home

Did Obama's Economic Team Stink?

Via Atrios, Felix Salmon asks the unaskable question:

[W]hat if part of the problem is that Obama’s economic team just wasn’t a good team? What if, in fact, it turns out to have been a very bad team?

My answer is that is was in fact a very very bad team. Obviously not as bad as Bush's economic team, but really bad. And the real problem is Obama had a bad economic team during a time that cried out for a great and bold economic team. Obama's Brain Trust was simply a disaster. Imo of course. YMMV.

See also Jason Linkins and Marcy Wheeler.

Speaking for me only

< Obama And Defining The Center | NBC/WSJ Poll: Obama At 53% Approval >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:20:04 AM EST
    Both the Bush & Obama economic teams were incredibly competent & ruthlessly efficient. It must be looked at by what their goal was. They discovered that the middle class in America was simply too successful and had accumulated some wealth. They wanted it, set out to confiscate it, and succeeded to a sadistically efficient degree.

    It just depended on what their goal was. How could anyone say they "stunk?"


    I agree with you and BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:29:40 AM EST
    In terms of efficacy and their goals, both teams seem to have been quite successful.

    In terms of my goals, goals for the American people and this country as a whole, they're both horrible.

    Parent

    Your goals? (none / 0) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:46:11 AM EST
    lol!

    Have another coffee :)

    Parent

    Yeah, I know they are increasingly (none / 0) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:55:34 AM EST
    more and more irrelevant, but I still like to think that they are important. :)

    Parent
    I totally agree with this assessment (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:31:07 AM EST
    Both the Bush & Obama economic teams were incredibly competent & ruthlessly efficient.

    They accomplished their goals. Unfortunately, Obama and his financial team is not done yet. There is still more to steal from the poor and the middle class.

    Parent

    Yes, the goals were to restore, not (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:00:58 AM EST
    reform the banking and financial systems. And they have been pretty good at that.  Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimon of J.P MorganChase were at State Dinner for Chinese President Hu Jinto so these "folks" will now accept invitations to the White House. And, for that we thank them.

    Parent
    Oh how I wish... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:51:28 AM EST
    ...we lived in a world where the Chinese premier would've ripped Blankfein and Dimon a new a-hole in public.

    Sigh.

    Parent

    Why don't you think that (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    the Obama Team isn't as bad as the Bush Team?  I don't have an opinion one way or another at this point, but I'd be interested to hear what you think is different.

    Because (none / 0) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    Because they're Democrats and everyone knows that Democrats are slightly less evil.

    Parent
    No, I suspect that BTD has a (none / 0) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    more sophisticated rationale than that for making the statement.

    More often than not, my take on Democrats going rogue on policy is that it is more harmful on numerous levels than Republicans doing what's expected of them.

    With the Obama Administration taking such a decidedly pro Wall Street and anti Main Street stance, they are creating a level of cynicism that the GOP could never achieve.  Primarily because most normal people do not vote for Republicans to protect the little guy - most people understand that that's what the Democrats bring to the table.  If Democrats abandon that, then people feel betrayed, alienated and angry at them on a level that they would never reach if a Republican Administration or Leadership did the same thing.  And that's not even the part of the story where the members of the party experience an identity crisis as a result of a top leader - especially the President - betraying a core value.  

    But, I would guess that BTD has some specific policies in mind that drive his thinking.  I don't know though.  Hopefully, he'll respond at some point.

    Parent

    Bush's team (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    would have let GM fail, would have let unemployment benefits fail, that "Stimulus" package would've been 100% tax cuts, nothing left for the states (how do I know this - that's pretty much what he did when the economy started crashing, here you go everyone, free money).

    There were some decent things done with the Stimulus that the republicans fought against tooth and nail.  It wasn't enough, but it was more than nothing.

    Parent

    Well, the GOP stated quite (none / 0) (#20)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 01:17:08 PM EST
    clearly from the start that they were going to do everything in their power to be contrarians in order to derail the Obama Presidency, so, I think that it is difficult to say one way or another what they would have done had they been the ones in complete control of a stimulus building process.

    The Bushies made quite an effort to keep Americans basically fat and happy during their tenure.  That was because they calculated correctly that economic woes would likely derail their wars and other projects they wanted to pursue.

    The fact that the market could not withstand the weight of debt and craziness that they helped to create, is another matter - and was a poor economic calculation on their part - but I still think that they were quite smart about sending out checks, pushing credit, and keeping people occupied shopping at malls as a means to distracting the public from their destruction - politically-speaking, of course.

    OTOH, the Obama Team has made no such efforts to placate the masses and they are starting to pay for it.

    Parent

    The team stunk for us, but I think (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    for the interests they really represent, they did a fine job - and considering who Obama is staffing his new team with, I see no indication that we shouldn't expect more of the same; the faces have changed, but the policy, ideology and agenda have not.

    Obama's former economic team, and his current one, represent who Obama is, what he believes and what he thinks we need to be doing.

    How is that not obvious by now?

    Felix Salmon had to ask (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:29:26 AM EST
    Where the hell do we get these people?

    That this was an awful group was abundantly clear by February '09 and the suspicion that they weren't what was needed came before the inauguration.

    But it's really all Obama.  He approved of the whole sorry lot.  It's his ideology and the latest two high profile appointments are more proof.  

    The Chamber of Commerce had an orgasm when the sainted one appointed Daley and Sperling.  Meet the new boss same as the old boss.


    If the economy's going to be (none / 0) (#1)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    sh*tty up til 2012, I see doing something about foreclosures as the big political win for Obama.  It just seems like a win win to me.  I don't get why they don't act like the people's champion on this.

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    that hurts the profits of big campaign donors?   I predict some tax breaks coming for oil companies too. (Especially when one is predicted to spend $1 billion to get re-elected).

    Parent
    They'll "do something" allright.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:35:39 AM EST
    speed up the foreclosure process...proper paperwork optional, due process be damned....just make it all go away in time for the next cocktail party.

    I prefer the Michael Hines doing something to the Obama/Geithner version...in a country where one must break the law to live free, I guess it makes sense that you now have to break the law to get some due process.

    Parent

    All he has to do (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:43:37 AM EST
    is show many, many, televised speeches with crowds of adoring fans clapping and cheering, and people will vote for him.  The boost in his popularity (for no policy reason) after the Giffords speech shows this.

    Parent
    The real question (none / 0) (#15)
    by robotalk on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:06:36 AM EST
    is why and was it "bad" by design?

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:21:45 AM EST
    they stunk in the primaries too. A good look at his economic team even back then told you what was coming down the pike---lots and lots of voodoo.

    I don't think we can make a fair (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 05:20:47 PM EST
    assessment of that at this time, not one that is easily defendable.  I think they stink horrible but I won't be able to really prove that until the end of the year.