not be frozen either.

What the Administration will do is what all administrations do: reallocate spending priorities, increasing some items and reducing or eliminating others. And even then the net change in the aggregate budget will be about $25 billion per year, less than mere pocket change in the massive US economy.

Full piece (with Rachel's interview embedded): http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/26492
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good. I don't want a spending freeze.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm getting tired of wait and see.
I just want progress. Pony-shaped progress and a year or two to catch my breath. Motherfucking politicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kstewart33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Maddow shames him? that's not what I saw.
Rachel was hyperventilating about a policy she heard about, maybe 5 minutes ago, and she talked over the guy, talking twice as much as he was.

I didn't see no shamin'. I saw Maddow losing her cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. That wasn't my impression. I saw Maddow ask some difficult questions
and the advisor having a hard time answering them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kstewart33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. They were both unprepared for the subject.
She went over the top, and he stumbled.

It wasn't an enlightening conversation at all. She attacked, he scrambled.

Not like Rachel at all. If she keeps this up, her guests will be only those who are recycled on Keith.

No one who opposes the Dems will be on her show and she'll lose one of the reasons people watch her, including the Repubs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I agree with your impression
I like Rachel, but she didn't have enough facts in front of her to really nail him on anything. Instead, she relied upon "reports coming out of Washington," which may or may not be correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. Bayh keeps talking as if he is an expert.
Some are experts because of their education from good colleges or universities.
Some are experts because of their years of experience in the field.

Somehow I don't think Bayh's Business Economics and Public Policy degree from Indiana University Kelley School of Business back in '78 amounted to much. If his daddy paid for his tuition it was a waste of money.

After 2 years as Secretary of State, 8 years as Governor and finishing 12 years as Senator his years of experience is about as much experience that Palin had as Alaska's Governor. And she doesn't know that North and South Korea are two separate countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryOldDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. His days in the Senate are probably numbered.
Unfortunately, his main challenger looks to be Mike Pence.

Last week after the Massachusetts election Bayh was starting to distance himself from the Democratic Party. trying to have it both ways is a quick way to lose your seat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I really wish he realize that if he continues to piss off Democrats in Indiana
he is going to lose. And start behaving more like a Democrat. He should also learn some things from Lugar. Number 1 would be to have district offices that are responsive to the constituents. Number 2 have faster response to letters. Number 3 respond to letters. Number 4 have the proper response to the letters that pertain to the topic. Number 5 limit 1 response to each letter. Not 3.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LLStarks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. Not to be a party pooper, but lead balloons do float. Mythbusters say so. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Lead balloons can FLY!
Edited on Tue Jan-26-10 08:00 AM by WeDidIt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 16th 2014, 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC