PDA

View Full Version : The Unnecessary Fall Of Barack Obama



Nick Graham
08-17-2010, 05:30 AM
Probably the best article I've read overall on the current administration, namely due to it's bipartisan approach. Just really sad stuff - it's amazing how a couple of bad apples like Geithner and Summers can do so much to spoil the whole bunch.

http://tiny.cc/2q2vc

Ashwin Pande
08-17-2010, 05:49 AM
Sounds like Obama needs a "Let Bartlet be Bartlet" moment.

SidekicksRevenge
08-17-2010, 05:50 AM
Pretty good read, but really one sentence nailed it.


In an atmosphere primed for a populist backlash, he allowed the right wing to define the terms.

Honestly, the biggest problem for the Democrats and political left in general is that we allow the right wing pick the terms of the argument before it even starts.

Brother Power the Gong
08-17-2010, 06:10 AM
Pretty good read, but really one sentence nailed it.



Honestly, the biggest problem for the Democrats and political left in general is that we allow the right wing pick the terms of the argument before it even starts.

I agree, but at some point, the electorate has to not fall for the right's BS, much of which should be rejected out of hand.

Good read. Thanks for posting.

Ray G.
08-17-2010, 06:10 AM
He's an odd case. He was incredible at reading the public's mood as a candidate, but terrible at doing it as President.

greg donovan
08-17-2010, 06:15 AM
He's an odd case. He was incredible at reading the public's mood as a candidate, but terrible at doing it as President.

i think it might be the nature of the job in the current political climate. i am starting to believe that it really doesnt matter who is in the whitehouse, regardless of the party.

costello
08-17-2010, 06:16 AM
Lots of things didn't help. B. Frank tellin us Congress had no idea where the money given to the banks, for instance. N. Palosi saying she would teach President Obama how things worked in Washington, for another.

PeterSparker
08-17-2010, 06:37 AM
The President, and congressional leaders have had ample opportunity to make their arguments and frame the debates, saying otherwise is laughable in my opinion. Their arguments have just been largely rejected.

SidekicksRevenge
08-17-2010, 06:40 AM
The President, and congressional leaders have had ample opportunity to make their arguments and frame the debates, saying otherwise is laughable in my opinion. Their arguments have just been largely rejected.

1. Largely rejected is a pretty large overstatement.

2. The Democrats have been making these arguments from within the right wing frames. You don't redefine those frames overnight, or even within years. Hell, it would be hard to do it over the course of a two-term presidency. The right identified that controlling the language controlled the debate more than 30 years ago, and that's a ton of ground to make up.

3. No one on the left (no one who "matters," anyway) has any interest in making up that ground. Just listen to Obama stumble through immigration politics trying to use right wing frames.

chess
08-17-2010, 06:48 AM
Mark my words... I am no Obama fan but he still has a chance to salvage his term and possibly get re-elected.

Who know what crap the Republicans will allow to rise to the top and challenge Obama.

If the Republicans hand is Sarah Palin or similiar, he can win again.

Nick Graham
08-17-2010, 06:58 AM
In the end I just don't think the guy is a leader. Leadership is not a common ability, especially amongst politicians, and between the lack of strong direction from the White House on healthcare, finance reform, etc, he just doesn't have it, and it sucks because I really wanted him to. There is an X factor that separates the great presidents from the footnotes, and he just doesn't have it.


Mark my words... I am no Obama fan but he still has a chance to salvage his term and possibly get re-elected.

Who know what crap the Republicans will allow to rise to the top and challenge Obama.

If the Republicans hand is Sarah Palin or similiar, he can win again.

Oh, I know - I'm scared to death of who the GOP might push in 2012, and that's coming from a Republican. The possibility of John Boehner being Speaker come November is bad enough, but someone of his ilk in the White House??

PeterSparker
08-17-2010, 07:19 AM
In the end I just don't think the guy is a leader. Leadership is not a common ability, especially amongst politicians, and between the lack of strong direction from the White House on healthcare, finance reform, etc, he just doesn't have it, and it sucks because I really wanted him to. There is an X factor that separates the great presidents from the footnotes, and he just doesn't have it.


This.

The "we don't have the abilty to frame or change the argument because the right already has for 30 years now" is nonsensically sad.

Over a year ago when Obama held his prime time press conference at the White House to discuss the healthcare debate at that time. he was an abysmal failure. The country was watching, ready to hear him weigh in and he just wasn't very good. And in my opinion its been a steady decline since. The right or Fox News or any other boogieman had nothing to do with that.

Rafiennes
08-17-2010, 07:23 AM
Sounds like Obama needs a "Let Bartlet be Bartlet" moment.

This

Ben
08-17-2010, 07:28 AM
This.

The "we don't have the abilty to frame or change the argument because the right already has for 30 years now" is nonsensically sad.

Over a year ago when Obama held his prime time press conference at the White House to discuss the healthcare debate at that time. he was an abysmal failure. The country was watching, ready to hear him weigh in and he just wasn't very good. And in my opinion its been a steady decline since. The right or Fox News or any other boogieman had nothing to do with that.Eh, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Saying the right had "nothing to do with it" is incredibly naive or dishonest.

costello
08-17-2010, 07:33 AM
Mark my words... I am no Obama fan but he still has a chance to salvage his term and possibly get re-elected.

Who know what crap the Republicans will allow to rise to the top and challenge Obama.

If the Republicans hand is Sarah Palin or similiar, he can win again.

I agree with this. Both parties are able to reenergize and get power when they're the underdogs; the problem is once they get into power they screw it all up.

Kirblar
08-17-2010, 07:35 AM
Our political system rewards obstructionism.

He had a 60-vote majority and could barely get anything done. The fillibuster is a relic of the past that has outlived its usefulness.

costello
08-17-2010, 07:36 AM
In the end I just don't think the guy is a leader. Leadership is not a common ability, especially amongst politicians, and between the lack of strong direction from the White House on healthcare, finance reform, etc, he just doesn't have it, and it sucks because I really wanted him to. There is an X factor that separates the great presidents from the footnotes, and he just doesn't have it.





I agree. He's the motivational speaker of the century and an amazing campaigner, but he's not a leader.

PeterSparker
08-17-2010, 07:40 AM
Eh, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Saying the right had "nothing to do with it" is incredibly naive or dishonest.

It's neither, he had the votes and the popular mandate, he simply squandered it.

gibbEy
08-17-2010, 07:41 AM
Eh, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Saying the right had "nothing to do with it" is incredibly naive or dishonest.

I think more people might get on board with this if the Democrats didn't control the House and the Senate...

Ben
08-17-2010, 07:43 AM
I think more people might get on board with this if the Democrats didn't control the House and the Senate...Maybe they should learn how the Senate works.

Ben
08-17-2010, 07:46 AM
It's neither, he had the votes and the popular mandate, he simply squandered it.I think Congress dropped the ball more than Obama.

PeterSparker
08-17-2010, 07:52 AM
I think Congress dropped the ball more than Obama.

I agree with this, but again the White House tried to learn too much from Clinton's health care attempt and just didn't assert itself more in regard to the legislative process. If loudmouths on the right filled the void, it was in part because the White House gave them months and months to do so.

Kirblar
08-17-2010, 07:54 AM
I agree with this, but again the White House tried to learn too much from Clinton's health care attempt and just didn't assert itself more in regard to the legislative process. If loudmouths on the right filled the void, it was in part because the White House gave them months and months to do so.
The problem was that 60 senators all had veto power over the legislation.

That is absolutely fucking insane. Compromise is part of governing- but with the current rules- every Senator was able to throw a tantrum and stall the legislation to try and get their way.

Jason California
08-17-2010, 07:54 AM
I don't think her was old enough.should have waited.

Ben
08-17-2010, 07:57 AM
I agree with this, but again the White House tried to learn too much from Clinton's health care attempt and just didn't assert itself more in regard to the legislative process. If loudmouths on the right filled the void, it was in part because the White House gave them months and months to do so.This doesn't sound like Obama not being a good leader. He made mistakes by treating politicians and the American people as if they were reasonable and intelligent.

PeterSparker
08-17-2010, 08:05 AM
This doesn't sound like Obama not being a good leader. He made mistakes by treating politicians and the American people as if they were reasonable and intelligent.

It's the height of derilict behavior. And most people are reasonable, just because large percentages don't agree with his fiscal policies doesn't make them otherwise.

Kirblar
08-17-2010, 08:11 AM
It's the height of derilict behavior. And most people are reasonable, just because large percentages don't agree with his fiscal policies doesn't make them otherwise.
No, it does.

A majority of people opposed the bank bailouts.

However, given the ramifications of what a domino-chain bank collapse would have done to the economy, they were justified.

Opposing them was indeed unreasonable.

And what in the world to you mean by "derelict behavior?"

Foolish Mortal
08-17-2010, 08:11 AM
This doesn't sound like Obama not being a good leader. He made mistakes by treating politicians and the American people as if they were reasonable and intelligent.

Whenever Obama makes a speech about "this is how I think things should be done.",

The first response I hear is: "How dare he tell us what to do?!" "Who does he think he is?!" "Typical elitist!"

If he's not seen as leading, he's an "Aimless bumbling idiot."

If he attempts to lead, he's a "Mr. Smarty Pants Know-It-All!"

He can't win with some people no matter what he does.

gibbEy
08-17-2010, 08:15 AM
Whenever Obama makes a speech about "this is how I think things should be done.",

The first response I hear is: "How dare he tell us what to do?!" "Who does he think he is?!" "Typical elitist!"

If he's not seen as leading, he's an "Aimless bumbling idiot."

If he attempts to lead, he's a "Mr. Smarty Pants Know-It-All!"

He can't win with some people no matter what he does.

This was same way with the last guy as well, it's hardly a new thing that just came up with Obama was elected.

PeterSparker
08-17-2010, 08:27 AM
No, it does.

A majority of people opposed the bank bailouts.

However, given the ramifications of what a domino-chain bank collapse would have done to the economy, they were justified.

Opposing them was indeed unreasonable.

And what in the world to you mean by "derelict behavior?"

Not utilizing your popular mandate to craft legislation that congress can then debate, amend, and ultimately pass with your majorities, as opposed to leaving it to them to do.

bachman
08-17-2010, 08:30 AM
Whenever Obama makes a speech about "this is how I think things should be done.",

The first response I hear is: "How dare he tell us what to do?!" "Who does he think he is?!" "Typical elitist!"

If he's not seen as leading, he's an "Aimless bumbling idiot."

If he attempts to lead, he's a "Mr. Smarty Pants Know-It-All!"

He can't win with some people no matter what he does.

You mean democrats jump on republicans and republicans jump on democrats? Lies!

Matt Jay
08-17-2010, 08:30 AM
Unfortunately, he's been just as reasonable as he claimed he would be in his campaign. That gave us a half-assed stimulus and half-assed health care reform. The conservative Dems in Congress shoulder alot of the blame, but there's no question that he should have exercised better leadership.

Foolish Mortal
08-17-2010, 08:31 AM
I think Congress dropped the ball more than Obama.
Robert Gibbs was absolutely correct when he was talking about the "Professional Left".

They constantly undermined Obama's message.

Jason California
08-17-2010, 08:35 AM
Robert Gibbs was absolutely correct when he was talking about the "Professional Left".

They constantly undermined Obama's message.


What do you think Obama should have done better? You don't think he is blameless in this do you? Or do you think he has done as best a job as could be done, and that it is outside forces have made have created the air of negativity towards him?

Mister Mets
08-17-2010, 08:40 AM
Our political system rewards obstructionism.

He had a 60-vote majority and could barely get anything done. The fillibuster is a relic of the past that has outlived its usefulness.A lot of that's due to the strategic decision from the administration to go with massive omnibus bills for key legislation.

He could have gotten lots of bipartisan support for the most popular aspects of those bills.


Mark my words... I am no Obama fan but he still has a chance to salvage his term and possibly get re-elected.

Who know what crap the Republicans will allow to rise to the top and challenge Obama.

If the Republicans hand is Sarah Palin or similiar, he can win again.Republicans are pretty good at choosing the most electable candidate.

Obama did well in 2008, but it wasn't the slaughter it could have been in the Presidential election (see 1920, 1932 and 1980) especially given all that was wrong in the country, and the blame the party in the White House usually receives for that.

Ben
08-17-2010, 08:43 AM
A lot of that's due to the strategic decision from the administration to go with massive omnibus bills for key legislation.

He could have gotten lots of bipartisan support for the most popular aspects of those bills.

But many of the bills that would've been popular would not have worked without bills that would've been unpopular. This was explained over and over again.

Mister Mets
08-17-2010, 08:54 AM
But many of the bills that would've been popular would not have worked without bills that would've been unpopular. This was explained over and over again.

Many aspects of the bill would have worked without the unpopular parts of the bill.

Authorizing the FDA to approve generic versions of biologic drugs and grant biologics manufacturers 12 years of exclusive use before generics can be developed, requiring insurers to reveal details about administrative and executive expenditures, prohibiting insurers from dropping policyholders when they get sick and implementing enhanced methods of fraud detection would have worked without any of the other aspects of the bill.

Drkemerld73
08-17-2010, 08:55 AM
I agree. He's the motivational speaker of the century and an amazing campaigner, but he's not a leader.

I'm inclined to agree sadly.

I can't help but think of Bill Maher's observation: "I never thought I'd say this, what Obama needs in his personality is a little George Bush."

edwardmblake
08-17-2010, 09:04 AM
The Democratic Party is too blame. When the President came to power, change should have started with new House and Senate leaders. With all of their years of experience, they NP and HR still project weakness and ineptitude. Rahm is a reactionary, and I don't think David Axelrod serves him well.

He is the Leader of the Democratic Party and he should be the one in charge, not this strange power sharing arrangement where, 'everyone gets to touch the ball' Government camp thing. [paraphrasing toby zeigler]

I voted for the guy and I'm a conservative and a Republican. And he has done alot of good, but the perception is that he's is weak and doesn't have a plan. Whether that is true or not, perception, more often than not, is reality.

I think his next non-war challenges will be allowing the taxes to return to normal and use this money to pay down the debt, keep the health care bill from being repealed if the Republicans take over, realize the first of two peace dividends to reduce military spending and pay down debt, enforce paygo, and for fuck sake, have a plan for the deficit other than a moratorium on discretionary spending increases three years down the road, that includes the phrase, "except for".

I think he can do the job, he just needs to remember that he's the one calling the plays.

BriRedfern
08-17-2010, 09:07 AM
i think it might be the nature of the job in the current political climate. i am starting to believe that it really doesnt matter who is in the whitehouse, regardless of the party.

You are starting to believe thr truth.

Matt Jay
08-17-2010, 09:17 AM
The Democratic Party is too blame. When the President came to power, change should have started with new House and Senate leaders. With all of their years of experience, they NP and HR still project weakness and ineptitude. Rahm is a reactionary, and I don't think David Axelrod serves him well.

He is the Leader of the Democratic Party and he should be the one in charge, not this strange power sharing arrangement where, 'everyone gets to touch the ball' Government camp thing. [paraphrasing toby zeigler]

I voted for the guy and I'm a conservative and a Republican. And he has done alot of good, but the perception is that he's is weak and doesn't have a plan. Whether that is true or not, perception, more often than not, is reality.

I think his next non-war challenges will be allowing the taxes to return to normal and use this money to pay down the debt, keep the health care bill from being repealed if the Republicans take over, realize the first of two peace dividends to reduce military spending and pay down debt, enforce paygo, and for fuck sake, have a plan for the deficit other than a moratorium on discretionary spending increases three years down the road, that includes the phrase, "except for".

I think he can do the job, he just needs to remember that he's the one calling the plays.

Our debt is not what is keeping our economy in the gutter. But trying to fix our debt now, (ie: raising taxes, slashing spending) will keep us in the gutter at best. Fixing the economy should be his top priority, but he's tied his own hands with an ineffective stimulus.

costello
08-17-2010, 09:21 AM
I'm inclined to agree sadly.

I can't help but think of Bill Maher's observation: "I never thought I'd say this, what Obama needs in his personality is a little George Bush."

It sucks, I know. I want him to make the right wing talk show hosts eat their words.

Kirblar
08-17-2010, 09:26 AM
He could have gotten lots of bipartisan support for the most popular aspects of those bills.
The problem was that you couldn't do that without creating an enormous fiscal black hole.

That's what Bush did with Medicare prescription coverage, and its a massive issue. In order to make the health care bill not do the same thing, it all needed to be enacted together. Also, there are logistical issues- you can't guarantee health insurance for all citizens without a mandate that they purchase it. Otherwise rates would skyrocket due to people gaming the system.

Kirblar
08-17-2010, 09:28 AM
The Democratic Party is too blame. When the President came to power, change should have started with new House and Senate leaders. With all of their years of experience, they NP and HR still project weakness and ineptitude. Rahm is a reactionary, and I don't think David Axelrod serves him well.

He is the Leader of the Democratic Party and he should be the one in charge, not this strange power sharing arrangement where, 'everyone gets to touch the ball' Government camp thing. [paraphrasing toby zeigler]

I voted for the guy and I'm a conservative and a Republican. And he has done alot of good, but the perception is that he's is weak and doesn't have a plan. Whether that is true or not, perception, more often than not, is reality.

I think his next non-war challenges will be allowing the taxes to return to normal and use this money to pay down the debt, keep the health care bill from being repealed if the Republicans take over, realize the first of two peace dividends to reduce military spending and pay down debt, enforce paygo, and for fuck sake, have a plan for the deficit other than a moratorium on discretionary spending increases three years down the road, that includes the phrase, "except for".

I think he can do the job, he just needs to remember that he's the one calling the plays.
Pelosi's fine. Reid's just a complete pussy.

Xander Boune
08-17-2010, 09:37 AM
Reports of Obama's presidency's death have been greatly exaggerated. There is nothing more amusing than post-mortem analysis of a Presidency not two years in, and one that already stopped the collapse of the economy, brought the largest changes in health insurance reform in 60 years, helped save our auto industry, and is living up to its promise to end the war in Iraq and improve our standing in the world. People are mad that the economy is in the shitter, and they're going to to take it out on the party in power. Welcome to every recent midterm election after a new President with congressional majorities is sworn in (9/11 presidencies excepted, of course). Could Obama have done things better? Of course he could, but nothing would have kept his approval ratings over fifty in the face of tepid growth and unacceptable levels of unemployment. Those things will improve over the next two years, and Obama will be a two term president. And a great one. And all of these obituaries will look just as silly in retrospect as the ones published in 82 and 94.

Matt Jay
08-17-2010, 09:40 AM
Reports of Obama's presidency's death have been greatly exaggerated. There is nothing more amusing than post-mortem analysis of a Presidency not two years in, and one that already stopped the collapse of the economy, brought the largest changes in health insurance reform in 60 years, helped save our auto industry, and is living up to its promise to end the war in Iraq and improve our standing in the world. People are mad that the economy is in the shitter, and they're going to to take it out on the party in power. Welcome to every recent midterm election after a new President with congressional majorities is sworn in (9/11 presidencies excepted, of course). Could Obama have done things better? Of course he could, but nothing would have kept his approval ratings over fifty in the face of tepid growth and unacceptable levels of unemployment. Those things will improve over the next two years, and Obama will be a two term president. And a great one. And all of these obituaries will look just as silly in retrospect as the ones published in 82 and 94.

I'm not so sure about the economy improving in two years. Odds seem even that we could get worse.

Kirblar
08-17-2010, 09:41 AM
Reports of Obama's presidency's death have been greatly exaggerated. There is nothing more amusing than post-mortem analysis of a Presidency not two years in, and one that already stopped the collapse of the economy, brought the largest changes in health insurance reform in 60 years, helped save our auto industry, and is living up to its promise to end the war in Iraq and improve our standing in the world. People are mad that the economy is in the shitter, and they're going to to take it out on the party in power. Welcome to every recent midterm election after a new President with congressional majorities is sworn in (9/11 presidencies excepted, of course). Could Obama have done things better? Of course he could, but nothing would have kept his approval ratings over fifty in the face of tepid growth and unacceptable levels of unemployment. Those things will improve over the next two years, and Obama will be a two term president. And a great one. And all of these obituaries will look just as silly in retrospect as the ones published in 82 and 94.
I agree - I do feel they amplified many of their problems because they've been lacking a good messaging strategy- hell, they finally got good press when Obama commented on the Mosque because he "looked presidential" only to fuck it up the next day.

And yes, Matt is right. The economy is not going to bounce back any time soon.

Xander Boune
08-17-2010, 09:44 AM
I'm not so sure about the economy improving in two years. Odds seem even that we could get worse.

I'm not sure either, but hey, I'm an optimist. We'll certainly need a faster rate of job growth than we are getting now.

edwardmblake
08-17-2010, 09:50 AM
Our debt is not what is keeping our economy in the gutter. But trying to fix our debt now, (ie: raising taxes, slashing spending) will keep us in the gutter at best. Fixing the economy should be his top priority, but he's tied his own hands with an ineffective stimulus.

I actually agree with this statement and still stand by mine, and we can be both correct. The debt is a long term problem that can and should be addressed now, even if it is by taking small steps. Part of stabilizing the economy comes from eliminating, or reducing the fear that investors/entrepreneurs have regarding our National debt. Acting like we are doing something about it reduce that fear.

Regarding tax increases, it sounds counter intuitive, but raising taxes is necessary, if the Government is going to continue to pump money into the economy (which it should), it has to come from somewhere. Back in the 80's, when Congress wanted more money for military spending, and a reduction of tax rates. Reagan said it best "There is no such thing as a free lunch" and included an elimination of tax shelter laws in the 1986 tax reform act, in an attempt to balance the equation. That elimination cost people billions of dollars in previously received tax breaks. Lesson being, if you want the spending, you have to pay for it.

I absolutely agree all signs point to the latest stimulus as being ineffective.

Kirblar
08-17-2010, 09:52 AM
Deflation (via the collapsed housing market) is keeping our economy in the gutter.

People have been so scared of inflation for so long that they don't truly understand why the alternative is even worse.

PeterSparker
08-17-2010, 09:55 AM
I'm not sure either, but hey, I'm an optimist. We'll certainly need a faster rate of job growth than we are getting now.

And yeah, he got healthcare passed, but lets see if all that he said would go with it actually materializes. Judging by what Massachusetts is currently experiencing under essentially the same system, that is very much up to debate still. If it goes the way of the administration's claims that passing the stimulus would keep unemployment at 8.0%, and that their budget last year was based on the assumptions GDP would be growing at a steady 3.5% into 4.0% this year, then he's going to have a very tough go of it indeed.

Matt Jay
08-17-2010, 10:23 AM
I actually agree with this statement and still stand by mine, and we can be both correct. The debt is a long term problem that can and should be addressed now, even if it is by taking small steps. Part of stabilizing the economy comes from eliminating, or reducing the fear that investors/entrepreneurs have regarding our National debt. Acting like we are doing something about it reduce that fear.

Regarding tax increases, it sounds counter intuitive, but raising taxes is necessary, if the Government is going to continue to pump money into the economy (which it should), it has to come from somewhere. Back in the 80's, when Congress wanted more money for military spending, and a reduction of tax rates. Reagan said it best "There is no such thing as a free lunch" and included an elimination of tax shelter laws in the 1986 tax reform act, in an attempt to balance the equation. That elimination cost people billions of dollars in previously received tax breaks. Lesson being, if you want the spending, you have to pay for it.

I absolutely agree all signs point to the latest stimulus as being ineffective.

I just don't think fear of the debt is keeping entrepeneurs and investors from spending. The entrepeneurs and investors are hesitant because consumers have no money to spend. This could be perfectly addressed with job creation at the federal level (FDR-style). As a small business owner, I know that I personally don't give a shit about the federal debt, but I do care about how much money I can get from consumers.

In the last two years, from the same referral resource, I've seen people able to pay regular rates plummet and people qualifying for modest means-rates skyrocket. This means I'm working more for less, which means I have less money to put out there. This will not be alleviated when the government comes up with a better deficit-repayment plan, but it would help if the government contributed to the employment situation.

I understand that you're pushing for the perception of deficit-control, and I'm ok with that so long as it doesn't involve cutting government spending or raising taxes before we get out of this mess.

edwardmblake
08-17-2010, 10:33 AM
I just don't think fear of the debt is keeping entrepeneurs and investors from spending. The entrepeneurs and investors are hesitant because consumers have no money to spend. This could be perfectly addressed with job creation at the federal level (FDR-style). As a small business owner, I know that I personally don't give a shit about the federal debt, but I do care about how much money I can get from consumers.

In the last two years, from the same referral resource, I've seen people able to pay regular rates plummet and people qualifying for modest means-rates skyrocket. This means I'm working more for less, which means I have less money to put out there. This will not be alleviated when the government comes up with a better deficit-repayment plan, but it would help if the government contributed to the employment situation.

I understand that you're pushing for the perception of deficit-control, and I'm ok with that so long as it doesn't involve cutting government spending or raising taxes before we get out of this mess.

I see your points, well said.

Nick Graham
08-17-2010, 10:53 AM
Reports of Obama's presidency's death have been greatly exaggerated. There is nothing more amusing than post-mortem analysis of a Presidency not two years in, and one that already stopped the collapse of the economy, brought the largest changes in health insurance reform in 60 years, helped save our auto industry, and is living up to its promise to end the war in Iraq and improve our standing in the world. People are mad that the economy is in the shitter, and they're going to to take it out on the party in power. Welcome to every recent midterm election after a new President with congressional majorities is sworn in (9/11 presidencies excepted, of course). Could Obama have done things better? Of course he could, but nothing would have kept his approval ratings over fifty in the face of tepid growth and unacceptable levels of unemployment. Those things will improve over the next two years, and Obama will be a two term president. And a great one. And all of these obituaries will look just as silly in retrospect as the ones published in 82 and 94.


This ignores the fact the Healthcare legislation, thanks in part to zero direction or firmness from the White House (the Bill Maher quote applies well here), is a mess, and totally ignores the role Big Pharma plays in our health care crisis. Billy Tauzin showing up frequently on the WH visitor logs during the entire process no doubt helped that happen - this being the same Billy Tauzin that Obama ran a campaign ad about entitled "Billy" that railed against corporate collusion in Washington. The "Financial Reform" bill (the Bill Maher quote applies well here, also) is so full of loopholes that economists say we are pretty much guaranteed another collapse in the next decade or so due to the "reform" not actually reforming much of any of the activity on Wall Street that caused this collapse. Obama surrounded himself with Wall Street cronies like Geithner and Larry Summers from day one, so this is not surprising. The emperor has no clothes.

RickLM
08-17-2010, 10:59 AM
He passed the most important piece of liberal legislation, healthcare reform, so in that sense he's lightyears more effective than Clinton at getting difficult/huge things done. He isn't failing at all.

Kirblar
08-17-2010, 11:41 AM
I just don't think fear of the debt is keeping entrepeneurs and investors from spending. The entrepeneurs and investors are hesitant because consumers have no money to spend. This could be perfectly addressed with job creation at the federal level (FDR-style). As a small business owner, I know that I personally don't give a shit about the federal debt, but I do care about how much money I can get from consumers.

In the last two years, from the same referral resource, I've seen people able to pay regular rates plummet and people qualifying for modest means-rates skyrocket. This means I'm working more for less, which means I have less money to put out there. This will not be alleviated when the government comes up with a better deficit-repayment plan, but it would help if the government contributed to the employment situation.

I understand that you're pushing for the perception of deficit-control, and I'm ok with that so long as it doesn't involve cutting government spending or raising taxes before we get out of this mess.
The "uncertainty" argument is absolute bullshit.

Ben
08-17-2010, 11:43 AM
He passed the most important piece of liberal legislation, healthcare reform, so in that sense he's lightyears more effective than Clinton at getting difficult/huge things done. He isn't failing at all.
If he can get Don't Ask Don't Tell thrown out already, I'd be a lot happier! Gay even!

edwardmblake
08-17-2010, 12:07 PM
The "uncertainty" argument is absolute bullshit.

As stated, it is part of the problem. Companies are, in fact, hording capital. There are multiple reasons why, uncertainty of how US debt is perceived in the world is one.

Nick Spencer
08-17-2010, 12:26 PM
Yawn. He's following a pretty standard Presidential trajectory, he's actually had a good number of legislative victories, and I would put great odds on him getting re-elected.

It's a recession. If it wasn't a recession, numbers would be a lot better. Most of this is crap.

Nick Spencer
08-17-2010, 12:28 PM
I especially like this--


Politicians, such as Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, who found a way of using populism’s appeal during downturns have enjoyed success, while those who have spurned it have suffered accordingly.

Except that Obama's numbers are still higher than Reagan's were at this point in his first term.

Kirblar
08-17-2010, 12:30 PM
As stated, it is part of the problem. Companies are, in fact, hording capital. There are multiple reasons why, uncertainty of how US debt is perceived in the world is one.
That's not the uncertainty they're talking about.

Foolish Mortal
08-17-2010, 02:36 PM
What do you think Obama should have done better?
Should've rode the conservative Democrats harder to get in line, and told the far left to shut the fuck up.


I especially like this--
Except that Obama's numbers are still higher than Reagan's were at this point in his first term.
Yep. Lets not start the death knells yet for Obama.

Michael-Deery
08-17-2010, 02:38 PM
Looking on from across the pond I would say that America has been really harsh on Obama. After the BP spill the impression one got from watching American news coverage is that Obama's reaction was poor because he didn't grow his hair and soak up all the oil with his afro.

Nick Spencer
08-17-2010, 02:51 PM
Looking on from across the pond I would say that America has been really harsh on Obama. After the BP spill the impression one got from watching American news coverage is that Obama's reaction was poor because he didn't grow his hair and soak up all the oil with his afro.

People hate government and want government to do as little as possible, but then when something goes wrong, they want government to fix it, and fix it instantly. How it is.

BJLG
08-17-2010, 03:04 PM
From the Huffington Post: Unemployment
http://ht.ly/2qZJI

Matt Jay
08-17-2010, 03:16 PM
From the Huffington Post: Unemployment
http://ht.ly/2qZJI

Whoa. Nice find. I'm putting that in my Economic Pant-shitting thread.

Jason California
08-17-2010, 03:56 PM
People hate government and want government to do as little as possible, but then when something goes wrong, they want government to fix it, and fix it instantly. How it is.

Not everybody Nick.

Andrew
08-17-2010, 04:55 PM
I'm inclined to agree sadly.

I can't help but think of Bill Maher's observation: "I never thought I'd say this, what Obama needs in his personality is a little George Bush."

Exactly.

And how sad it is to have to say something like that.

BriRedfern
08-17-2010, 07:43 PM
Looking on from across the pond I would say that America has been really harsh on Obama. After the BP spill the impression one got from watching American news coverage is that Obama's reaction was poor because he didn't grow his hair and soak up all the oil with his afro.

If someone said that in America it would be racist.