Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

Obama deserves a good deal of blame; to deny that is to deny reality. Both sides said a default was not on the table. And yet every single democratic line in the sand was erased as the deals got more and more right wing. Obama put politics ahead of policy as well, with his ridiculous concessions on Medicare and SS cuts. When he didn't get the historic "grand bargain" he folded time and time again to get something done.

They said default was not an option, then they backed out. Then they came back to the table, threw another fit, and backed out. Rinse wash repeat. At one point, amazingly, Boehner and Obama practically had a deal and the Tea Party fucked everything up (and you know damn well they can't be reasoned with by any Democrat, let alone many establishment GOPers I'm sure).

I'm not excusing the pathetic behavior of McConnell and especially Boehner, but Obama's lack of leadership and spine is what led us here today. He has shown time and time again that he is willing to make short term goals that benefit him politically while harming the country in the long term. Analysts are already saying this deal will hurt the recovery. And for what, to appeal to independent voters? This is madness. This is another demoralizing defeat for not only democrats, but the middle class. For all Obama's talk of shared sacrifice, it's the middle class who will take the brunt of this attack.

Raising the debt ceiling shouldn't even have to be such a chaotic process. This is not a highlight of on how spineless the Preisdent apparently is, rather, a highlight of our spineless and morally/ethicaly flawed CONGRESS. Get your head out of the sand. Analyists may have said that the deal will hurt the recovery, but no deal would have been worse, and using the 14th still would have caused markets to completely lose confidence in our elected officials to take control of what is a chaotic situation for the global market. THOSE ARE OUR OPTIONS. Bill Clinton didn't talk about using the 14th for nothing, you know. It's as good of an indication as anything else that Congress, not the President, were handling this problem poorly and that Obama should have the 14th in the back of his mind depending on what the outcome is. But it's really telling how Bill Clinton, the guy everyone thinks would have handled this better, much earlier in this process basically threw up his hands and said "fuck it, I'd have just defied Congress and the courts". It clearly proves he has less confidence in Congress than anything else at play here. These people CANNOT be reasoned with but using the 14th still would have had serious implications beyond the threat of impeachment.

This is a weak, naive president who cannot live with the fact that no matter what he says or does, a significant group of people will hate him. With each lurch to the right he expects some type of credit, and yet the right continues to paint him as a far left dictator. The GOP will run ads labeling him a tax and spend liberal, despite not spending much or raising taxes. I'm no psychologist, but it seems like this is a guy who was rejected by his father and has spent the rest of his life attempting to be accepted by others, regardless of what they think of him. That might work at Harvard but it has not worked in Washington. And yet he continues this destructive mating dance.

A weak, naive President who saved this economy from completely collapsing as soon as he walked in the door. A President who kept the auto industry afloat. A President who finally was able to pass health care reform legislation despite how much it had been gutted in the eyes of many progressives like you and I (it still does a lot of good). A President who passed financial regulation reform. A President who imposed some new rules on credit card companies to keep them from getting out of control with rates on consumers. A President who created more private sector jobs in 2010 than Bush's eight years in office. A President who will finally bring a responsible end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A President who ratified the START treaty. A President who tracked down and killed bin Laden and put Al-Qaeda in an even rougher spot. I could go on. He did all this in the face of the most partisan Congress that Washington has seen in modern times. That is truly amazing and I am proud to say he's my President.

You are full of shit if you think he's a weakling. He's done more in three years than most Presidents have in eight. The economic realities make it easier to get fed up with him but as I've been saying, the political and economic realities we face today are unprecedented. We've really faced nothing like this before. At least, certainly not this badly and not all at once. It's amazing he's been able to get anything done when you put it all in perspective.

He's a President who's trying desperately to allow this democracy to operate in the way it was intended rather than resorting to the hyper-partisan alternative. I applaud him for trying. The other route will prove to be destructive, you'll see once the GOP gets back in be it in 2012 or 2016. If we can't figure out bipartisanship this country is in big, big trouble -- and as I said this whole ordeal has left me absolutely terrified as it demonstrates how much Democrats and Republicans not only disagree with each other, but basically hate each other with a passion.

I think your psychological analysis of him is rather silly. He was elected largely in part because people WANTED him to find common ground during a time where no one can agree on anything. That was the difference between him and Hillary who was more of the status quo. He's trying the best he possibly can to deliver on that promise.

He may have compromised a bit too much pre-midterms (Stimulus and HCR were gutted in some areas, sure, but all in all were for the best). That said, the GOP is growing all the more on the verge of complete insanity because of the Tea Party, and even pre-midterms an outright disgust for anything this President attempts to do because they could not come to terms with the fact that the country outright rejected their social and economic policies in 2008. They are people who not only refuse to compromise, but will do anything and everything to ensure there is not other any other alternative but to try anyway.

McConnell mastered the art of the filibuster and how to use it to kill legislation and appointments alike. It forces such desperate tactics. Obama can do nothing to change the rules of the Senate and that is a big reason why he comes off as looking like such a wimp; it forces the approach of either do nothing and look like you don't care about the country, or cave into what the opposition demands because they have succeeded in completely manipulating the rules of Congressional procedure to get their way. And now with the Teatards in the House, it makes logic and reason in getting even the least significant things done a rare commodity. This is all completely out of the President's control.

I'll be voting next year, but that's all the support I'll be giving Obama. I'm baffled that someone who inspired so many people could be such a disappointment, and piss away the potential/opportunities he once had. Carville was ultimately right: he's simply not tough enough to be president.

It doesn't matter if you are "tough" or not. The GOP has time and time again pushed the limits of what is possible while being in minority status for the mere sake of obstruction. It's a completely different world, this is not the 90's. Clinton said himself more than once that it's much easier for him to get credit for being such an amazing leader or whatever label you wanna stamp on him in the 90's because the circumstances were completely different for him. This country totally crashed and burned and Obama just happened to be the next guy to walk into office.

As for people being disappointed, a great deal of them are likely people our age who have no idea about what goes on after someone becomes President. People had such ridiculously high (and totally unrealistic) expectations of Obama that it made me want to cringe.

By the way, that "hyper-partisan" alternative I spoke of is now reality in Congress. It will likely be the approach taken by the 45th President as well. This country is falling apart at the seams.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I want to see Obama win in 2012, but what on earth is he going to run on? What possible campaign can he run that will re-inspire his base and not scare away right-leaning moderates?

I guess he can hope for the Democratic machine to try to label his opponent as a crazed Tea Party supporter, which has enough negative connotations to scare some moderates away. But I don't think you can hang something like that on Romney. It would be a waste of time/energy.

"It could have been worse"

That's basically his talking point for everything. The economy is horrible, but it could have been a lot worse without the stimulus. The financial sector is still out of control, but it could be a lot worse. Healthcare hasn't been addressed as well as it could be, and could be a lot worse. We're still in Iraq/Afghanistan, but it could have been a lot worse. Our infrastructure is crumbling, but it could have been a lot worse. The mortgage crisis is still a problem, but it could have been a lot worse.

Seriously, what can he possibly hang his hat on outside of killing Bin Laden and the auto bailout? Something a regular person can say "you know what, things are better in that area.."?

 

[Piecake]

"It could have been worse"

That's basically his talking point for everything. The economy is horrible, but it could have been a lot worse without the stimulus. The financial sector is still out of control, but it could be a lot worse. Healthcare hasn't been addressed as well as it could be, and could be a lot worse. We're still in Iraq/Afghanistan, but it could have been a lot worse. Our infrastructure is crumbling, but it could have been a lot worse. The mortgage crisis is still a problem, but it could have been a lot worse.

Seriously, what can he possibly hang his hat on outside of killing Bin Laden and the auto bailout? Something a regular person can say "you know what, things are better in that area.."?

things are better? You expected things to get better this quickly after that 2008 economic debacle?

 

[Diablos]

Every credible economist basically said it would take at least five years for us to get out of this shithole.

 

[Jackson50]

What difference is there be between Obama and a divided government and Romney and a divided government? We'll get left leaning legislation regardless. I'll vote for Obama, but at this point I honestly don't care about the outcome. Romney can't kill the healthcare bill without the senate. We'll get lower taxes and more defense spending.

Obviously, their respective agendas. And the differences in their policy preferences. And what of the possibility, however unlikely, of unified government?

To be fair, the situation we find ourselves in is somewhat unprecedented in modern politics. You have a continued depressed economy that began during the term of the previous president, a sharply divided government on ideological lines, and the only clear way out of the economic morass a policy response rejected by controlling elements of both parties as well as a majority of the public. People may have seen what Obama offered and not liked it, but so far it looks like they don't like what the Republicans are offering either - possibly less than what the Democrats are offering. Neither party has an easy sell with public. With the debt deal, all the "low hanging" fruit in terms of cuts are gone, leaving only popular social programs left. In addition, now the policy of cutting the deficit in order to revive the economy has, in terms of propaganda, just as much ownership over economic performance going forward as, for example, using deficit spending to stimulate the economy. With the economy likely slipping into recession during the next two quarters, how much more traction will further cuts have with the public, especially a year after they failed to revive the economy?

That isn't to say that President Obama has an easy sell either. He basically failed at what the voters regarded as his number one job - reviving the economy following the 2007 - 2009 recession and the financial crisis. He needs to explain why the economy continues to be bad, and in doing so draw a meaningful distinction between himself and the Republicans. I don't see how he can avoid doing so, considering the alternative would be running a "stay the course" campaign, which would look absurd considering the economic conditions that will likely exist during the campaign. His biggest challenge will be coming up with an argument to get, not the hardcore progressives or liberals that will vote for him anyway, but the youth, minority, and other disillusioned voters who came out to vote for him in 2008 but did not come out again in 2010 - as well as the "independents" who went over the Republicans but who found themselves at odds with that party over issues like cuts to social programs. In a way, congressional democrats have an easier campaign to wage. All they need to do is pose as defenders of popular programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The big danger to them is that Obama becomes massively unpopular and drags down the ticket.

Finally, I'm not sure what makes you so sure that the Republicans will nominate a "competent" candidate especially considering, no matter how competent they may be, they will be forced to appeal to a base whose policy preferences are out of step with the majority of voters. All of the Republican candidates look like they have flaws.

Somewhat unprecedented. Barely, even. And inconsequential. Irrespective of the apparent unique elements of each presidential election, voting behavior is strikingly predictable. This election will not prove an exception. The state of the economy is inordinately influential in determining the outcomes of presidential elections. It is called retrospective voting. Voters either punish or reward the incumbent. They may not entirely agree with the GOP, but they will be dissatisfied with Obama. And while voters may still blame Bush, they will blame Obama next November. They will punish or reward Obama. Moreover, while the GOP may have ownership, the public holds the president responsible. It is an inescapable facet of the presidency.

Now, what you stated is not irrelevant. Campaigns are important, but they usually only matter on the margins. And if the economy remains anemic, even a good campaign will prove inadequate. That is why economic growth is integral to his electoral prospects. And that is why his campaign would have to be unprecedentedly brilliant to overcome the situation you described.

I did not state “competent.” What I meant by a terrible candidate is an ideological extremist. And I am confident they will nominate a passable candidate for a couple reasons. First, the establishment desires to defeat Obama. They will quash a candidate that would diminish their prospects; the shadow primary is as important as the actual primary. Moreover, the worst candidates are not viable primary candidates. For various reasons, people do not nominate House members and candidates that have never held elected office. That dwindles the prospective nominees to a few candidates that would not alienate many moderates-especially if it were Romney.

 

[Incognito]

been following the outlines of the deal via twitter as i watch sunday night teevee (hey, priorities...) but does anyone have some good links that really summarize the deal? i'm almost afraid to hit up naked capitalism for fear of rage.

 

[Piecake]

been following the outlines of the deal via twitter as i watch sunday night teevee (hey, priorities...) but does anyone have some good links that really summarize the deal? i'm almost afraid to hit up naked capitalism for fear of rage.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

 

[Diablos]

I have to take a break but, ToxicAdam -- if Obama were to lose to anyone and I had to choose, I'd pick Mitt Romney.

The problem is he'd more than likely have to go the McCain route (i.e. sell his soul to the far-right players of his party) in order to get the nomination. He wouldn't be Massachusetts Romney. If he could govern the way he did in MA, that would be fantastic. That would never happen though.

If politics today could just be like they were in the 80's and early 90's I probably wouldn't care who wins next year. Sigh.

 

[Wall]

I'm not terrified to be an American. Frankly, I think that's sort of an idiotic sentiment. We're not being attacked on our soil. The unemployment rate is actually lower than in was in the early 80's. (And nowhere near as bad as some of our European counterparts have had it.) The government isn't -- so far as I know -- selling arms to our avowed enemies. The President isn't using the FBI as his personal bugging army. We have two wars going, but they're both clearly winding down.

Small quibble, but although the peak unemployment of the early eighties was higher than now, in terms of duration and the number of discouraged and underemployed workers, the present economy is much worse. The reason lies in the fact that, despite the similarity of high unemployment, economic conditions are different now than then. The early eighties recessions were caused by the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates in order to break the back of the inflation that had been plaguing the economy during the 70's. Once inflation was under control, the federal reserve quickly began to cut interest rates in order to stimulate the economy. The federal government also engaged in a kind of stimulus spending in the form of a massive arms buildup and tax cuts for upper income earners. Those measures allowed Ronald Reagan to credibly claim a "Morning in America" for the 1984 Presidential election since despite the fact that unemployment was still somewhat elevated, the economy was clearly growing and unemployment was decreasing, so voters felt as if things were getting better.

Those same conditions are not present today. The Federal Reserve no longer has the ability to stimulate the economy, since interest rates are already at zero, and we have abandoned fiscal policy as a tool to enhance growth rates and lower unemployment. Further, unemployment has been at an elevated level for much longer, and currently there is no end in sight. I also should mention that the 70's, despite the fact that are generally remembered as a "bad" decade, were still, in many ways, better than the 00's and better than what we are now experiencing. The economy actually grew more overall during that time, consumer debt levels were lower, and job creation was better. That is not to say that we did not experience problems during the 70's, but things were actually better then in many ways than they were in the 00's and are now.

Still, I agree with your larger point. What we are experiencing right now is a failure of our economic and political system. In terms of real wealth, our physical assets and our ability to produce new goods and services, we are much wealthier now than we ever have been. That is what makes the current discourse around economic policy so absurd. We are all running around worrying not being able to afford various things, when in reality it is continued failure of our economic policy that is causing the problem, not some underlying destruction of our real wealth. In order to change that people need to simply get out and vote. Whatever opinions people might have about he leadership failings of President Obama, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if the Republicans hadn't re-taken the House in 2010. Withdrawing from the political process entirely, or refusing to vote for President Obama and Democrats because of capitulations to Republicans, would be counterproductive to a person angry that Democrats compromise too much, since it would essentially guarantee that policies even more objectionable to that person would be enacted by Republicans. People simply need to vote in all elections, not just Presidential elections, and if they are unhappy with the representation of the political party of their choice, become active in the primaries of that party as well. That is how the Tea Party was able to successfully change the direction of policy in this country. Hopefully it is a temporary change.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sorry Diablos, blaming congress doesn't pass the smell test. Obama has been attempting to turn this debate into a "historic" political victory for himself since the beginning. He had options to halt this nonsense yet took them off the table. After every negotiating ploy was used, Obama should have raised the debt limit himself. Krugman doesn't believe the market would go crazy and neither do I. TBH markets should be more worried that a minority in the house can successfully blackmail the global economy.

Romney with divided government would barely be different than Obama with divided government.

 

[Jackson50]

Sorry Diablos, blaming congress doesn't pass the smell test. Obama has been attempting to turn this debate into a "historic" political victory for himself since the beginning. He had options to halt this nonsense yet took them off the table. After every negotiating ploy was used, Obama should have raised the debt limit himself. Krugman doesn't believe the market would go crazy and neither do I. TBH markets should be more worried that a minority in the house can successfully blackmail the global economy.

Romney with divided government would barely be different than Obama with divided government.

Talk about not passing the smell test.

 

[SlipperySlope]

Sorry Diablos, blaming congress doesn't pass the smell test. Obama has been attempting to turn this debate into a "historic" political victory for himself since the beginning. He had options to halt this nonsense yet took them off the table. After every negotiating ploy was used, Obama should have raised the debt limit himself. Krugman doesn't believe the market would go crazy and neither do I. TBH markets should be more worried that a minority in the house can successfully blackmail the global economy.

Romney with divided government would barely be different than Obama with divided government.

Depends. Reagan did well with divided government.

 

[Piecake]

I have to take a break but, ToxicAdam -- if Obama were to lose to anyone and I had to choose, I'd pick Mitt Romney.

The problem is he'd more than likely have to go the McCain route (i.e. sell his soul to the far-right players of his party) in order to get the nomination. He wouldn't be Massachusetts Romney. If he could govern the way he did in MA, that would be fantastic. That would never happen though.

If politics today could just be like they were in the 80's and early 90's I probably wouldn't care who wins next year. Sigh.

Who else is there? No one but Mitt Romney is electable

 

[ToxicAdam]

Who else is there? No one but Mitt Romney is electable

They panicky subset of Poligaf believe that Perry is the eventual front-runner and Bachman has a legitimate chance.


Unrelated: NASCAR prayer

 

[besada]

Small quibble...

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, and I did point out that there are different ways for time periods to be terrible. For example, we had disco in the seventies. And gas lines. Having experienced both expensive gas and rationed gas, I know which one I'd choose. It's always a mug's game to say, "this decade is the worst" or "this time period is the worst.". The 80's were better financially on the fundamentals, although it seems like it would be hard to say how bad the untracked unemployment of the time was, largely because it was untracked. I'd love to see data if you have it. I don't really doubt it, just curious. I started work during that period, so I'm acutely aware of how terrible it is to be young and looking at a wrecked job market.

In my experience, all political changes are temporary. I lived through the Contract with America, and we all thought the country would be wrecked. Of course, that particular Congress shot itself thoroughly in the foot over an event that couldn't have been predicted. And if you'd told us in '85 that just ten years later there'd be this thing called the Internet, and that it would lead us into an era of prosperity, we'd have laughed at you. In the same vein, I was working IT in the 90’s when no one believed the Internet bubble would ever burst. But of course, it did.

I guess I was less trying to make a rigorous argument regarding economics than I was trying to point out that we're phenomenally shitty at guessing what the future will bring. Given that, it seems ridiculous to me to assume that it will only bring terrible events. A lot of that is living through many terrible events that were supposedly going to wreck the country forever and living through some surges that we all thought were permanent positive factors. He'll, just ten years ago, everyone in the country was acting as if increasing values in real estate were a law of the universe.

At a human level, all we can do is to attempt to elect reasonable politicians, and work with like minded individuals to change the problems we see. I think it's counter-productive to assume that what's happening now is what's going to happen in the future. It encourages people to either give up -- if things are bad, or to act as if there were no risks -- when things are good. We have to accept that we can't know what the future holds. And we can't, because that future depends largely on what we're doing now. And if what we're doing is wailing and gnashing our teeth, rather than acting, we simply guarantee that the many problems we have will be solved by people with visions that may be anathema to us.

I'm a single generation away from people who grew up dirt poor on a farm. In my lifetime, I've seen any number of "impossible" things happen. I just don't want to see a generation of young people choke on their anger and cynicism because they can't see a way out. The only constant is change, and that includes political, societal, and technological change, and we rarely see any of them coming. If you could hop in a time machine now, and pop back to 1985, no one would believe you if you told them that there were gays in the military, and they were allowed to marry in some states. Hell, Gaborn and I were discussing gay marriage just a couple of years ago and he was talking in terms of a decade to see the sorts of changes we're seeing now.

Life seems to me to be more punctuated equilibrium than steady change. One day blacks can't drink from the same fountains as whites, and then a little more than a generation later a black man is President. The world can be full of awful surprises, but people sometimes forget it can be full of wonderful surprises, too.

 

[Piecake]

They panicky subset of Poligaf believe that Perry is the eventual front-runner and Bachman has a legitimate chance.


Unrelated: NASCAR prayer

Bachman? You got to be kidding me. Well, who knows, she might actually win the nomination, but if she does, we can all celebrate the certain democratic victory since there is no way in hell that she is getting elected.

Perry, well, who knows. I guess he has a shot to get nominated and a shot to get elected

 

[Wall]

Obviously, their respective agendas. And the differences in their policy preferences. And what of the possibility, however unlikely, of unified government?Somewhat unprecedented. Barely, even. And inconsequential. Irrespective of the apparent unique elements of each presidential election, voting behavior is strikingly predictable. This election will not prove an exception. The state of the economy is inordinately influential in determining the outcomes of presidential elections. It is called retrospective voting. Voters either punish or reward the incumbent. They may not entirely agree with the GOP, but they will be dissatisfied with Obama. And while voters may still blame Bush, they will blame Obama next November. They will punish or reward Obama. Moreover, while the GOP may have ownership, the public holds the president responsible. It is an inescapable facet of the presidency.

Now, what you stated is not irrelevant. Campaigns are important, but they usually only matter on the margins. And if the economy remains anemic, even a good campaign will prove inadequate. That is why economic growth is integral to his electoral prospects. And that is why his campaign would have to be unprecedentedly brilliant to overcome the situation you described.

I did not state “competent.” What I meant by a terrible candidate is an ideological extremist. And I am confident they will nominate a passable candidate for a couple reasons. First, the establishment desires to defeat Obama. They will quash a candidate that would diminish their prospects; the shadow primary is as important as the actual primary. Moreover, the worst candidates are not viable primary candidates. For various reasons, people do not nominate House members and candidates that have never held elected office. That dwindles the prospective nominees to a few candidates that would not alienate many moderates-especially if it were Romney.

I am well aware of the theories arising from political science upon which you base your views. If they are correct, President Obama is indeed in a heap of trouble. That being said, those theories are really only based on a sample set stretching back to, at the very earliest, the post civil war era, if even that. Realistically, they really only look at presidential campaigns dating from the post WW2 era due to the available data. It is a small sample size.

I also take issue with your contention that the economic and political conditions we are facing now are not especially unusual, especially when confined to the post war era. For one thing, the parties are now much more polarized than they ever have been. For example, there was a time when the Republican party could credibly claim to be a "big tent" party, home to a diverse set of political views. That claim no longer is credibly sustainable. To a large degree the converse is true of Democrats as well. Both parties are somewhat "branded". The fact that political parties in the U.S. are beginning to behave more like political parties in parliamentary systems, with an ideological focus, rather than the regional and ethnic coalitions that they traditionally represented, is not a development that has gone unnoticed.

That "clash of brands" is already being foretold by observers to represent an ideological clash over the size and role of the federal government. If President Obama can credibly establish himself as a protector of social programs dear to the majority of voters, he will gain an important weapon as a means of differentiating himself from the Republicans and putting himself in line with the preferences of a large slice of the population. If he can further establish himself, as he did during the debt ceiling fight, as the "adult" in the room in the face of Republican extremism, he will reap further gains with voters.

As for the Republican candidates, no matter how "moderate" they try to present themselves, they will still be prisoners of the branding of their party. Someone like Mitt Romney, if they can get out of the primary, will face a constant tension between representing the will of their base and trying to appeal to other voters. That is especially true of someone like Romney, who will have to explain how he differs from the President despite the fact that their policies records are largely similar (see nearly identical health care bills). For an example of how difficult this balancing act can be, you only have to look at the example of John Kerry, who faced a similar dilemma as a Democrat. There also is the not so small problem that a Republican candidate will have trouble making credible claims that any policies they will propose to create jobs or stimulate the economy will represent anything different from what is already being tried since by the time of the election the cuts resulting from the debt ceiling deal will already have been signed into law. As a result, the Republicans will be unable to produce a Reagan, who came into office with what was at the time a somewhat fresh approach to governing, and I don't see anyone with the rhetorical and political skills of Bill Clinton among the current crop of Republican candidates. Or even in the entire party.

That doesn't mean that I'm completely ignoring the evidence you've presented, or that I don't think that President Obama doesn't face an uphill battle to get re-elected. I just don't think that the entire affair is as obviously bleak for him as you apparently do.

 

[speculawyer]

Small quibble, but although the peak unemployment of the early eighties was higher than now, in terms of duration and the number of discouraged and underemployed workers, the present economy is much worse. The reason lies in the fact that, despite the similarity of high unemployment, economic conditions are different now than then. The early eighties recessions were caused by the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates in order to break the back of the inflation that had been plaguing the economy during the 70's. Once inflation was under control, the federal reserve quickly began to cut interest rates in order to stimulate the economy.

That was part of the story. But oil also played a HUGE part. In 1973 there was a Yom Kippur war that caused the Arabs to embargo oil. Then in 1979, Iran went through a revolution and they were the 2nd biggest oil producer in that region. High oil prices just killed the economy. But around 1983, the oil prices came back down and that caused the economy to roar.

No such luck this time. We have high oil prices and Obama will be very very lucky if they are this low a year from now. In the 1980s, Alaska and the North sea oil gave the world economy a nice boost. Nothing like that now . . . now we wash Canadian dirt to get specs of oil off it. Even the kings of cheap oil Saudi Arabia is stooping to boiling massive amounts of water to try to coax heavy oil out of the ground.

 

[speculawyer]

Depends. Reagan did well with divided government.

Reagan deal with normal people instead of crazy nuts that threaten to drive the country into the ditch and don't make their child support payments.

 

[Diablos]

Sorry Diablos, blaming congress doesn't pass the smell test. Obama has been attempting to turn this debate into a "historic" political victory for himself since the beginning. He had options to halt this nonsense yet took them off the table. After every negotiating ploy was used, Obama should have raised the debt limit himself. Krugman doesn't believe the market would go crazy and neither do I. TBH markets should be more worried that a minority in the house can successfully blackmail the global economy.

Romney with divided government would barely be different than Obama with divided government.

Bullshit. He had a deal with Boehner. The Tea Party took this to the next level.

Romney would not be working with divided government. He would be working with a GOP House and Senate assuming he wins. Also, the GOP nom is clearly going to be between Perry and Romney. I think Perry has the best shot now. He's from the South (Texas, of course, which is basically the epicenter of conservatism) and considering how well his state is doing financially, he has a lot to brag about.

 

[Evlar]

That was part of the story. But oil also played a HUGE part. In 1973 there was a Yom Kippur war that caused the Arabs to embargo oil. Then in 1979, Iran went through a revolution and they were the 2nd biggest oil producer in that region. High oil prices just killed the economy. But around 1983, the oil prices came back down and that caused the economy to roar.

No such luck this time. We have high oil prices and Obama will be very very lucky if they are this low a year from now. In the 1980s, Alaska and the North sea oil gave the world economy a nice boost. Nothing like that now . . . now we wash Canadian dirt to get specs of oil off it. Even the kings of cheap oil Saudi Arabia is stooping to boiling massive amounts of water to try to coax heavy oil out of the ground.

What's worse, as your post hints but does not explicate, is that there may now be a perverse relationship between worldwide economic growth and the price of oil. That is, whenever worldwide production of goods increases the price of oil also increases, and the question is whether that dynamic necessarily dampens growth to such an extent that we cannot achieve the prosperity we think of as "normal".

 

[speculawyer]

Well . . . the GOP now owns this economy. Since the Bush tax cuts did not expire and now this, the GOP has exercised FAR more control over legislation affecting the economy. So when it sucks in 2012, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Of course they will deny it and blame everything on the black guy.

 

[speculawyer]

What's worse, as your post hints but does not explicate, is that there may now be a perverse relationship between worldwide economic growth and the price of oil. That is, whenever worldwide production of goods increases the price of oil also increases, and the question is whether that dynamic necessarily dampens growth to such an extent that we cannot achieve the prosperity we think of as "normal".

I don't think there is any question about it at all. Those are just the facts of life.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Well . . . the GOP now owns this economy. Since the Bush tax cuts did not expire and now this, the GOP has exercised FAR more control over legislation affecting the economy. So when it sucks in 2012, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Of course they will deny it and blame everything on the black guy.

Wow. Can you be anymore passive-aggressive? Then fall back on the racism card to boot. How cliche.

Obama and the Democrats had a chance to let the tax cuts expire and punted.

Since when does the actions of the House dictate our GDP? That's a miraculous claim you are making there.

 

[Diablos]

Fellow Americans,

Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.

Some problems are beyond our power to solve, and according to the Book of Joel, Chapter 2, this historic hour demands a historic response. Therefore, on August 6, thousands will gather to pray for a historic breakthrough for our country and a renewed sense of moral purpose.

I sincerely hope you’ll join me in Houston on August 6th and take your place in Reliant Stadium with praying people asking God’s forgiveness, wisdom and provision for our state and nation. There is hope for America. It lies in heaven, and we will find it on our knees.

Rick Perry

Disgusting.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Wow. Can you be anymore passive-aggressive? Then fall back on the racism card to boot. How cliche.

Obama and the Democrats had a chance to let the tax cuts expire and punted.

Since when does the actions of the House dictate our GDP? That's a miraculous claim you are making there.

Because the GOP held food stamps and other unemployment benefits hostage. Just like they're holding the world economy hostage. They are fucking insane.

 

[Incognito]

look at this little gem in this NYTimespiece.

While “there are some Democrats who simply don’t believe in the necessity of deficit reduction,” one administration official said, “most do. I think it’s important as a party to show Americans that we’re serious about deficit reduction.”

how cute. and much sterner sounding when said behind the veil of anonymity! i wonder which adviser this was? plouffe? daley? i'm leaning towards plouffe.

 

[Averon]

They also held the START treaty hostage as well.

 

[Chichikov]

Well . . . the GOP now owns this economy. Since the Bush tax cuts did not expire and now this, the GOP has exercised FAR more control over legislation affecting the economy. So when it sucks in 2012, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Of course they will deny it and blame everything on the black guy.

Please, dude got punked by a traffic cone.
And as I posted before, it's not like you couldn't see it coming.

 

[besada]

If a bunch of people decide to visit Houston in August to pray, they better pray the AC is in top notch form. Houston in August is like hell with added oil smog.

 

[Oblivion]

look at this little gem in this NYTimespiece.



how cute. and much sterner sounding when said behind the veil of anonymity! i wonder which adviser this was? plouffe? daley? i'm leaning towards plouffe.

I thought Plouffe wasn't a nimrod, though?

 

[capslock]

The President Surrenders

Paul Krugman

NYT: July 31

A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong.

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html

 

[speculawyer]

Wow. Can you be anymore passive-aggressive? Then fall back on the racism card to boot. How cliche.

Some cheese for the whine.

Look . . . you have already proven me correct in that the right will deny it . . . you just did.

Obama and the Democrats had a chance to let the tax cuts expire and punted.

Did you already forget why the tax cuts did not expire? Does the word 'filibuster' ring a bell?

Since when does the actions of the House dictate our GDP? That's a miraculous claim you are making there.

My actual claim was "the GOP has exercised FAR more control over legislation affecting the economy" and I stand by it. They got their tax cut extension and they got their slashing. They can't deny that. They'll be touting their victory tomorrow . . . and watch them blame Obama for everything a year from now.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Please, dude got punked by a traffic cone.
And as I posted before, it's not like you couldn't see it coming.

The comments in there are hilarious. They seem to think that Obama was naive and took Boehner at his word. If he did, he would have ended his thoughts there. But he went on to position the Republicans as radicals (bomb-throwers) and make a checklist of all the things that could be at stake. It was clearly a pre-emptive talking point for something he knew could be a possibility.

 

[Wall]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, and I did point out that there are different ways for time periods to be terrible. For example, we had disco in the seventies. And gas lines. Having experienced both expensive gas and rationed gas, I know which one I'd choose. It's always a mug's game to say, "this decade is the worst" or "this time period is the worst.". The 80's were better financially on the fundamentals, although it seems like it would be hard to say how bad the untracked unemployment of the time was, largely because it was untracked. I'd love to see data if you have it. I don't really doubt it, just curious. I started work during that period, so I'm acutely aware of how terrible it is to be young and looking at a wrecked job market.

I don't have data for untracked unemployment, but here is graph covering official unemployment rate from 1970 until now. We definitely peaked a higher level of unemployment in the early 80's, but we began to come down from that peak much quicker than we are doing now. That is largely, I think, reflective of the employment patters and type of economy we were running at the time. The spikes in unemployment were reflective of unionized workers getting laid off from factories in response to recessions caused by the Federal Reserve trying to reign in inflation, then being rehired when rates were relaxed. The composition and employment patters of our economy have changed since then, and it has oft been observed by people studying the issue that after the 1990 recession, it began to take a longer time after each succeeding recession for unemployment to return to where it was before the recession. Right now I don't really see a credible way to bring unemployment below even 8 percent for a couple more years. We are actually running a high risk of moving in the opposite direction.

Also, here is graph of the civilian employment/population ratio that possibly paints a more accurate picture of the employment market since it avoids issues surrounding whether or not a person is unemployed per the definition they use to calculate the official unemployment rate. Notice how it dropped to levels last seen in the 70's during this past recession, and has not recovered. That is a problem because increases in housing, education, and health care costs increasingly necessitate households with two wage earners.

I definitely agree that trying to play the "which decade is worse" card is largely foolish though. Each time period faces its own unique challenges. Hopefully the future holds more positive surprises for all of us.

 

[empty vessel]

look at this little gem in this NYTimespiece.

how cute. and much sterner sounding when said behind the veil of anonymity! i wonder which adviser this was? plouffe? daley? i'm leaning towards plouffe.

Ugh. Speaking of the need for deficit reduction.

My actual claim was "the GOP has exercised FAR more control over legislation affecting the economy" and I stand by it. They got their tax cut extension and they got their slashing. They can't deny that. They'll be touting their victory tomorrow . . . and watch them blame Obama for everything a year from now.

To be fair, it would appear that the Obama administration wanted to slash spending as well. Because it's apparently not a very good administration.

 

[Evlar]

I still don't know how this is supposed to pass the house.

 

[Wall]

That was part of the story. But oil also played a HUGE part. In 1973 there was a Yom Kippur war that caused the Arabs to embargo oil. Then in 1979, Iran went through a revolution and they were the 2nd biggest oil producer in that region. High oil prices just killed the economy. But around 1983, the oil prices came back down and that caused the economy to roar.

No such luck this time. We have high oil prices and Obama will be very very lucky if they are this low a year from now. In the 1980s, Alaska and the North sea oil gave the world economy a nice boost. Nothing like that now . . . now we wash Canadian dirt to get specs of oil off it. Even the kings of cheap oil Saudi Arabia is stooping to boiling massive amounts of water to try to coax heavy oil out of the ground.

Definitely agree. I'm actually fairly optimistic about our ability to solve our energy problems though - provided we summon the political will to make the changes.

 

[Diablos]

Please, dude got punked by a traffic cone.
And as I posted before, it's not like you couldn't see it coming.

Holy shit @ the comments.

If what I've been reading on across the Interwebs is an indication, his base is seriously giving up on him.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Did you already forget why the tax cuts did not expire? Does the word 'filibuster' ring a bell?

Reid and the Democrats didn't have to bring it to vote. They could have sat on their hands as the deadline passed.

That's a tremendous amount of revenues that could have been generated that day. Maybe even preventing this debt ceiling charade from ever happening.

My actual claim was "the GOP has exercised FAR more control over legislation affecting the economy" and I stand by it. They got their tax cut extension and they got their slashing. They can't deny that. They'll be touting their victory tomorrow . . . and watch them blame Obama for everything a year from now.

They have only exercised control because the Democrats have assumed a defensive position for the better part of 2 years now. Paralyzed to do anything, more than pleased to portray the Republicans as bullies and extremists in hopes that will somehow score points while handing them most everything that was part of their agenda.

Of course they will blame Obama. That's how this two party system works. You act as if Obama isn't worthy of some blame.

 

[Wall]

look at this little gem in this NYTimespiece.



how cute. and much sterner sounding when said behind the veil of anonymity! i wonder which adviser this was? plouffe? daley? i'm leaning towards plouffe.

Every time I summon a little bit of optimism I read a quote from the Obama administration. I think that means it is time for me to take a break from all of this. I just hope they are able to pivot away from "we all must sacrifice" mode as quickly as they were able to pivot away from "hope and change" mode.

 

[Diablos]

The comments in there are hilarious. They seem to think that Obama was naive and took Boehner at his word. If he did, he would have ended his thoughts there. But he went on to position the Republicans as radicals (bomb-throwers) and make a checklist of all the things that could be at stake. It was clearly a pre-emptive talking point for something he knew could be a possibility.

Seriously, people are going crazy in the comments section. Totally giving up on him, wanting to vote for Romney, writing him off as naive. I think I counted three positive comments out of 100+.

 

[Averon]

Obama is in trouble, but I wouldn't take anything said on comment sections on political blogs/sites seriously. They have always been a cesspool of ignorance, bigotry, stupidity, etc...

 

[quaere]

And if you'd told us in '85 that just ten years later there'd be this thing called the Internet, and that it would lead us into an era of prosperity, we'd have laughed at you. In the same vein, I was working IT in the 90’s when no one believed the Internet bubble would ever burst. But of course, it did.

Do you think the Internet can happen again? To be specific, do you think the US can essentially monopolize the economic benefits from any future engine of economic growth? I do not. Any windfall will now be evenly distributed among billions of people, due to globalization.

 

[Diablos]

Obama is in trouble, but I wouldn't take anything said on comment sections on political blogs/sites seriously. They have always been a cesspool of ignorance, bigotry, stupidity, etc...

They aren't crazy comments, most of them are very down to earth from people who are concerned about his leadership.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx#page1

Interesting read on Obama being the Democrats' Nixon; essentially someone who was faced with the reality of dominant conservatism in Washington politics that could not be easily undone (just as Eisenhower found it a bad idea to undo the New Deal, same goes for Nixon and the Great Society).

 

[PhoenixDark]

look at this little gem in this NYTimespiece.



how cute. and much sterner sounding when said behind the veil of anonymity! i wonder which adviser this was? plouffe? daley? i'm leaning towards plouffe.

What happened to Plouffe? He used to be so sensible.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Is anyone happy at this point? Despite the insistence of some people about how Obama wants to go around pleasing the Tea Party I'm pretty sure they haven't liked one piece of legislation he's signed into law. Maybe extending the tax cuts but they wanted them extended forever and it did have some stuff the Admin wanted alongside, besides getting it passed seemed to keep their heads from exploding rather than actually pleasing them.

The left? Take a look at this forum from early 2009 to now, nothing more need be said and this forum is actually rational (unlike some crazy blogs).

Of course the middle is just bouncing back and forth trying to find any answer at all and all they get is more incompetence while they struggle through this national malaise.

We just emerged from a recession so deep that we're still finding out how bad it was to this day and it's gonna take 5-10 years to fully recover and you can't just expect the government to fix that kind of thing. There have been better Presidents and much better Congress' that have failed to do anything but try to ride the waves.

 

[planar1280]

I'm not terrified to be an American. Frankly, I think that's sort of an idiotic sentiment. We're not being attacked on our soil. The unemployment rate is actually lower than in was in the early 80's. (And nowhere near as bad as some of our European counterparts have had it.) The government isn't -- so far as I know -- selling arms to our avowed enemies. The President isn't using the FBI as his personal bugging army. We have two wars going, but they're both clearly winding down.

Does the current composition of the government suck giant donkey balls? Yes, it does. Is that a fixable issue? Yes, it is. Do we have systemic and structural problems with the government? Yes. Are any of them particularly new? Not really. We voted in a bunch of idiots, just like we've done a dozen times before. And they did what idiots always do, which is attempt to push government into a new, bad direction so fast that it's in the process of running over them.

I know some of the people in here are young, and I know your first big political crisis always seems like the worst thing ever, but you need to get some perspective. Most of you were raised in the best economic times of the last sixty years. But that's no more normal then the 70's are the norm. The country fluctuates, both because of bad decisions made by voters and politicians, and because shit happens. We're still shaking off the psychological and financial damage of 9/11 and we probably will be for a few more years.

This is no more a permanent state than the giddy 90’s were. It's a classic mistake, and one we make over and over again -- this belief that there's such a thing as stability. There isn't. The world is chaotic, and we attempt to adapt. Sometimes we make good calls, sometimes we make shitty calls. If you want to improve that, go do something about it other than freak out, because freaking out helps no one. It makes you bitter, angry, and utterly ineffectual.

If people spent half the time doing things that they spend bitching about things on the Internet, the world could be a much nicer place. But it's esier to bitch and whine and act as if we share no culpability for the mess we're in, and to pump up the drama to give ourselves a feeling of importance. It's vanity. This time is no more apocalyptic than any other time has been. The idea that we're somehow in worse shape than, say, the Great Depression, is just a stunning admission of ignorance about what people have gone through before us.

I can pretty much guarantee that all of us are sitting in reasonably comfortable homes, next to boxes that allow us to talk to anyone in the world, nearly instantaneously. I'd bet that not a one of us is close to starving. No one here has probably ever had secret police kick in their doors and take their loved ones away. Painting ourselves as living at the end of civilization, as a few people here do, is the ultimate white whine. Get a grip and get some perspective.

qoute for end of the world pessimists. this is the truth

 

[teruterubozu]

What happened to Plouffe? He used to be so sensible.

Ugh. Plouffe & Axelrod are the shitstains of this presidency. WHY hasn't Obama gotten rid of them already? The election is loooooong over, these guys should be finding new jobs. Every president that kept their election advisors (i.e. Stephanopolous, Carville, Rove, etc.) eventually needed to get them the fuck out of the White House to govern properly.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

So, now that the deal is almost here, who won?

Edit: GOP and Tea Party won. Dem lose. Obama is the weakest president ever.