home

Policy And Politics: The Economy

Discussing E.J. Dionne's column today, Booman makes some good points:

Considering that [the column] is supposed to be about [Dems] regaining the initiative, it's pretty weak to lecture the White House about its tendency to defend itself and "the left" about never being satisfied. Those things aren't going to change. We can be critical of that reality, but we ought not offer it up as something to fix so that we can get our mojo back.

In fact it is not something to fix. The White House should tout its accomplishments. They are in the politics business after all. And people dissatisfied with what the White House is doing should say so and work to make them do what they want. That's how it works. But both Booman and Dionne miss the connection between the political problems Dems have and the economic policies of the Obama Administration. More . . .

Dionne writes:

[. . . T]he simple fact that the economy's catastrophic slide was halted and reversed - would, in the abstract, do any administration proud.

Not being Herbert Hoover is NOT an accomplishment. In terms of policy or politics. The fact that Dionne has to trot out the "it could have been worse" defense tells you all you need to know about the inadequacy of the Obama Administration's polices on the economy, job creation and the housing crisis.

And these failures explain almost all of the political trouble the Democrats are in. Booman writes:

There are two things that will help us get our mojo back: Speaker Boehner and Obama's reelection campaign. That's all we need. And improving economy would be nice, but realistically we are going to be fighting over who is to blame for high unemployment and who has a better plan to get something through Congress that will create jobs.

(Emphasis supplied.) If that is where the political battle is going to be fought, then the Dems' political fortunes do not look bright.

President Obama will, of course, be tough to beat in a reelection campaign. But if his team had provided a better performance on economic policy, he would be unbeatable.

In 1984, Reagan won reelection by 18 points. In 1996, Clinton won reelection by 9 points. When a President is perceived to have done a good job on the economy, he wins reelection easily.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter lost a landslide. In 1992, Bush 41 was beaten by 5 points by Clinton. In 2004, Bush 43 squeaked by a terrible candidate, John Kerry. When a President is not perceived to have done a good job on the economy, he is vulnerable.

Obviously, at this point, the economic performance looks more like it did for Carter, Bush 41 and Bush 43, than it did for Reagan and Clinton.

But Obama looks more like Bush 43 politically to me than Carter or Bush 41. He has a fervent base in the African American community. The political calculation of the White House is that The Deal will do enough to win over tax averse, socially moderate independents who will blanche at a GOP nominee who will have had to move right of Attila the Hun to win the GOP nomination. Indeed, look for Obama to make a lot of noise about immigration reform in the next 2 years as well.

Here's the problem with the strategy, The Deal only works as short term stimulus (and weak stimulus at that) IF spending is not cut. But the GOP WILL cut spending. The GOP base will demand it. And if the economy continue to be woeful, if unemployment remains high, if the housing crisis remain unattended, the Obama will be very vulnerable.

Good policy is good politics. The Obama Administration economic policies have not been good. And there is no promise of better policies now.

The "mojo" ain't coming back without a better economy.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Appoints James Cole Deputy AG | Karl Rove's Misguided Argument Against Federal Trials for 9/11 Defendants >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I get so tired of reading (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:13:25 AM EST
    write ups about how we must get on message or where we are losing the message.  Jesus Christ, what a bunch of fools.  People are really hurting.  Never in my lifetime have more children gone to bed hungry in my own country.  Never in my life have more children been homeless or had fewer possibilities for education....and all of this is set to get worse this year.  People like Booman and Dionne only manage to Pi$$ me off and solidify my belief that they are loaded with hot air idiots.  WE HAVE REAL PROBLEMS....SERIOUS PROBLEMS, AND A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T LIKE TO BE BOTHERED WITH THE FIGHT.  Mojo?....I got some mojo for them.  I got some momma mojo and some nana mojo for them and they won't like it.

    "An improving economy would be nice"? (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    "but realistically we are going to be fighting over who is to blame for high unemployment"?

    Booman of course and as usual has his finger on the pulse of reality, and knows that it's far more important to "win" than to produce results, even if he has to lose to win.

    The man is a genius at political analysis, and all he asks is that everyone take a deep breath, think hard, and give Obama all the credit due him. After all, he's already restored the rule of law and arranged crackdowns on all those greedy people all across the country who selfishly want to keep their jobs and their homes, and now he has all those greedy retirees who are scheming for free lifetime handouts from social security in his sights. He's a saviour.

    What more could you ask for? Besides, he looks 'dreamy' in a bomber jacket, and have you seen the latest photos of Michelle? Swoon. And the puppy.

    Don't forget the puppy.


    And let's not forget, ever, (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:02:45 AM EST
    just how bad things would be if Obama and Geithner hadn't saved the economy from it's free fall plummet. My gawd, there were investment bankers starving, literally wasting away into mere shadows of themselves, before the grace of Obama reached out to them and quantitatively eased them out of their misery, saving the rest of the country as a side effect...

    OilPrice.com: Invest In The USA? Why Bother?

    Capital will flow to where there's money to be made. It's just that simple. America's "accomodative" monetary policy has spurred a new wave of corporate borrowing. And where are these multinational entities deploying these new investments? Not in the United States. That money is flowing into emerging economies. Bloomberg reported on the trend in Bernanke's 'Cheap Money' Stimulus Spurs Corporate Investment Outside U.S-

    "You're seeing leakage from quantitative easing," said Stephen Wood, chief market strategist for Russell Investments in New York, which has $140 billion under management. "That leakage is going into emerging markets, commodity-based economies, commodities themselves and non-U.S. opportunities."

    U.S. corporations have issued more than $1.07 trillion in debt so far this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Foreign companies also are tapping U.S. markets for cheap cash, selling $605.9 billion in debt through Nov. 15 compared with $371.8 billion for all of 2007, before the Fed cut the overnight bank-lending rate to a range of zero to 0.25 percent...

    Corporate cash sloshing across U.S. borders is an unavoidable consequence of the Fed's low-rate strategy, Wood said...

    U.S. corporations' overseas investment in the first half of 2010 exceeded the amount that foreign firms spent in the U.S. on factories and acquisitions at an annual rate of almost $220 billion, according to the Commerce Department.

    In the first half of 2006, the last year before the financial crisis, the net flow favored the U.S. at an annual rate of about $30 billion.



    Parent
    The only emerging market that exists (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    in the U.S. is the one poised to rape and pillage the little people again and again.  You had to invest in lobbyists and politicians to get into this one long before now.  They are in the kill zone now.  If you aren't in now, you can't get in very easily and not for the big bucks :)

    Parent
    They forget how easy they are to break (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:44:29 AM EST
    And they forget that no one, once they realize it, is under any compulsion to buy anything from them or to remain in the kill zone.

    Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury and stolen billions from small shareholders who had set aside money for retirement or college. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus and protection from warrantless wiretapping, have been taken away. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks.

    The façade is crumbling. And as more and more people realize that they have been used and robbed, we will move swiftly from Huxley's "Brave New World" to Orwell's "1984." The public, at some point, will have to face some very unpleasant truths. The good-paying jobs are not coming back. The largest deficits in human history mean that we are trapped in a debt peonage system that will be used by the corporate state to eradicate the last vestiges of social protection for citizens, including Social Security. The state has devolved from a capitalist democracy to neo-feudalism. And when these truths become apparent, anger will replace the corporate-imposed cheerful conformity. The bleakness of our post-industrial pockets, where some 40 million Americans live in a state of poverty and tens of millions in a category called "near poverty," coupled with the lack of credit to save families from foreclosures, bank repossessions and bankruptcy from medical bills, means that inverted totalitarianism will no longer work.

    Chris Hedges, December 27, 2010

    Parent

    Good to see you commenting here (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    Edger.

    Parent
    Thanks, BTD... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 01:50:48 PM EST
    The facade is crumbling (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:32:22 PM EST
    but I don't see that we will devolve into totalitarianism though we may see shades of it at times.  Because of what is going to happen though, that is why Obama's HCR could never work...without a public option that would bring about deflation of what the corporations were demanding from people the whole system was going to implode on itself.  And it will...if you have no job or no house and not enough food....you won't pay for health insurance.  If you are barely getting by making daily ends meet you won't be doing it either and they can fine you and nobody cares.  You can't get blood from turnips and if you aren't rich now you are either a turnip or soon to be.  When I bring this up though, people who still want to believe in that reform say that such people aren't expected to pay....but they didn't factor in how many people were going to be needing ALL OF the healthcare paid for.  They refused to acknowledge at the time how bad and long term unemployment was going to be.  The states are broke now too, property taxes are going up and up and they are seeking to increase tax on other daily things as well now.  We are being squeezed in an impossible vise, things are going to blow as things deflate.  And according to the news today housing is the first thing to deflate....here we go.  WE GAINED NOTHING BY BAILING OUT BANKS IN THE FASHION THAT WE DID, all that has happened is that we put of the inevitable and sadly....during that whole time, the rich fed on us even more.

    Parent
    we will devolve into totalitarianism? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    You might not want to read this...

    Is the U.S. on the Brink of Fascism?
    Sara Robinson, August 2009

    All through the dark years of the Bush Administration, progressives watched in horror as Constitutional protections vanished, nativist rhetoric ratcheted up, hate speech turned into intimidation and violence, and the president of the United States seized for himself powers only demanded by history's worst dictators. With each new outrage, the small handful of us who'd made ourselves experts on right-wing culture and politics would hear once again from worried readers: Is this it? Have we finally become a fascist state? Are we there yet?

    And every time this question got asked, people like Chip Berlet and Dave Neiwert and Fred Clarkson and yours truly would look up from our maps like a parent on a long drive, and smile a wan smile of reassurance. "Wellll...we're on a bad road, and if we don't change course, we could end up there soon enough. But there's also still plenty of time and opportunity to turn back. Watch, but don't worry. As bad as this looks: no -- we are not there yet."

    In tracking the mileage on this trip to perdition, many of us relied on the work of historian Robert Paxton, who is probably the world's pre-eminent scholar on the subject of how countries turn fascist. In a 1998 paper published in The Journal of Modern History, Paxton argued that the best way to recognize emerging fascist movements isn't by their rhetoric, their politics, or their aesthetics. Rather, he said, mature democracies turn fascist by a recognizable process, a set of five stages that may be the most important family resemblance that links all the whole motley collection of 20th Century fascisms together. According to our reading of Paxton's stages, we weren't there yet. There were certain signs -- one in particular -- we were keeping an eye out for, and we just weren't seeing it.

    And now we are. In fact, if you know what you're looking for, it's suddenly everywhere. It's odd that I haven't been asked for quite a while; but if you asked me today, I'd tell you that if we're not there right now, we've certainly taken that last turn into the parking lot and are now looking for a space. Either way, our fascist American future now looms very large in the front windshield -- and those of us who value American democracy need to understand how we got here, what's changing now, and what's at stake in the very near future if these people are allowed to win -- or even hold their ground.

    more...



    Parent
    I shouldn't feed you Edger (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    but you have always been a keeper and tender of knowledge that others would like to forget, so if you haven't seen anything on the latest Unified Quest it is only American that you should be informed :)

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:39:30 PM EST
    You got more than a few (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    recommends on that one.

    Parent
    They are getting more and more (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 04:00:01 PM EST
    surprisingly receptive, these days....

    Parent
    It is all your fault (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 07:12:20 PM EST
    You made me do it. I went to the big orange to recommend your diary. One of my rare visits this year and it is all your fault.

    Happy New Year.

    Parent

    Least I could do. ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 07:14:48 PM EST
    Happy New Year.

    Scan the block ahead of you when out walking, and stay out of range of the fascists, eh? ;-)

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:51:39 AM EST
    I see Obama having the base problems that Bush 41 had and the unemployment numbers that Carter had. the sole advantage that Obama has right now is incumbency which could also be his biggest negative.

    This economy is not going to come back in time for the 2012 elections but I guess he could rerun Bush 43's 2004 election strategy that the other guy is worse. Of course, that "strategy" ended up destroying the GOP along with Bush's bad policy decisions. I don't think Obama cares a whit if he destroys everything in his path as long as he "wins".

    this sounds extreme (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:07:22 AM EST
    I don't think Obama cares a whit if he destroys everything in his path as long as he "wins"

    sadly though i think you are right

    whether this makes Obama different from any other politician is another question

    Parent

    I don't understand the inclusion of (none / 0) (#1)
    by me only on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 09:57:55 AM EST
    W in this diary.  The economy grew 4.4% in 2004.  Unemployment was 5.7% at the end of 2004.

    If the economy in 2012 grows at that rate and the unemployment level is less than 6%, Obama doesn't get re-elected in 2012, he gets deified.

    Lastly, why the jab at Attila?  I mean his best quote is:

    I am a centrist.  - Attila the Hun.

    Bush was NOT perceived (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:00:51 AM EST
    to have performed well on the economy, and indeed he did not.

    Everything is relative.

    Where the economy was when Bush took office to where it went in 2004 was not a positive trend.

    Not  a minus but not a plus.

    Indeed, it was because of this that Iraq was the #1 issue in the elections of 2004 and 2006.

    Parent

    The perception in 1996 (none / 0) (#18)
    by me only on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:43:59 AM EST
    was that the economy was not that good.  Then Clinton pointed out is was in fact very good.  If the inclusion with W is because of perception rather than reality, I understand.

    Iraq by 2004 was a "quagmire," according to the press.  It was Bush's Vietnam.  Again, not true, but as a perception issue, yes it was a huge negative to winning an election.

    The one similarity with Bush and Obama that I see is that they both oversold and underperformed their economic initiatives (tax cuts/stimulus).

    I think Obama probably wins re-election and that we will all pay the price of a lame duck second term.

    Parent

    I disagree with your memory on that (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:10:25 PM EST
    In particular, the economic trend was clearly good by 1996.

    Parent
    Do you remember the (none / 0) (#37)
    by me only on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    Fed increases in 1994-1995 from 3 percent to 6 percent?

    Do you remember all the news articles on corporate downsizing?

    The economy was doing well, but there was a perception in early 1996 that is was not.  Clinton was able to sell the facts starting with the State of the Union Address:

    The state of the Union is strong. Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades. We have the lowest combined rates of unemployment and inflation in 27 years. We have created nearly 8 million new jobs, over a million of them in basic industries, like construction and automobiles. America is selling more cars than Japan for the first time since the 1970s. And for three years in a row, we have had a record number of new businesses started in our country.


    Parent
    First off (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    Numbers that show a growing economy does not mean it was a good economy or growing for the middle class and the poor.  Deregulation spurred a lot of "growth" where certain numbers are concerned, but was actually destroying that engines or our economy and the lives of those who were not rich day by day in the longrun.

    Parent
    Flaw (none / 0) (#9)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:12:43 AM EST
    The flaw in the argument is that it assumes Dem policies (assuming progressives got everything they wanted) would have created a significant change during the period from 2009-2011, let's say.

    Given what we see now with housing and the nature of the jobs lost, I firmly believe that nothing substantial would have changed if Obama had pushed through every measure that was requested.

    Unemployment would still be in the 8-9% range according to the numbers I've seen and repeaing the Bush tax cuts, for example, wouldn't have resulted in any real impact until well after the next election cycle (while during that period, the increase in taxes on the rich was likely to be neutral or slightly negative).

    Bottom line:  I don't think either the conservative or progressive policies would have an impact on the economy big enough to move the political needle before the next election.  The recession was too deep and unique in its characteristics. This is obviously a very different point than what's best for the country long term.  I agree whole heartedly that progressive policies are the long term way forward.  But that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking short term politics.

    If we look at other countries that have taken the measures that progressives would like us to take, their recoveries are moving no faster than our own.

    The reality is likely that the government simply could not have done much to fix the basic problem, which is that we have too many houses that we paid too much money for that are worth substantially less than they were just 5 years ago.

    The only fix for that fundamental problem (without accelerating/creating another bubble to some degree) is time.

    I know "there is no real fix" is not a pleasing answer for both conservatives and liberals, but it could easily be the correct one.  

    My current thinking is that the economy will look noticeably better in 2011-2012 than it does now through neither the work of dems or progressives, but through homes around america buckling down, figuring out their finances and moving forward after the shock of the past few years.  And that is regardless of where we end up on questions of taxes and spending cuts.

    The key will be who takes credit for the sliver of good news.  I think you underestimate Obama's ability to do that.

    regardless (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by CST on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:20:42 AM EST
    of what you think of the political aspects of that approach, don't you think lowering the unemployment rate 1-2% is a worthy goal in it's own right?  We're at 9.8 right now.  8 sounds pretty good.  That 1% represents millions of people who could really use a job.  Not to mention the additional growth that would have caused through increased purchasing power.

    Not all politics are just about the next election.  These are people's lives.

    And I'm not sure I buy the "nothing the government could have done on housing" argument.

    Parent

    Also important to keep in mind that (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:34:08 AM EST
    the 9.8 is the nominal number, and that the actual figure is much higher.

    Your further point, that this is more than about elections, is spot on; real people's lives have become - for too many people - secondary to ensuring someone's political good fortune.

    I don't really get that, but then, I still haven't gotten my passport to Backwards World...

    Parent

    That 1% (none / 0) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    sounds great and would make a massive difference if you were one of the millions who would be impacted.  For that reason, we should always push and fight.

    But politically, I think there is no difference between a 9% unemployment number and a 8% number.  I think that it is not a big enough statistical jump to sway the election.

    As for whether our policies would work if followed, there are many examples in europe (and even canada) to look at. Overall, the German's look like the winners in the policy department.  They employed a unique mix of liberal policies (incentives for companies to retain employees and a vast unemployment safety net) and conservative policies (raising the retirement age, etc.)and they are coming out of the recession full steam ahead.

    I would like to argue in good faith that the progressive position is the right one for every scenario, but that rings false.  How can we do that and point the jeering finger at conservatives who say that tax cuts are the right approach during both booms and recessions.

    What frustrates me these days is not that liberals strongly disagree with the president's policies (we need to do that more of that on the two wars).  It's that many of us sound too much like the opposite twin of the Tea Party/Hannity crowd. The unwaivering certainty, the unwillingness to acknowledge the benefits (and realistically weigh the opportunity costs) of imperfect compromise, the belief in principle over impact to Americans struggling, etc.

    I say this repeatedly and sound like a broken record but I can't help it: We're liberals.  We are, by definition, smarter than that.

    Parent

    I think you are crossing a line (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:48:40 AM EST
    at the end of your comment.

    I have enjoyed debating you and have always refrained from accusing you of fairy tale thinking.

    But here you come and act as if disagreeing with your assessment is fairy tale thinking.

    Your discussion of Germany's policies is misguided in my opinion, particularly in thinking that "progressive" policies were not integral to the performance of the German economy. They were.

    I mean, honestly, you think that raising the retirement age is the key to Germany's recent economic performance? Really? That's just absurd.

    Parent

    Well played (none / 0) (#24)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:09:55 PM EST
    and a bad example on the SS front.  I concede that overall the German model is more liberal than conservative.

    However, I'd offer the semi-counter that that they didn't make the progressive choice at every fork in the road. There were some things they did that you and I wouldn't like.

    Parent

    True enough (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:11:55 PM EST
    But st the BIG fork, the issue of short term government spending, they went Keynesian.

    Parent
    all as opposed to none... (none / 0) (#65)
    by dkmich on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    Germany didn't make ALL liberal choices, and Obama made none.  Except for that, they're just alike.

    Parent
    That is absurd (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:40:57 PM EST
    Germany drags its feet everytime Wall Street and Goldman Sachs and our President's economic team insists they must create moral hazard.  Remember last year when our economic team was screaming that they were going to sink the European economy and then ours because they just wouldn't easily succomb to giving them everything they wanted immediately?  Germany doesn't have the moral hazard problems that we do, they didn't save someone and tell someone else to just go phuck themselves.  Nor did they insist that everything was going to be fine and nobody had to make any major changes, they made changes quickly and accepted that deflation would occur instead throwing everything overboard trying to keep bubbles floating.

    Parent
    politically (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:16:22 PM EST
    I think it would have made a difference.  Especially as Obama himself said early on he wanted to cap unemployment at 8%.  People expected things to be bad, but they also expected things to start getting better - which they never really did - at least as far as employment is concerned.

    Germany has a built in government safety net that the U.S. just doesn't have.  Sure they raised their retirement age - to 67 - the level that the U.S. was already at.  Not to mention they get much better benefits at that point.  It's a lot easier to give ground when you have ground to give.  They also were never IN the recession as bad as we were since they had the framework in place.

    I accept compromise, I accept a lot of compromise.  I actually LIKE the health care reform, and have acknowledged progress on other issues.  But that doesn't mean you give ground on what you consider the right policy or ideas to be.  You take what you can get, and move on from there, but you don't call it something it's not.

    Parent

    Liberal actions that would have made a difference. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by dkmich on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    in the economy:    Medicare for all.   Repeal the Bush tax cuts. Balance the trade deficit/renegotiate trade deal.  Tax companies that off-shore. Bail out Main Street. End the war on drugs; legalize and tax pot.  Incentivize boomers into retirement. End the wars.

    That would have improved the economy and voter attitudes for certain.  As things are, I really can't tell difference between Obama's policies and those of Clinton and Bush.  If I had wanted either of them back in the WH, I would have voted for Hillary or John McCain.    

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:28:45 AM EST
    I am glad someone is forthrightly arguing that "the flaw in the argument is that it assumes Dem policies (assuming progressives got everything they wanted) would have created a significant change during the period from 2009-2011, let's say."

    Because I actually have come to believe that Obama and his team  agree with you.

    I strongly disagree with this assessment.

    But don't you think that this explains the dissatisfaction from folks who disagree with you and Obama on this?

    I do not understand ewhy you would expect me to be happy about an economic policy I do not think was the right one for the circumstances.

    Maybe I am wrong, but obviously I think I am right.

    Parent

    you sound defeated (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:29:10 AM EST
    i have to be honest.

    to suggest time is the only solution is, forgive me for being blunt, irrational and inhumane.

    it is treating money as if it were a migrating bird and not the utterly imaginary thing it is. fiat money is an illusion, and the only thing that holds up that illusion is the BELIEFS and THOUGHTS of human beings. that is it.  and the only, the ONLY, way to get the economy moving in a fiat economy that is moribund is for the government to step in and create demand.  

    how on earth has obama not, for instance, gone to the wall for a green energy initiative to employ millions of americans?  how???  for the love of phucking god, ALL of southern california, every roof, could be covered in solar panels, manufactured in the U.S., then installed by U.S. citizens, for the benefit of other U.S. citizens.

    whatever, maybe you're right. we just have to sit around and watch time pass. maybe that is all that's possible in our increasingly corpse-like national discourse, but i'm tired of hearing excuses when factual reality needs to be addressed now and we KNOW what needs to be done, but we simply fail to act out of fear.

    peace, my man, i respect your posts, you aren't a rager, i'm just not on board with the "time is on our side" idea.

    Parent

    Oh, for the love of God... (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    The flaw in the argument is that it assumes Dem policies (assuming progressives got everything they wanted) would have created a significant change during the period from 2009-2011, let's say.

    Given what we see now with housing and the nature of the jobs lost, I firmly believe that nothing substantial would have changed if Obama had pushed through every measure that was requested.

    This is taking magical thinking to extreme levels, and seems to be designed for the sole purpose of absolving Obama - and the Democratic Congress - from any responsibility for where we are.  There were - and still are - so many things that could have been done differently and better, that would have put people back to work, helped them stay in their homes and be able to afford basics like actual health care.  There's a symbiosis in good policy that we haven't seen because we didn't get good policy.

    Maybe you want to accept that where we are is the best we could have expected, but many of us are not.  Good policy that helped lift the economy, more people in the workforce contributing to Social Security, would have gone a long way to taking all the steam out of "fixing" programs that never needed fixing to begin with.

    Unemployment would still be in the 8-9% range according to the numbers I've seen and repealing the Bush tax cuts, for example, wouldn't have resulted in any real impact until well after the next election cycle (while during that period, the increase in taxes on the rich was likely to be neutral or slightly negative).

    This is fairy-tale stuff, ABG, and almost not even worth responding to.

    Bottom line:  I don't think either the conservative or progressive policies would have an impact on the economy big enough to move the political needle before the next election.  The recession was too deep and unique in its characteristics. This is obviously a very different point than what's best for the country long term.  I agree whole heartedly that progressive policies are the long term way forward.  But that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking short term politics.

    No, you're talking short-term politics - because all that seems to matter to you is getting Obama re-elected - and I can tell you, from the real people I talk to, from the real suffering I see, and the real stress and worry, that every single person who gets a job he or she didn't have before is a victory - a personal, maybe-I-can-pay-the-bills-now victory that absolutely matters.  That you dismiss even a 1% drop in the nominal unemployment level is, frankly, offensive - but it seems to mirror the attitude in Washington these days that all that matters is the personal political fortunes of our elected representatives.

    If we look at other countries that have taken the measures that progressives would like us to take, their recoveries are moving no faster than our own.

    The reality is likely that the government simply could not have done much to fix the basic problem, which is that we have too many houses that we paid too much money for that are worth substantially less than they were just 5 years ago.

    The only fix for that fundamental problem (without accelerating/creating another bubble to some degree) is time.

    I know "there is no real fix" is not a pleasing answer for both conservatives and liberals, but it could easily be the correct one.  

    And what do you take from those countries that embarked on austerity programs that seem to be on the agenda for this country?  See much reason for hope there?  You shouldn't, but rather than face the reality that's coming as a direct result of the Dems' failure to enact better policy, you want to just point to some other country and say, "see, it didn't make any difference there, so it wouldn't have worked here, either."

    And there was PLENTY the government had the power and ability to do - but it was and is being led by someone who doesn't seem to appreciate or understand that the US budget is not like yours or mine.  And I guess you don't understand that either.

    My current thinking is that the economy will look noticeably better in 2011-2012 than it does now through neither the work of dems or progressives, but through homes around america buckling down, figuring out their finances and moving forward after the shock of the past few years.  And that is regardless of where we end up on questions of taxes and spending cuts.

    Oh, goody - as if people haven't already buckled down, right?  We need more "sacrifice" by people who already have nothing to spare.  More "tough choices" ahead for people who have been patching a life that's already been shredded to bits.

    Could you be any more condescending to average people?  There is so much about this part of your comment that just makes me want to spit with anger.

    The key will be who takes credit for the sliver of good news.  I think you underestimate Obama's ability to do that.

    Oh, we've all seen how skilled Obama is at taking credit for things he had nothing to do with - as long as they're good things; and with people like you working diligently to make sure he never has to take responsibility for the bad, he's golden.

    What a load of crap.


    Parent

    LOL!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by sj on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:41:10 PM EST
    The key will be who takes credit for the sliver of good news.  I think you underestimate Obama's ability to do that.

    Anyone paying attenion knows that Obama has a demonstrated ability to take credit -- whether or not he's earned it.  

    But that's only key to your goals (Obama's reelection), not mine (the Public Good).

    Parent

    Heh, heh ... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 04:27:09 PM EST
    The key will be who takes credit for the sliver of good news.  I think you underestimate Obama's ability to do that.

    Did you really just argue that Obama's critics underestimate his ability to take credit for things for which he has no responsibility?!?

    Heh, heh ... if there's one thing Obama's good at ...

    Parent

    Dionne (none / 0) (#11)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:24:05 AM EST
    also makes the point that is blown off by many of Obama's critics:

    "And, yes, there is the small issue of Obama's real achievements, the health care law above all. If insuring 32 million more Americans is not an enormous social reform, then nothing can be said to count as change. The now well-rehearsed list of additional accomplishments -- from Wall Street and student loan reform to the end of "don't ask, don't tell" to the simple fact that the economy's catastrophic slide was halted and reversed -- would, in the abstract, do any administration proud."

    I believe that the real disconnect comes, not from Obama's hatred of the left (I believe very deeply that he is a lefty) but from his frustration that he's accomplished two of the largest progressive agenda items in his first two years and his critics give him no credit for it.

    How do you respond to that?  If the left and the right are going to give credit for nothing, why listen to them?  You have people seriously arguing that healthcare reform was a conservative piece of legislation that will do nothing to help people.

    You can have rational discussions with people like that any more than you can have rational discussions with those still talking about the man's birth certificate.

    It's not about reality at some point.  There is no connection to the facts.

    Some people (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:26:06 AM EST
    do not agree with your, Dionne and Obama's assessment regarding those policies.

    I'm not sure why you find that objectionable.

    As for Obama being a lefty, he's no more lefty than I am,, and possibly less, and I am no lefty.

    Parent

    I have no problem with the disagreement (none / 0) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    I welcome it.  I have a problem with the suggested political tactics and posture.  

    Conservatives HATED a lot of what W did. But they handled it in a way that allowed them to remain unified. The parallel here is when Bush lost the battle on SS reform and his efforts to privatize.  That was a huge blow to conservative doctrine, and many wanted him to fight to the end on the issue.  
    But when it was clear he had lost, the right moved on.  They saw the realities, understood the limitations of the moment and rallied behind him to fight the greater enemy.  And it worked.  Bush survived to pass and oversee all manner of nastiness that conservatives loved.

    It's a lesson we would do well to learn.

    As for Obama being a lefty, I think he is a liberal, which means, fundamentally, that he's lying about a lot of stuff (his views on gay marriage, etc.).  I concede that he is a good politician and that all good politicians lie (which is never a good thing to admit about you man). But he is a pragmatist first.  That trumps his ideology.  Saying that Obama is not a liberal argues that if he had absolute power, we wouldn't have the public option, or repeal of the Bush tax cuts, etc.

    I simply don't believe that to be true.  His history and writings suggest otherwise. We'll never know who is right though obviously.


    Parent

    Strange (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:08:10 PM EST
    "Conservatives HATED a lot of what W did. But they handled it in a way that allowed them to remain unified."

    And then they got drubbed in 2006 and 2008, giving Dems a bigger majority than the Republicans EVER had.

    Of course that majority was squandered and now we see the results but I do not see your point at all.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:14:47 PM EST
    They got drubbed because W was the worst president of our lifetime and the wars weren't working out.

    But from a tactical perspective, the way in which the GOP put the SS privatization battle behind them was very effective.

    The probem for them: They were crippled by a POTUS so hated by the masses that he became powerless to make sweeping change after 2005-2006.

    If they had a POTUS with even moderate support, we'd have been in real trouble.  Correction: even more trouble than we are in now.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:26:20 PM EST
    Being unified behind crappy policy is stupid politics.

    That is a point I long made.

    Bush was not hated because of how he did things, he was hated because the things he did sucked.

    Parent

    You keep touting something that has (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:12:28 PM EST
    not and may never actually happen. 32 million more people do not now have health care. In fact, the number of people who are currently uninsured has risen during Obama's term in office from approximately 46 million to 51 million.

    Number of uninsured Americans rises to 50.7 million

    The reasons for the rise to 50.7 million, or 16.7%, from 46.3 million uninsured, or 15.4%, were many: workers losing their jobs in the recession, companies dropping employee health insurance benefits, families going without coverage to cut costs. Driving much of the increase, however, was the rising cost of medical care; a Kaiser Family Foundation report shows workers now pay 47% more than they did in 2005 for family health coverage, while employers pay 20% more.
    ...
    Although the health care law signed by President Obama in March is designed to insure an additional 32 million people in public and private programs, it doesn't fully kick in until 2014. For the next few years, experts say, the problem could get worse. The average cost to insure a family of four is already about $14,000.

    So much for the urgency of now. For many of us reform meant affordable, universal health care now. So legislation for a program at a future date mandating overpriced health insurance products that may not actually provide affordable health care is not viewed as an achievement. It is legislation that may never be funded, does little or nothing to control costs and is not sustainable.  

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 04:51:23 PM EST
    You have people seriously arguing that healthcare reform was a conservative piece of legislation that will do nothing to help people.

    You can have rational discussions with people like that any more than you can have rational discussions with those still talking about the man's birth certificate.

    The Birthers' conspiracy theories are silly fairytales based on nothing.  The critics of Obamacare base their criticism of Obamacare on (among other things): 1)  It is a conservative piece of legislation (it's the Republican plan of '94), 2) Obama violated several campaign promises in pushing this POS, 3) numerous experts in the HCR field have documented the heeee-YOOOOOGE flaws in Obamacare (delayed implementation, failure to control costs, failure to insure funding, failure to set limits on policy costs, etc., etc., etc.).

    Comparing criticism of Obamacare to Birther fairy tales is beyond stupid.

    Parent

    Beyond stupid (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 05:11:10 PM EST
    is exactly right.

    ABG is just a sloganeer. "Health care reform, clear skies, healthy forests!" He doesn't give one whit what's behind the slogan, just so long as the slogan sounds good.

    AGB shows a unambiguous lack of understanding of who wrote the health insurance reform (the insurance lobby) and what it does (increase costs).

    It would be sad if it wasn't so darned infuriating...and if it didn't affect me personally.  

    Parent

    or (none / 0) (#64)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 10:40:49 AM EST
    I just disagree.  Could be that simple.

    Parent
    beatable (none / 0) (#20)
    by souvarine on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    For most of the past two years I figured Obama was politically unbeatable in 2012. I thought HCR was a big enough achievement to protect him from mediocre economic performance.

    But 9%+ unemployment is disastrous, not mediocre. Obama has shown no sign that he is aware of how disastrous high unemployment is politically, and he persists in proposing and implementing (HAMP, Stress test) policies that will only prolong the disaster.

    Now I think Obama is beatable. The hope that the Republicans will nominate an idiot shows how far Obama's fortunes have fallen.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:32:04 PM EST
    That seems to be team Obama's hope: that the GOP will nominate someone so vile that he'll get a second term. Whoopee! I'm supposed to get excited about voting against Sarah Palin or something. I wouldn't count on the GOP nominating her and if that's Obama's only hope, then he's really in danger of losing.

    Parent
    To be fair (2.00 / 1) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 01:41:44 PM EST
    I was pretty excited to vote for anyone other than Bush in 2004.  If the candidate is far out enough, Obama could capitalize in sail through.  I thought Kerry was terrible and only came to like him after the election.  I was voting against Bush.

    But my point is that this "vote against the conservative" path won't be necessary:

    Obama is going to look like the grown up in a three way battle between the right and the further left.  As long as the economy is moving in the right direction that's likely all that he needs.

    In the year before the election, the harder he is hit by the left, the more nonsensical the FoxNews storyline of "Commie Obama" becomes. He has no primary and no need to swing hard left.  As maddening as I am sure this sounds to many here, if he takes the path of compromise he showed with The Deal, he will almost certainly win.

    I think BTD also misses a key point about the coming spending battle. Unlike with tax cuts, conservatives will have to look seniors and those getting older directly in the eye and argue that their benefits should be cut.  They had no such showdown in the tax battle because their position was tax cuts for all.

    That's going to anger the AARP crowd and suddenly the playing field will change. The line between "good" and "evil" more clearly drawn.  I think Obama is welcoming that fight to tell you the truth.  

    Parent

    It will be the Democrats in the Senate (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    and Obama who will have to will have to look seniors and those getting older directly in the eye and argue that their benefits should be cut. It will be Obama's Cat Food Commission's recommendations cutting SS benefits that will be implemented by a bipartisan vote in the Senate with Dem leadership like Durbin leading the pack making sure that it gets the votes it needs.

    Parent
    you assume (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    the GOP is going to go after seniors.  They've already publicly stated the two programs they won't touch are medicare and social security.  they know who votes.

    They're gonna go after the same people they always go after, the poor, the sick under 65, cities, and immigrants.

    I still think Obama will win the next election.  That doesn't mean he will win the next battle.

    Parent

    As long as unemployment is improving (none / 0) (#44)
    by souvarine on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:09:50 PM EST
    "As long as the economy is moving in the right direction," that is the caveat that can doom Obama.

    Our economy is growing, but it is not growing fast enough to keep up with our growing population. Unemployment is not moving in the right direction, and even The Deal doesn't do enough to change that. If Obama does not begin shrinking unemployment then he is in real danger of losing to whoever the Republicans nominate in 2012.

    It is probably too late for Obama to take the kinds of action that would change the trajectory of unemployment in the run-up to 2012. So Obama is beatable, no matter how hysterical we think the Republicans are.


    Parent

    Bush 41 (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:55:29 PM EST
    tried that line in 1992. No one wants to hear that things are getting better or "prosperity is just around the corner" when they aren't experiencing it on election day.

    Parent
    And how did voting (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:48:26 PM EST
    against someone turn out? I don't remember a President Kerry but perhaps I have amnesia. You have to give people something to vote FOR.

    Parent
    Will this work for candidate Obama (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:18:27 PM EST
    on the second go-around?  Isn't the reason we were supposed to vote for candidate Obama in 2008 that McCain would bomb and drill and "Don't forget about Roe v. Wade"?

    Parent
    There's (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    really no guarantee it will work again since this time Obama has a record and no one is going to believe his wails about Roe V. Wade after Stupak.

    Parent
    why would it stop working now? (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:35:03 PM EST
    Also, notwithstanding TL readership at the time, I think most people actually voted FOR Obama in 2008, rather than against McCain/Palin.

    And frankly, for all Obama's failings, McCain has gone so far off the deep end to make Obama seem downright reasonable.  He's turned into a really ugly, angry man.

    But in any event, I don't know why the inter-party dynamics would suddenly change in 2012.  I doubt that republicans are gonna all of a sudden start acting like a reasonable alternative.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:54:15 PM EST
    don't underestimate the GOP's ability to put a shiny face on a radical like they did with W.

    If the Dem base continues to be demoralized, Obama continues to hemorrhage women voters and the GOP has an excited base in 2012, anything can happen. Right now I would only give Obama even odds on getting elected and if he continues "Yes we cave" the odds are even less.

    Parent

    Frankly (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    Compared to the current crop of GOP candidates, W is not a radical.

    I agree Obama will have a tougher race than he should.  But I'd give him better than even odds.  Demographics are strongly in his favor, and for all that I hate the policy, I do think there are political points to be won by appearing as the "negotiator".  And I also think we will see more positive movement in the economy next two years.

    Parent

    Demographics (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 03:54:38 PM EST
    only work if those demographics are motivated to vote like they were in Nevada in November.

    And he lost 20% or more of women voters last November a fact that no one seems to notice or even care about so there the demographics are actually working against him unless he can turn it around. So far I'm not seeing it.

    Parent

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 02:58:13 PM EST
    I think most people actually voted FOR Obama in 2008, rather than against McCain/Palin.

    But at that time people were voting for the brand new, bright and shiny, history-less messenger of hope and change.  This is no longer true, which is why it may stop working now.

    I also agree with this.

    I doubt that republicans are gonna all of a sudden start acting like a reasonable alternative.

    They will certainly NOT be alternative for me. But Democrats and Republicans are not my only choices.  While I can't vote for The Rent is Too D@mn High Party in my location, I have lots of other alternatives -- as well as the option of abstaining.  

    I don't claim to speak for any segment of the population.  I have no idea what impact disillusionment will play in the next election cycle. But scolding the base probably isn't the best way to get them to vote for you.

    Someone has 2 years to get me interested in voting for him or her.  So far, I don't see that candidate on the horizon.

    Parent

    Good discussion on this post (none / 0) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:30:34 PM EST
    Lots provided to consider I think. I leave this final post by Drum that came out just moments ago:

    Link

    It restates my macro point on econ policy (and other) decisions I think.

    As BTD indicated above, I think what I laid out above is what Team Obama is really thinking (and I concede that BTD and others disagree with the conclusions) but the pragmatism in response to the conclusions is what's driving Obama's responses I think. Not the fact that he is actually a conservative or moderate masquerading as a liberal.

    I thoguht that was a particularly dumb post (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:36:20 PM EST
    from Drum.

    I may write about it.

    The short version, label are meaningless. Policies matter.

    I do not care if a policy is called conservative or liberal, I care if it works.

    You may not know this, but I call my self the absolute center of the political spectrum. Am I? Who knows or cares.

    Because labels do not matter substnatively though they have a political effect.

    The fact is Obama tried to call himself  postpartisan but he is perceived as a socialist by "conservatives."

    And he would be no matter what.

    Parent