For how long can a president blame his predecessor for economic problems?
I’ve noticed the issue of Obama blaming his predecessor for the poor economy has become a bit of a minor cause on the right. So I was curious as to whether there was precedent for this kind of thing. For how long can a president blame his predecessor for economic problems? I’m guessing, based on this press conference on January 12, 2009, one can go at least until the week before one leaves office.
In terms of the economy, look,
I inherited a recession; I am ending on a recession. In the meantime there were 52 months of uninterrupted job growth. And I defended tax cuts when I campaigned. I helped implement tax cuts when I was President, and I will defend them after my Presidency as the right course of action. And there’s a fundamental philosophical debate about tax cuts. Who best can spend your money, the Government or you? And I have always sided with the people on that issue.
Now, obviously, these are very difficult economic times. When people analyze the situation, there will be–
this problem started before my Presidency; it obviously took place during my Presidency. The question facing a President is not when the problem started, but what did you do about it when you recognized the problem?
(cactus here: bolding mine)
But a word of warning to Obama… just because GW did it doesn’t mean its a good idea. We, the people expect performance.
Saying this: “We, the people expect performance.” And, let’s hope performance is not the differance. We will have had back to back administrations (assuming “O” has 8 years) that started with recession. That may make them test tube case studies for what policies work best, fastest, and are longest acting.
More instructive I think would be how long Roosevelt blamed Hoover for his economic problems. Or Reagan blamed Carter. Could you get that info for us rdan? Would be much appreciated.
The “Great Moderation” story – that developed economies can go for long stretches with stable output growth, stable prices and rising employment – has more or less come apart. That is not to say some more realistic story cannot take its place. The Great Moderation story was predicated on the notion that economic liberalism, including a reliance on a relatively unfettered financial sector to manage risk, had led to a great reduction in economic volatility.
Oops. But maybe, with a tame financial sector, some of the things we thought we had learned and that we thought had contributed to producing the Great Moderation can help us produce extended periods of moderate growth without an devoting ever more resources to financial transactions and the management of vast imbalances.
But that requires taming the financial industry. Miracle of miracles, it looks like we might get health care reform before a rewrite of financial regulations, even though the public overwhelmingly supports castrating bankers.
I know lots of commenters here want the debate to be about taxes, because they’ve been told to want the debate to be about taxes. Well, restoring structural fiscal balance is a great idea, and taxes should be part of that. But it seems pretty clear that making the financial sector the centerpiece of out economy, rather than handmaiden to the rest of the economy, is at the root of our current problems. When it comes to judging Obama’s legacy, wasting a crisis may turn out to be his greatest failing.
Obama inherited a deep recession. The question is what to do now. Obama is only wrong when he misreads economic history and advocates large government programs to either run the economy or to send money to his political cronies. We need our president to commit himself to keeping a positive business climate with low taxes on both business and the consumer along with minimal regulation of business. Maybe he should spend his time fighting for stem cell research or lowering college tuition accross the country.
Focusing on the economy is a good way to lose this entire presidential term. It can’t be fixed by focusing on it, it has to be fixed by focusing on other things. There are fundamental structural problems with the way that our society is currently structured that need remediation. Chief among them is wealth distribution issues and tax incentives to speculate in stocks or bonds instead of directly investing in new businesses.
The stock market is a sideshow, the value of the dollar is totally unimportant, GDP is not important (it’s been massively overinflated due to non-productive financial services etc in the same way that dark fiber inflated profits at Qwest).
Health care, housing, affordable food, public transportation infrastructure, clean and sustainable power generation, ending ridiculous expensive wars where we droplift dollars into foreign countries without end and foreign military bases in every place that we’ve fought a war in the last century.
Yeah minimal regulation of the financial industry has done us a world of good, right? LOL
Well much of what you say is spot on. But the idea that GDP or the value of the dollar or the stock market’s value are umimportant strikes me as ‘odd’. I wonder why economists fuss about those things so much if they are unimportant. (I agree with the rest of your post). PS He has to focus on the economy because that involves employment and lack thereof is what might lose him his reelection, or at least a Democrat Congress in 2010.
Of late I find myself with increasing frequency admonishing folks that while he may indeed have been the worst president ever, Bush’s ‘presidency’ was not a failed presidency. Make no mistake, the Cheney Administration accomplished everything it set out to.
Latest polls show that nearly 1/2 polled would like Bush back. As my political pin says: “Do you miss me, yet?” I suspect more and more are in the position.
For those who think its just about jobs, just pass healthcare reform in its current form and chase Cap & Trade in 2010. I don’t remember any Tea Parties being primarily about jobs. Maybe others do.
Obama picked Wall Street apologists as advisors, and he has to deal with the fractious Democrats in Congress.
This economy is rapidly becoming his, and should have never signeda bad stimulus plan just to get something on the books.
How long? Normally 1 year, but in this case, maybe 2 years?
What is a Wall Street apologist?
News Flash! Obama IS a wall street apologist, as well as a TOOL of wall street.
excerpted from: Army Of Avarice Plunders America Into Calamity That Did Not Have To Happen
Every legit competitive sport has rules of conduct governing how the game is to be played, all conceived to maintain the fairness, honesty and integrity of the process. Umpires, referees, linesmen, field judges and alike don’t hesitate to impose sanctions the moment they spot an infraction. Break a rule, you’re penalized, benched, fined, out of the game, out of the sport, maybe even for good. Congress and the media repeatedly tell us the American public would tolerate no less, even though the overwhelming majority of sports fans have nothing more than a mere rooting interest in the outcome; no “skin” as it were, in the game– except gamblers, who have all the more reason to want it to be on the level, unless they’ve already fixed it.
How bizarre then, that on Wall Street, repository of the hopes, dreams and what’s left of the hard earned cash and retirement savings of American investors, the most basic of rules enacted to protect the fairness, honesty and integrity of the process are routinely ignored and dishonored….
Why were all the safeguards so intentionally set in place in 1933 and 1934 abandoned? Because those empowered to make and enforce our laws— sworn to be good stewards of the public interest— allowed themselves to be seduced and inducted to serve private interests, not the least of which their own, courtesy of campaign contributions, lobbyist largess, lucrative job prospects, and other co-optive emoluments known anywhere else in the world as bribes. When will we learn that it’s not about politics, ideology or principle? It’s about the money! But drop me a line the next time you hear any corporate or mainstream media pro daring to talk or write about it in those terms. Somehow, as obvious and pernicious a role as it plays in our political process, discussing venal motive is off limits, part of the pretense that our elected officials actually represent the best interests of the people who voted for them (as distinguished from those who bankroll them)….
full article at: http://calltoaccount.wordpress.com/
Cantab’s comment would be wonderful, if there were any evidence that lowering taxes from their current level would have much impact on growth (could be negative, I suppose, given the size of the structural deficit), if we had not just seen that reducing regulatory oversight below a reasonable level leads to disastrous excess. This country did lower tax and did reduce regulation and regulatory oversight, and we have seen the results. Ignoring those results won’t make them go away.
It is also sort of funny to read Cantab’s advice to Obama. As president of the most powerful nation in the world, recovering from the worst financial and economic downturn in most of our lifetimes, Obama should limit himself to a short list of little projects. That isn’t actually what we voted for.
The guy who held the job before Obama managed to entangle us in an unjustified war, leave the war unpaid for, leave a dangerous situation in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) untended, create a very large structural deficit, promote crony capitalism, lose a pretty big Southern city, and turn Washington into a more partisan cesspool than it already was. Oh, and oversee the slide in to that worst-in-many-decades financial and economic slump mentioned above. What should his successor do about these problems, accoding to Cantab? Well, ignore them, of course. Fine for Bush to reshape the country in his own dreadful image, but please, please don’t anybody put forth any effort to undo the damage.
I remember tea-parties being astroturf. But if you wanna believe that astroturf is the real green deal, go right ahead.
Obama knows how the get us back to where we all want to be, but that is not the agenda of him nor the Democrats, and there the problem lays like a Boil on everybody’s Ass.
He shouldn’t have let that Stimulus get waisted, he shouldn’t be seeking to gain control of buisness, he shouldn’t be pursueing a single-payer system, he shouldn’t be going after Cap & Trade, and he shouldn’t have surrounded himself with people who demand Idiolgical Purity.
The Majority doesn’t trust him, The Majority doesn’t want the change he wants, The majority is scared of the direction he wants to go, and that has a major effect on the overall economy.
Does he seem really that concerned? To me it seems he could care less, and now the majority will scrimp every penny till he is voted out in 2012, and hopefully we get a Pro Capitalist in 2012.
Does Obama own the economy? He will is January 2010!
Will Obama blame Bush for all negativity during his Presidency? You bet he will, and anybody who believes him should be ignored.
I think you are right J.Goodwin.
It is the “Monetarists” who want us to “defend the dollar” while ignoring unemployment. Or at least they want to make sure that a solution to unemployment doesnt devalue the dollar. I’m not sure thats possible.
Simply put there isnt enough money in the economy to buy the stuff for sale. Labor,excess goods and some equities. Where do you get more money?
Now there are those who say that we should let this play out, let this overproduction simmer, fall in value and then start over. Why? We have people who can produce, are willing to produce and people who want to sell things why not just get more money into the system. Defending the value of the dollar strikes me as not realizing that a society is more wealthy when it has a lot of things to buy and not when it has just a few expensive things. The dollar defenders will feel real good when after things get cheap and other things have just rotted away, everything left is expensive. I’d rather maximize our production and you dont do that by not spending money. Production takes investment which generates the incomes which people decide to save a portion of. Saving doesnt drive investment, investment creates its OWN savings.
The only entity that can invest whenever it wants is the currency issuer.
“And there’s a fundamental philosophical debate about tax cuts. Who best can spend your money, the Government or you? And I have always sided with the people on that issue.”
How handy to disregard the need for government to provide any services to the people. Even if one counts only the military budget and debt service that one hell of a lot of necessary taxation. Then there is a need for roads, schools and sundry aspects of complex community living that adds to the cost of government. George did have a good point when he noted that the goverment does not always judge well when it spends our money. He should know best about that.
“Latest polls show that nearly 1/2 polled would like Bush back. As my political pin says: “Do you miss me, yet?” I suspect more and more are in the position.” CoRev
Note that no reference is given for this seemingly bocus claim. We would all like to know where such a poll was conducted. What group was queried? etc.
“Chief among them is wealth distribution issues and tax incentives to speculate in stocks or bonds instead of directly investing in new businesses.” J. Goodwin
That’s more to the truth ot the pkroblems we face. In addition I’d point out that the economy might run better if it weren’t so top heavy with bogus finance schemes that benefit only a few charlatans parading as bankers. The real estate bubble was only the match that ignited a barn fire fueled and stoked by the total lack of finance regulation. Thanks to Phil Gramm and his cohorts, including the Democrats who were too happy to take their positions at the trough.
“Miracle of miracles, it looks like we might get health care reform before a rewrite of financial regulations, even though the public overwhelmingly supports castrating bankers.” kharris
If finance reform comes in the castrated form of health care reform we are all likely to be wondering why nothing has changed. The public doesn’t seem to know its ass from its elbow when it comes to recognition of operative factors in their own dreary and hard scrapple lives.
They may know that they want to cut the bankers to their quick, but they don’t recognize who it is the abets those that they’d like to see skinned.
“But it seems pretty clear that making the financial sector the centerpiece of out economy, rather than handmaiden to the rest of the economy, is at the root of our current problems.’
On the money kharris. Finance controls the government. It needs to be the other way round.
“Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.”
(via Political Wire)
Public Policy Polling
KH, if you actually believe the Tea parties to be astroturf, you go right ahead. We’ve already seen in VA, NJ, almost in NY, and the many state offices in the past few months just how strong that ole astro turf is. Keep believing, It’s your party that’s at risk. Mine seems to be rebuilding
“It is the “Monetarists” who want us to “defend the dollar” while ignoring unemployment. Or at least they want to make sure that a solution to unemployment doesnt devalue the dollar. I’m not sure thats possible.”
Do not be fooled. The slogan of defending the dollar is propaganda. If we did not have high unemployment, some people would worry about the strength of the dollar, but many of those who are crying out about a weak dollar would welcome it because it would help exports. Perhaps these people welcome unemployment because it will lower the expectation of wage levels, perhaps they do not care. I think that mainly they are looking for some way to attack gov’t policy. Oh, look! The G-D gov’t is making us all beggars by reducing the value of our money!
What I’m gonna say now i never would have said 4-6 weeks ago, because I didnt understand things the way I do now……………………………… Its CLINTONS fault.
Now this will make CoRev, Cantab and Jimi smile and make Coberly, 2slugs and many of our moderators cringe that I said that but from what I’ve learned about macroecon the last month or so makes me say it.
Its his fault because he actually left us with a “surplus”. Which with my new understanding is the worst thing a govt can do to its citizens. To achieve a surplus a govt must actually make the private sector POORER. That is the only way. It must force austerity on us and that is a bad way to run an economy.
Where his fault mainly lies though is in touting it and getting the citizenry to misunderstand what that meant. Now there are people today who are actually pushing for that again and IT WILL NOT BE GOOD FOR US.
George Bush was wrong about a lot of things but he was not WRONG to run a deficit. Same for Reagan. All this deficit talk is smoke and mirrors folks. IT IS MEANINGLESS. The only thing that matters is what we choose to do with the money that we receive (in the form of a deficit to the govt) The actual negative number is meaningless, BY ITSELF. It needs to be looked at as a representation of how much WE (the citizens, private sector) want to save. When we want to save a lot, like now when we are indebted up to our eyeballs the govt “deficit” funds that savings. This is NOT an ideological statement it is a statement of fact in the same way saying “The Bible was written by men” is a statement of fact. Plenty of people dont like that statement and will argue whether it was written or inspired by god but it is a factual statement.
Deficits are not bad or good they just are. They are neutral and a MEASUREMENT. Deficits are completely sustainable and not IN AND OF THEMSELVES inflationary. One cannot measure an inflation risk by the size of the deficit. It is insufficient information. One can have inflation with a large surplus as well.
Now if you do not wish to take my word for this I urge you to learn about our money/macroeconomis system. If you like ask questions at the sites and argue with the authors, they are MORE than prepared for you. They deal with “deficit terrorists” every day.
For the teabagger types CoRev, Jimi and Cantab here is Warren Mosler
Look at the link on the right where he addresses a tea bagger( he might be a “birther”) rally and wants to announce a run for president He says “Ill get this out of the way now, here is MY birth certificate”
Coberly, 2slugs and other “lefties” check out Billy Mitchell (an Aussie)
This takes you to his index page and you can pick a subject to learn about or just click the top of the page and see his daily topic, He has weekly quizzes as well. Its like a graduate level course.
He and Mosler collaborate at conferences and are part of CofFEE together. This is an ideologically neutral paradigm, unlike most of the others.
Take a look it will only give you MORE information
Margery Meanwell,They talk about preditory lending so perhaps we should make a regulation that forces potential borrowers to pass a financial literacy test. Is this what your getting at?
“….with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor.”
Considering that McCain got 45.7% of the vote we should hardly be surprised that 44% of polled voters would like to have Georgie Boy as President. Now try to find some significant data to prove your points. All that poll tells us is that Obama has still not won over the Republicans within the polling subject group. Lord knows he’s been trying hard enough to act llike a Republican. He should recognize the futility of that approach. On the other hand, I suppose that one could say that he’s improving his numbers given that he may have won over 1.7% of the people who had voted for McCain.
Thanks Jimi. I just wasn’t going to save jack from his cognitive dissonance. He could have googled it, more easily than writing his passionate denial.
Greg, you did make me laugh out loud. Dunno if that was your goal, but it was a funny comment.
The point CoRev is not that these grievances arent real or that there arent significant numbers (10% of the population is a significant number) its that they arent grass roots generated. Fox News is funding and broadcasting them as part of their own personal campaign and Armeys Army of corporatists are pushing it as well. No one says that these people arent mad, arent willing to do something and are an insignificant portion of the population but they have a news agency that “conveniently” is always there, inflates the size of their rallys in broadcasts by showing pictures from bigger rallies and has corporate sponsorship providing busses to get people out. That is all fine and good but it is AS MUCH top down as bottom up- hence the term Astro turf. The poeple arent fake but the origins of the movement is highly corporate in nature, thats just a fact. Legal but a fact
Now, that is a really interesting view. Cognitive dissonance, thy name be jack! Wonder what he’ll be saying in Dec 2010?
Extreme minority views and policies forced upon the majority has consequences. We’ll see how strong they may be next year.
I couldnt agree more. I hope it was clear form my post that I was NOT defending the monetarists at all.
As Coberly says, “Sometimes I dont write good”. My intentions may have been hijacked by my shortcomings.
‘splain to me what those “extreme minority views and policies” may be. If you’re referring to the efforts of the Obama administration, or the Dems in the Congress, you’ll have a hard time describiing any significant difference from what has been going on for the past decade. I may not be a right-wing(nut), but that doesn’t make me satisfied with what the current government is doing to screw over the majority of us. We just don’t agree on how the screwiing is being done and who it is that is getting the benefit.
We let the government meddle in the markets in the Fall or 2008 rather then letting the market adjust without massive intervention to avoid the double diget unemployment that we have today. So the effort to now has failed. I would rather have companies do their default swaps, have the counter party fail, and then let the chips fall where they may and next time around they can decide it default swaps are really in their interest to engage in. If anything we need to make it so the economy adjust more quickly from periods where it has become out of whack. You don’t get there by putting up barriers to ajustment which is what you get from government control and regulation in general.
At this point that makes sense. But of course there are some differences.
It MAY be turning into something more organized with some funding from politically motivated sources, but that’a not how it started.
I’d bet you haven’t been to one, so are you sure you understand the vibe, the message, and exactly who is attending these events?
I have been to three events so far. I have run across alot of people that claimed they voted for Obama and the Democrats, but are now realizing how much they didn’t know, realizing that blaming the Republicans was too simpleton, and their really pissed off. The Original Tea Party’s were a perfect venue for them to reach across the isle, learn some new stuff, and send a message out to everybody that they are ready to organize themselves.
Just because the direction of the Tea Party’s now suggests this is no longer a Grass-Roots Movement means what?
Jackd, 1) a complete Govt take over of healthcare. 2) Cap & Trade in light of the failure of the scientists to prove anything associated with GHGs/CO2, 3) Negotiating a treaty for UN domination of GHGs world wide and 4) hypocritical wild deficit spending while carping about the previous administrations 5) illegal immigration amnesty 6) closing Quantanamo, 7) holding the al Qaeda trials in NY, 8) turning the GWOT into a law enforcement issue are just a few of the extreme minority views. I will not even single out his diplomatic naivete and anti-military views.
If you think they are not minority, wait til Dec 2010.
Jack, 1) a complete Govt take over of healthcare. 2) Cap & Trade in light of the failure of the scientists to prove anything associated with GHGs/CO2 while threatening his onw Congress with an EPA regulatory attack, 3) Negotiating a treaty for UN domination of GHGs world wide and 4) hypocritical wild deficit spending while carping about the previous administrations 5) illegal immigration amnesty 6) closing Quantanamo, 7) holding the al Qaeda trials in NY, 8) turning the GWOT into a law enforcement issue are just a few of the extreme minority views. I will not even single out his diplomatic naivete and anti-military views.
If you think they are not minority, and that they were similar views of the past administration wait til Dec 2010.
April 28, 2004
That’s the day that the SEC killed Wall Street and mortally wounded the global economy.
See Agenda Item 3: Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers that are Part of Consolidated Supervised Facilities and Supervised Investment Bank Holding Companies
SEC Meeting – Agenda Item 3 Audio/photos
The Day the S.E.C. Changed the Game
Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt
The SEC Killed Wall Street On April 28, 2004
Of course there are aome differences. CoRev tries to point them out, but is dismaly off base in so trying. The climate change stuff is apparently open to question on both sides of the issue. The situation in the middle-east is the same quagmire. Those concerened about fiscal responsibility should be looking to that issue. Party affiliation is not a significant difference. Dems and Repubs seem to be contributing equally to the continuation of hostilities.
This one takes the cake for most ironic false impression of the year: “1) a complete Govt take over of healthcare.” The statement belies the seriousness of its maker. If anything the healthcare finance industry has virtually written the proposed “reform” legislation. The wing-nuts are falling back on their tried and true formula. Tell the lie often enough and it becomes common knowledge. Except it bears no resemblance to the facts.
Let me Google that for you…....
If you think they are not minority, and that they were similar views of the past administration wait til Dec 2010.
That’s because voters in 2010 will reflect the will of the minority. Republicans do well in low turnout elections, so they will likely do well in 2010.
At some point you might want to ask yourself why the hard right is so stupid. Why is it that the same people who believe in Creationism also deny global warming? Why is it that the same people who oppose cyclical deficits are the same people who have never taken an accredited macroeconomics course. Why is it that the same people who think Obama is naive also thought Bush and Cheney were sophisticated in foreign affairs? Why is it that the people who think they are military geniuses also praise one of the worst and most incompetent generals this country has ever produced…Tommy Franks? Why is that?
Oh C’mon……Just because the current legislation isn’t exactly the end-all-be-all Single Payer yet, doesn’t mean that the legislation isn’t designed for that specific agenda, and any belief that the current legilsation’s main goal is to get pointed in that direction is foolish.
After all the “Smartest President Evah” said that was his intention, are we supposed to believe otherwise?
It seems fair to ask how long a President can blame his predecessor, but it also seems fair to ask how long Republicans can blame a President after the GOP decided that its only path to power was to sabotage the economy through deliberate obstructionsim. It’s not just that Republicans oppose Obama’s policies in principle, but it’s also true that Republicans refuse to support ideas that they themselves proposed. When you’ve got the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee admitting that he would not support Obama’s policies even if Obama agreed to everything that the GOP wanted, that’s just outrageous.
Your offering the 2 cent analysis or it’s just propoganda. See….Grassley’s position was that he was willing compromise, but can’t see it through becuase his own constituency and party do not want him to go there.
But what do you do? You turn it around to make it sound as if it is the Republicans holding up the show, which is a flat out lie.
Operative phrase, “claimed they voted for Obama and the Democrats”. I dont buy it but hey i dont have to, they areny looking for my support thats for sure.
You’ve got it backwards though Jimi, it started with funding from politically motivated sources and is now something cool, a way to maybe get your face on Faux News.
Of course I havent been to one. These are people who are on medicare and rant against a govt health plan……………………..frikken morons. These are people who CLAIM that a govt debt will burden our children. Burden our children? Have any of us paid back anything for our parents or grandparents? NO! We have used or sold everything we’ve produced. These have been KKK rallies in many places.
Not that evry attendant is a racist, but they have definitely been using racist images to motivate people. If race isnt an issue why use a sign with an African medicine man with a bone through his nose to protest health care??
If you cant get people motivated without using those images…………YOU’RE A FRIKKIN RACIST!
What does it mean if the tea partys are no longer grass roots?? Hmmmmm lets see…………………it means its a bunch of corporate lobbyists paying citizens………………its prostitution!
Why does Grassley believe that he can only vote for positions supported by his fellow Republicans even if he personally supports something? He never gave a credible answer to that one. And Grassley’s credibility on a lot of things is supsect. I’ve known him for years. In fact, earlier today he and I had an email exchange and this was lame ass excuse about his comments concerning death panels:
…as you may know, this issue came up at one of my town hall meetings. In my answer to that question, I commented that the combination of the expanded role of government in health care generally plus funding for advance care planning consultations alongside cost containment proposals was a legitimate cause for concern. Some commentators took my comments and twisted them and even quoted me as saying the House health care reform bill would establish death panels, and this was incorrect. I said no such thing. As I said then, putting end-of-life consultations alongside cost containment and government-run health care causes legitimate concern.
Except that’s not what happened. His words were not twisted. He said what he said. The reason he was “quoted” is because that’s what he said.
Of course single payer is his intention, its the only reasonable solution. Why you want to continue to defend the private insurers rights to deny coverage that has been paid for is a frikken mystery.
We will have single payer in this country. Like Churchill said “America always does the right thing….after they’ve tried everything else”. No single payer society will ever go back. If you think single payer is socialism, you’re too dense for words. The US military is “single payer” and look at all the Raytheons and Halliburtons that are “capitalizing” nicely off it.
Obama’s people saw the recession as an opportunity to expand government power. They’re not right for this country. It would have been much better had McCain won (even better with Romney). The republican would have done what was requested by the Fed but then he would haver restored the system rather then using the situation to bring in anti-growth social and economic policy. Using the recession to try to bring in a liberal left wing paradise is what makes Obama and the democrats blameworthy.
‘The question facing a President is not when the problem started, but what did you do about it when you recognized the problem?’
Obama, do you recognize the problem yet ?
An excellent point Jeffrey. i remind all that Obama is a descendant of Chicago politics, which is to say the politics of conciliation. What’s right isn’t the focus. What gets the most people on board, no matter how inadequate, allows an action to take place. The perpetrator of the compromise then takes credit for getting things done. Again, no matter how inadequate the result may be. It’s what one might call the complacency of compromise. The more things seem to change the more they stay the same.
did you notice how quickly the markets recovered in 1929 without regulatory interference from the government?
economists fuss about unimportant things all the time. the important things are summed up “other things being equal..”
the bane of democracy is that it has always been possible for bad people to fool the public by appealing to their fear and ignorance.
i dunno. there is some truth in what you are saying. but not the whole truth. not even close. i am too old to go chasing proofs of everything through the internet or even the school library, but if you want to offer a specific argument, i might have a reaction to it.
i been agreeing with you so hard all day, but i can’t accept ” climate change is open to debate on both sides.” now when you know the facts. and at least high school science.
jimi has a limited attention span. but single payer isn’t the only answer. a government that took bids from insurance companies to manage a plan paid for from payroll taxes would offer a nice blend of government oversight and free market competition. but, as others have pointed out, what we are getting is a rube goldberg plan designed to protect the interests of the insurance companies who would have fallen of their own weight in a few years if not bailed out by the government.
Why do we have to wade through so much drivel about this. O’Bama inherited a doozy, for Christ’s sake. He has done the yoeman’s work to keep this POS from collapsing. And now, his former supporters are saying he hasn’t done enough ? Whoa there.
“How handy to disregard the need for government to provide any services to the people. Even if one counts only the military budget and debt service that one hell of a lot of necessary taxation. Then there is a need for roads, schools and sundry aspects of complex community living that adds to the cost of government. George did have a good point when he noted that the goverment does not always judge well when it spends our money. He should know best about that. “
What THF is this dork talking about ? Disregar the need for gv’t to provide any services ? What a dimwit.
There is not just some truth it is TRUE. This all comes from understanding how a fiat monetary system operates. You really should explore those sites, both of them. It is a whole new paradigm for most people but it reflects the old ways of thinking about our currency as gold standard based. We are not and never will be again on a gold standard (if we know whats good for us anyway) so its time to change our thinking and our language.
I liken this paradigm to evolutionary biology. Most people do not understand evolutionary biology. They recite things like “survival of the fittest” but really know nothing about how revolutionary the paradigm is. Once you do understand evolutionary biology you think and talk differently about life.
This MMT paradigm is simple, absolutely logical and has explanatory powers way beyond what the classical economic paradigms do. Take a little time and check them out.
Here’s three to start with
The comment sections are almost as good as Angry Bears. They’d be perfect if only there were Jimis and Cantabs to poke fun at
You might have missed something in the reading mechanic.
Since I’m the quoted one I’ll take a second to point out that most of that paragraph has a sarcastic tone. It is meant to suggest that George W. is the “dimwit” for suggesting that government can’t spend our tax money wisely. Granted if we, as the voters, chose better congressional, senatorial and presidential representatives government spending might take a turn for the wiser. That might be especially true in regards to war spending. George W. spent more than his share of bullshit in the middle east.