Stupid Or Venal? Blue Dogs Want More Spending Cuts
Are the Blue Dogs shamelessly self-interested and venal, or are just plain stupid? Economists are predicting these high unemployment numbers through the end of 2011, and these clowns want to cut government spending even further. As long as they get to keep their jobs, they don't give a crap about putting even more Americans out of work. Lovely!
Blue Dog Democrats want Congress to go further than President Barack Obama’s proposal to freeze spending in next year’s budget.
The group of House centrists will soon introduce a bill capping discretionary spending at specific levels. The move would challenge their leadership and the president, who are balancing concerns with the nearly $1.6 trillion deficit in 2010 with those who say government spending on job creation is the way out of the recession.
The spending levels sought by the Blue Dogs may result in spending cuts, which would go beyond Obama’s proposal to save $250 billion over the next decade by freezing non-security discretionary spending for three years, said Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), a senior Blue Dog.
“Two hundred and fifty billion is a lot of savings with a freeze on discretionary spending, but I think we can do better,” Hill said in a brief interview.
The group has yet to hash out the details on the spending caps bill, but it has near-unanimous support among its members, a Blue Dog aide said.
The Blue Dogs are a stupid pack of MONGRELS.
I just wish they would quit calling themselves DEMOCRATS and come out as the full-fledged RETHUGS they really are.
Respectfully, those who think we should keep on deficit spending don't understand what is at stake. Those who think we under-stimulated have now been clearly proven wrong, the global economy wheels are coming off and at the heart of the concern are countries “who will” default on their national debts and obligations.
Those who favor a stimulus make a ridiculous argument; they reference the 1930's and then argue had they stimulated then the depression would not have happened. They argue it’s economics 101 deficit spending is the way out of an this economic downturn. Horrifically these people preclude a $12 trillion debt that did not exist in the 1930’s or in any subsequent crisis. If we had stimulated like Krugman said we should we would only be where are at faster and with worse consequences.
What so few say anywhere in the MSM is stimulating while $12 trillion in the hole = debasing our currency. For the 1st time in history we are debasing our currency on a global scale. This is not going to end well, the US will eventually default and when the dollar crashes (and it will) along with it every other country because they have fixed nothing.
Deficit spending is driving the final nails in our coffin, unfortunately we're going to have to learn this lesson yet again the hard way.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Save your Repug talking-points for, oh- Megan McArgle's blog.
instead of just making statements without any evidence.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
That was Bush's entire economic policy (besides tax cuts and unfunded wars).
Remember his "strong dollar policy"? The currency was in freefall. but nothing was done, on the hope that it would increase exports and slow the implosion of the manufacturing sector.
How'd that work?
Then he moved on to selling of the infrastructure and public lands. And spent the proceeds on - tax cuts and unfunded wars - and servicing the explosion of debt HE CREATED!
Where exactly were you when the GOP went on an epic spending spree and dried up all of the revenue?
If you really want to know who's to blame, check out the chart the following link goes to and THEN explain how Bush walking out the door while leaving Obama holding the bag is really Obama's fault (well, I guess he wanted to be President, so he deserves it, right? McCain was too smart to actually win this giant bowl of steaming poo the Bush team left on the doorstep!)
http://i27.*******.com/120m447.jpg
is doing it too. Technically the FED is with it's printing presses expanding our monetary base into extreme levels never before scene in this country.
It took 200-years for the monetary base to go from $0 to $800 billion, but in the last 3 years we have gone to $2 trillion. Most of that mess occurred in the early months of the bailout. When you look at this chart realize we have passed though the great depression, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, and every financial crisis including the S&L Loan crisis and none hold a candle to what we have now.
US Monetary Chart since 1918 to present
This next chart is Reserve Bank Credit. It is the total amount the Federal Reserve has loaned out of its bottomless checkbook. This chart includes all the rest of the bailouts. This chart also rises to roughly $800 billion by the end of 2007, but by November 2008, it has risen to $2.2 trillion.
Reserve Bank Credit
This is not a small short term problem, it's a fricken huge long term problem.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
who couldn't care less about the country. All that matters is their corporate Master's Wishes.
when people who lose their jobs
and incomes get REALLY HUNGRY,
the bluedogs will usher in a new
era of cannibalism....hungry people
will have limited choices..so those
stupid bluedogs will look juicy and plump.....hummmmmmmmmm
Trick question, of course.
They are both.
I think not. A way of moderating the recession until natural economic growth returns yes. There is a difference and that is the scale. I know Krugman thinks more stimulus would be better and that is perhaps true but there is a point at which the size of the deficit must adversely affect interest rates and that will undermine growth in jobs.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Of course, that comment puts me in the venal column.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
that's like organic profit taking.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Amazing. There is a vast well of uneducated votors that these fools pander to: once they are finished pandering to their corporate sponsors of course. Economics 101: When the private sector isnt spending government needs to prime the pump. When the private sector is booming the government needs to cool things down. Folk with a lick of common sense know this. Corporatists exploit simple folk's gut feeling that u must tighen your belt in rough times . Shame on those that pander rather than lead.
they want to freeze discretionary spending for three years, which would no doubt cripple Obama's ability to deliver on any promises, or get the country out of recession. At the end of that three years is the election, and everyone who voted for him the first time is so disillusioned they stay home. He fails to be re-elected, the spending freeze comes off, and the Repubs are free to spend like drunken sailors once again with nobody thinking about deficits until the next time a democrat gets elected.
I think they have the plan all figured out.
These dip shits would do themselves and their constituents a huge favor if they studied a little economics and understood why the government is forced to spend to get us out of Bush's depression and then informed and educated these constituents so that they understood the what and why instead of taking the Tea Bagger way out and just spew idiotic nonsense.
We can cut a whole lot more.
Cut the obscenely BLOATED perpetual war budget.
It is at $1 trillion per year but we could easily get by with 1/10th and still be outspending our nearest rival.
Put the BASTARD WAR PROFITEERS in the unemployment line and put the Blue Dogs right behind them.
Then instate sensible social programs such as a WPA 2.0 and single payer health care.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
"Dream on, dream on, dream until your dreams come...true"
Agree.
Military spending not only kills innocent people in other parts of the world but it also kills the Ameican life.
How many people have died without healthcare while politicians just talk and argue.
... like Congressional salaries. Offices and office staffs. Paid travel.
You get paid when you actually produce some work.
stupid AND venal and sheltered from (or callous toward) the daily realities of their constituents.
... so many of their constituents have the last names:
- Corporation
- LLC
- Inc.
- International
Ltd., Mfg., LLP, Co., TM...
It's really embarrasing to be from Indiana, knowing that you have "Democrats" like Evan Bayh and Baron Hill teabaggin' it up with their Rethug counterparts. These clowns would gladly "budget cut" our way back into a depression...hey, they have theirs, screw their constituents. Buffoons!
"Buy the ticket, take the ride."
Hunter S. Thompson
Let's start off by cutting all discretionary spending in states that receive more government money than than pay to the Federal government.
Anyone want to venture a guess which states they are?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
lets do the same thing to the average taxpayer. (care to guess which ones?)
...benefits for the rich only?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
It's all those poor people sucking resources out of the system. You know...Archer Daniels Midland, Aetna, Pfizer...
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
...is in Illionois (a blue state)
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/gr...
Aetna corp headquarters is in Conneticut (a blue state)
Pfizer corp headquarters is also in Conneticut.
(just sayin)...
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
I know. ;o)
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Impose tariffs.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Stop imposing. http://www.fr33agents.com/2215/stealing-dream...
spot on. (It completed my point!)
restrict the cheap imports with tariffs and "loosen up" on the working individuals!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
importing and selling "cheap imports" are jobs for some "working individuals". Pointing guns at "working individuals" is not a solution. Pointing guns at people is what "government" does.
get new jobs selling American made stuff.
I don't wanna have go to China for a job, ...(they point guns at you over there!)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
it's okay as long as "government" is pointing guns at people for your perceived benefit.
on that one Milque.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Playing right into the pockets of the GOP. Spewing this crap without giving details of the cuts means that GOP is still going to go for your seats while you just weaken the Party and Health Care Reform.
I support Health Care Reform and oppose verbal diarrhea. Vote for me!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
stupid.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
"The group has yet to hash out the details on the spending caps bill, but it has near-unanimous support among its members, a Blue Dog aide said."
Wait until they find out what they are cutting in their own districts.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
No, wiat till their constituents find out what they're cutting in their own districts.
We may get to see torches and pitchforks at last. COOOOOL!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
out the details, then they are preposterously stupid.
I am betting on cutting all foreign aid to non Israeli countries and every post office in Boehner and Cantor's districts, followed by a losing vote, followed by a slogan, "Rep. Dog proposed daring budget cuts" that will be discarded on a Wednesday in early November.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Cutting spending is a stupid idea. You can't stimulate the economy by keeping money out of people's pockets. The solution is a full court press with Keynesian stimulus. We need to get money into the pockets of the people who spend daily: the middle and lower classes. Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy doesn't work because they operate outside of market forces. They will survive during times like these when the economy is tanking. Getting money into the pockets of working class folk puts money directly back into the economy. Obama should have been pressing for MASSIVE civil engineering projects from the outset: New schools, roads, bridges, recycling facilities, re-wiring the nation with a comprehensive network of light and heavy rail. In WWII every major industry was nationalized, everyone was working, and everyone was spending. The New Deal worked. We need a new New Deal.
We're in the Chicago School of Economics now. By their rules, government has no role in stimulating the economy except to cut taxes to rich people and corporations. Social spending is evil. America must expend all its resources to expand its empire regardless of the cost, or even if the war is unnecessary.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
are from that Chicago place too.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Friedmanism corrupted this country 3 decades ago.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
In the next post we blame it on college Republicans.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I thought they were all tea baggers now? Or are they simply nickel baggers?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
We can't blame people for the morally bankrupt decisions they haven't made yet.
Yet.
Since Blue Dogs are largely from rural areas, I suggest they put their money where their votes are and
start with Defense and Ag subsidy cuts.
Please, please, please would everyone stop calling both the Blue Dogs and the less crazy GOP MODERATES!
There is nothing moderate in either their words or their actions. To paint them as moderates is a GOP media costruction to pull American politics even further to the right, not the middle.
These people are radical conservatives, and in a real sense of the word, fascists who believe whole-heartedly in the marriage of corporate and political power.
Much like Kissinger described in his thesis on the French Revolution, the reason that the French government lost control to the revolutionaries and the revolutionaries to the reactionaries, was that they did not recognize that the other side did not want the system to succeed. They wanted it to fail.
The powers that be'ed thought that, if they gave incremental power and the perks that went with it to the revolutionaries, that they would become comfortable in the halls of power and no longer agitate against it. They were WRONG.
Much like the teabaggers of today, the only scenario that would appease them was a complete destruction of the system, to be rebuilt in their vision.
Today's tea party movement will not be silenced with a few seats in Congress, or with portions of major legislation. They are both unable and unwilling to compromise. If you actually listen to them, they say that compromise is crawling in bed with the devil.
Until the door is firmly shut on the fascist revolution in America, we run the risk, as a nation, of "returning" to a revisionist impression of what a "real" America is to the American Taliban - a religious/corporate state, with the average American viewed only as a tool to ensure corporate profits and kept in line through religious intolerance.
Moderate? The middle? Only if one end is Genghis Khan and the other is Pope Borgia - Alexander VI!
Look at the pathetic expression on the face of the blue dog in the picture above. He doesn't even want to be blue.
It's as if he were saying, "My masters want me to play the part of a populist dog, and I have to go along because I can't bite the hand that feeds me. But it isn't fair that the red dogs get all the praise."
Rep Tim Holden will NOT want to make cuts to any Agricultural bills. After all, Monsanto needs our money and Tim Holden will make sure that Monsanto keeps getting our money.
You need to learn some economics before you start debates you can't win. The only justification for cutting government spending is that there can be systematic private spending to take its place. Do you see that anywhere? Are people making more money? Are there net job gains (I'm not talking about official unemployment statistics, which don't count people who've run out of benefits, have part time jobs are gave up trying). The official statistics, which hide many ugly truths, show that jobs are still being lost. Investment is still mainly in the casino gambling game of the financial markets, and not in productive investment in things like factories, hiring people to do public works and the like. If that was the case, if there were REAL net job gains, if REAL investment was increasing, you could decrease government spending. You know what happens when there isn't any of that and you cut back government spending? I won't answer the question for you, I expect you to get out of libertarian la la land and answer the question yourself. I'm so sick of people like yourself, get out of your damn gated community, ditch your coffee house nonsense economics and open your mind about changing your stances on these issues if you can't come up with a convincing argument. I'm sick of nonsense from people like you, nothing but a big abstraction.
"For the 1st time in history we are debasing our currency on a global scale."
Take your own damn advice and take some economic 101. Have any idea WHY Nixon took the US off of the gold standard in the early 70's. I'm not against him doing it, how it did it and why is what I have a problem with, but non the less, have any idea? What did the US do to change the reasons why they went off the gold standard? Did we cut back out horribly overbloated military budget? Did we cut off corporate welfare? Did we fight against the financialization of our economy? Did you or people like yourself say anything about this? I know Saint Milton Friedman was ok with it. See, it's ok if we spend money to enrich capitalists, when we start to think about working people, well, it's "big government" and the sky will fall. The fact that there is trillions of dollars created in the fianancial markets, created by financial capitalists without adding anything tangeable to the world? The fact that there is more than enough money for this, we just have to fight people like you for that to come about.
Comments are closed on this entry