In hindsight, was it a mistake to let Repubs off the hook for the bad economy?

[kentuck]

Remember when Christine Romer, an Obama economic adviser, said that if we did not pass the stimulus program, the unemployment rate would go to 8%? Soon after the stimulus was passed, however weak, unemployment shot past 8% like a rocket. Soon after that, Ms Romer left the Administration and Republicans have been making hay off those comments ever since. However, they lie about it. They give Obama the blame for saying unemployment would not go above 8% when it was actually Christine Romer.

Although the President did not say those comments about the stimulus, he did say that the people would judge the job that he has done in three years and decide whether or not he deserved another term? He seems to be backing away from those comments just a little at the present time. The economy is not doing as well as maybe the President expected it to do?

The Republicans are attacking the President on the worst economy since the Great Depression. People have lost an average of $4000 per middle class family. There have been 42 straight months of unemployment above 8%. One in six Americans are now in poverty. Obama may have inherited a mess but he has only made it worse, the Republicans say.

From the day he took office, the President did not give the Republicans the blame they deserved for running our country so far into debt, cutting regulations, or letting the economic system collapse around our ears. He accepted responsibility. And the Republicans are more than happy to give it to him.

In hindsight, it was probably a huge mistake not to glue this economic catastrophe to the Republican Party for the next 40 years, just like FDR did after the Great Depression? Now, it is considered to be the sole property of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is getting off scot-free from any ownership of the present economy.

But many could see, four years ago, that it would take a long time to get out of this mess. And we are still in a mess, even though the stock market is doing much better and many in our society are doing quite well. The poverty rate continues to increase and the unemployment rate is actually much higher than officially reported. And it is the fault of Barack Obama because he accepted it. That is the way the Republicans want to re-write history. I don't believe it is fair. I think we should have used the economic collapse just like FDR used it but we didn't. I think that will turn out to be an historic political blunder.

[sabrina 1]

1. I think the way to counter them if they are using those comments

is to say that the President wanted a much larger stimulus package which the Republicans would not pass.

He should emphasize that this was for Main Street, not Wall Street, and the Republicans never want to help Main Street so they refused to give more to the people and that they are responsible for the unemployment rates. Blame them.

He should go on the offensive and pre-empt them, telling the people how he wanted to give them more help and was blocked constantly by the Republicans. Then use that to ask them to give him a Democratic Congress so that he can finally get things done without the obstructionists blocking everything that benefits the American people.

[No Elephants]

8. + Very much agree on that as a strategy.

[Divine Discontent]

2. one can only hope that he addresses these issues in speeches and the debates

because it is true that nearly every repub and many independents like to play pretend that this is all Obama's doing, and this near depression we faced could have easily been solved in a couple years under McCain, hold on... LOLOLOLOLOLOL, okay, I'm back, but yeah, as long as Obama does his standard bi-partisan capitulation mr. nice guy act the more he will be associated with being the cause of this disastrous economy. When in fact, his policies have been stifled by unanimous republican blockade votes. The GOP likes to say we had total control of Congress, also, in the first 2 years, which is laughable, not only was Franken's seat contested for a while, but we couldn't prevent the GOP from holding up everything because we didn't have 60 votes in the senate, despite having what we needed in the House. It's so unfortunate that we came so close to having a true majority, and a more weighty and focused stimulus package, another cash for clunkers program to clear gas-guzzling cars off the roads while providing much work, and on and on.

After watching Ryan today, I can't imagine Romney winning, but that only does us so good if we can't get the other party to work with the president more like they do on the rarest of occasions. They are hell-bent on trying to keep him out, USA be damned, but if he wins, will they finally work to make compromises? Or do they continue to play the part of the status quo, only interested in preventing THIS president from succeeding in correcting the sins of the prior? It's not like this president doesn't have problems of his own, he doesn't need the GOP making it worse. Sadly, that's what they've done for 2 years (feels like 10!)


Get it here:
http://www.zazzle.com/bushs_comeback_team_2012_bumper_sticker-128086037468948857?rf=238107662556833486

[sabrina 1]

3. Bi-partisanship with this crowd should never have been

considered and needs to be thrown out the window at this point. If Democrats do not draw a clear line between OUR Party and the other one, which they have not sadly, then the polls will remain close as people see little difference on policies when Dems are being all bi-partisan instead of outright attacking them refusing to cooperate with them, on issues that we know are popular across party lines with the American people.

[Enthusiast]

5. I'm with you, Sabrina.

The reason there is not a huge gap in the polls right now is because the Democratic Party and, more specifically, the President, will not draw that clear line.

In education, support for organized labor, in protecting the environment, in demanding justice for the Wall Street fraudsters and mainly in protecting social security and medicare, the President's commitments fall short. Just imagine, a Democratic President putting social security "on the table".

And my sentiments above are the reason I am not allowed on DU3. And they can kick my ass off DU2 if they want, but I will speak the truth. Speaking the truth and free speech is what the internet is all about, or should be.

[No Elephants]

12. Sometimes, mono partisanship is more the issue than bi partisanship.

Too often, IMO, they all actually want the same thing.

[No Elephants]

11. The Democratic Caucus did have sixty members. And Lieberman was not the only defector, though

it was sometimes convenient to make it seem that way.

Thing is, if sixty votes really is whaqt always stands in the way--and I don't buy that it does--we need to fix that problem. Anyone running for office talking seriously about that? no, I didn't think so.

i would much rather amend the Constitution to ban super majority requirements (or super minority) actions and secret actions in the House and Senate (like the one person secret hold) than I am to do anything else, though dumping the electoral college in favor of a popular vote would be a close second.

[Divine Discontent]

16. yeah, tis a tossup which one is more important to change, but both fixing the problem in the Senate

and the electoral college are pretty much right up there! We'd have had President Gore instead of Der Shrub if we had that...

[No Elephants]

19. We would have had President Gore either way.

When the final votes were counted, as best as anyone could determine, Gore won Florida by well under a thousand votes.

What did Gore in was time running out, hanging chads, the SCOTUS, etc.

But, that is water under the dam.

Going forward, I am almost more worried about what the electoral college results in 24/7/365 (and 366 during leap years) than I am about which was elections go.

Every day of our lives, Washington D.C. is ruled by (a) lobbyists and (b) what a few allegedly independent voters, also allegedly right leaning, in a few purple states might think of what is happening.

As a result, most Americans in both parties are ignored not only on election, but always.

And, as a result, the majority of Americans, who used to firmly Democratic, have thrown their hands up.

And, as Truman says, when that happens, Democrats lose.

And, as No Elephants says, when voters think neither Party is doing right by them, they will either not vote at all or vote for the Party that promises the least taxes or just keep throwing out incumbunts. And a few diehard lefties will vote for one third party or another, though, typical of the left, they will never agree on just one of the third parties because God Forbid anyone on the left does anything that might have actual impact.

But, no matter which way you slice it, the people lose and the nation loses. And, as a very secondary matter, so do Democratic candidates.

And, IMO, the longer this situation goes on, the fewer staunch Democrats there will be. the number of voters who can be relied to vote Democratic, come hell or high will continue to shrink.

[Enthusiast]

4. Duh.

When the stock market crashed in 1929 the fraudsters lost their ass!

This time, the ones responsible for the collapse didn't suffer for their actions. This time the fraudsters made millions, possibly billions of dollars by defrauding both investors and borrowers. Then the banks were even bailed out with few if any conditions. This was a direct result of the influence of Timmy Geithner. As a matter of fact the CEOs received ridiculous bonuses after the banks were bailed out. And the President didn't adequately contest the popular (Fox "News" created) meme that it was irresponsible mortgage holders that were at fault.

When the President said he wasn't sure that there was actual criminal fraud, it gave the American people the distinct notion that he was on the bank's side and not on our side. The President's cabinet appointments did little to dispel this.

Now, he did castigate the bankers, publicly, but to a very limited extent. Unfortunately he reminded listeners during the State of the Union Address that there were 'also' irresponsible borrowers.

Then the "stimulus" was comprised of 1/3rd tax cuts. Again, this was done to appease the nice guy fair minded Republicans. This dramatically reduced the effectiveness of the stimulus. The wealthy were already rolling in dough, while the piddling tax cuts going to the average worker did very little to stimulate consumer demand. What? A guy could buy a pack of cigarettes with the difference in his paycheck?

One big mistake was a lack of aggressiveness on the part of the President toward the Republican opposition. At times I got the idea that maybe he didn't want to deflect blame for the economy.

Anyway, there is much more. But I'm not in the arguing mood.

[kentuck]

6. Also, we didn't really recover from the Great Depression...

until WWII. About a dozen years. I think it was unrealistic to pretend we would recover in 2 or 3 years from such an economic collapse. I still think we may be putting off a day of reckoning?

[Enthusiast]

7. It's an ugly thing to contemplate.

A day of reckoning I mean.

Because with today's 'new and improved' "democracy" the only ones that will be left with a pot to piss in and a window to throw it out of will be the filthy criminal wealthy class that made their money destroying this once great nation.

[No Elephants]

13. It's their solution to overpopulation. Shades of Charles Dickens' Scrooge.

[No Elephants]

10. FDR, backed down at criticism about spending and deficits

And wars now put us in the hole, rather than getting us out of one.

Moreover, as part of WWII and making peace at the end of WWII, we basically eliminated competition from overseas, whether by stopping manufacturing in Axis nations, or by assimilating inventors, etc. Don't know that anything like that is ever going to happen again. And then, there is "free" trade.

As far as putting off a day of reckoning.

The bail out put off a day of reckoning for banksters and Wall Street bad guys, that is for sure. Main Street, not so much.

A few days ago, I posted an article saying that, economically and in other ways, like food supply, we are in a death spiral. Obviously, I hope with all my heart that is not so.

[No Elephants]

9. I don't see it the same way, by a lot.

Presidents take the blame and the glory for what their appointees, advisors and other employees say publicly unless they disavow it publicly and Obama did not ever disavow it publicly. They simply can't have it both ways.

So, I don't see it as all that dishonest or unfair for Republicans to say that Obama promised that, if he got the stimulus package, unemployment would not go over 8%.

Also, I have heard Obama saying for almost four years that the Republicans got us into this mess and how bad things were when he took over, including in the past year's campaign speeches. I am not sure why our perceptions about that are so different.

However, the American voter has just so much tolerance. After almost a full term, they are likely to roll their eyes. At some point, Obama is responsible in their eyes.

IMO, Jand and Joe Six Pack are a lot less interested in passing the buck to Bushco (valid or not) than they are in hearing Obama say what he did to help them, why it has not worked as he expected, why he did not do more and what he plans to do during the next four years that will not suffer the same failures as in his first term.

Also, I think a lot of buck passing during a re-election campaign makes a President of four years sound weak and ineffective--and weakness (or appparent weakness) is something Americans simply do not want in a Presidents. ("Congress didn't help me out," even if true, also suffers from the sounding weak and ineffective defect, unless said very skillfully. If perceived as untrue, as with ACA, fairly or not, it just becomes barf-worthy.)

I would not compare, even a little, what FDR did during the Great Depression with what Obama did. Obama keeps trying to associate himself with Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Kennedy, but he is not in the class of any of them, not by a lot.

But, all of the above is among us chickens.

As far as campaign strategy, yes, I would continued to remind people how very bad things were in 2008--but only in the context of what I did and plan to do and why I deserve to keep trying, despite four years. And what Sabrina said.

Bottom line, though, I think Obama is going to win anyway, barring a huge misstep, which is unlikely, or an October surprise type revelation, which is also unlikely. IOW, I think the election is his to lose, not Romney's to win.

Also, I would not rule out an October surprise about Romney. I think Obama will win anyway, but I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him--and that is not far, especially since he appears to be made of stone.

[kentuck]

14. I'm speaking from a purely political perspective...

And I don't think it is "passing the buck". It was a matter of being honest with the American people. If the economy was not in the terrible shape that everyone thought it was, then Obama could not argue that he deserves another term. Because, from the numbers alone, the economy is not in good shape.

However, from a political standpoint, he should have told the people that we were in a very bad situation. It would have been a perfect time to pass legislation to get our economy back on track. His number one concern, right or wrong, was to save the banks and Wall Street, because he thought, perhaps correctly, that if the banks and Wall Street crashed, then it would be very hard on the rest of America. We would be in much worse condition today than we are presently.

In my opinion, he should have lowered the expectations of the American people by telling them that it could take longer to get out of this predicament, because that was the truth about where we were at the time. He left people with the wrong impression. And the Republicans took political advantage of it. They were responsible for nothing. I think that was a mistake not to make them pay a higher political price for their decisions and policies. Now, the only person that will pay the political price is Barack Obama. I am not so sure that he will win the next election. And if he doesn't it is nobody's fault but his own.

On edit: Also, and this is what rubs me wrong in so many ways, Obama is giving trickle-down and the Bush economic policies a new life. They should have put the final nail in that discredited and dishonorable policy. Romney is running on the same policies that got us into the mess to begin with. A very poor job of communicating, in my humble opinion.

[No Elephants]

15. Some of it is reality and some is campaign strategy, but it is all politics.

My prior post spoke to both, as well as to presentation.

As far as buck passing versus the truth: It is truth that Obama was not to blame for the economic collapse of 2008. However, it is also truth that he is at least partly to blame for the economic situation of 2012.

To the extent (if any) that he claims that the situation in 2012 is all Bush's fault or all the Republicans's fault, that is not truth at all. Democrats had a lot to do with it. As discussed on other occasions, the collapse could not have happened without repeal of Glass Steagall which Clinton both urged and signed.

As far as the bailout: Right or wrong, Obama is responsible for the second half of it. Bush cleverly saw to that (more likely Rove or some other Republican strategist acted as Bush's brain on that one, but who knows?) As far as whether Americans would be better off with or without the second part of bailout, that is very hard to debate.

But I firmly believe that Americans would definitely have been better off if the bailout had been done better--and we had a Democratic Congress in 2008.

Finally, the degree of improvement (or lack thereof) between Obama's inauguration and today can-and will-be laid at the door of Obama and the Democrats in Congress. I think the 2010 election was evidence of that.

They had two years before January 2011, when the Republicans took ove the House. Until then, most economic measures, from single payer to repeal of Bush tax cutes to recovery programs could have been rationalized as sufficiently budget related as to pass by reconciliation, aka 50 Senators plus Biden. Knowing how sick Kennedy was, they should have had things ready to go lickety split. (not to mention doing one hell of a lot more than they did--which was next to nothing--to keep that seat in the Democratic caucus).

So, a politically knowledgeable voter will roll eyes over certain kinds of statements. And the politically unknowledgeable will say that, no matter what, after four years, Obama owns the economy. Either way, he has to tell the whole truth, and do so skillfully.

I don't think that he owns the economy.

I do think that he owns: (1) what his employees say and he leaves unrepudiated; (2) the second part of the bailout (whether it helped Americans or hurt Americans, he owns it); and (3) a good part, if not all, of the weakness of the recovery, including failure to ask Congress to repeal the tax cuts as soon as he took office.


But, as I said, I believe he will win this election, no matter what. I don't think it will be a cake walk, but I think he will win.

[kentuck]

17. What is his argument for re-election?

The economy pretty much sucks. If he "owns" the economy, does he say, "Yeah, I suck but the other guy sucks more"? That's not a very persuasive argument. If he wants to accept full ownership of this economy, I think this election may be much closer than anyone thinks at the moment?

If he is unable to persuade people that supply-side economics and lax regulations were at the heart of the economic collapse and if he wants to say that the "buck stops with him", then that is a very timid reason for re-election. I'm sure the Repubs would be very happy with that position.

[No Elephants]

18. I thought that I addressed that in my Replies 8, 9 and 10, above?

BTW, I never said that he can't persuade people that supply side economics were at the heart of the economic collapse. He says that Romney would return us to the same policies that got us where we were in 2008 and I think he should say that.

If you honestly believe that Republican Geithner is your very best pick for Sec. of Treasury (and Republican Gates and former Republican Panetta are your very best picks for Defense), and take a third way approach to recovery, including extending tax cuts for the wealthy, then, yes, you are going to have a harder time campaigning against Republicans for re-election.

Also, if FDR had to come up with plans for recovery and preventing future collapse--plans that worked until Democratics either allowed them to be dismantled or demanded they be dismantled--and Obama chose not to learn from FDR's brilliance or his mistakes, then, yes, you are going to have a weak recovery and a harder tiem campaigning against Republicans for re-election.

Those are the realities.

As I posted above, there are, however, some good arguments Obama can make and some ways he can present arguments that will help him.

And I think he has been doing some of the things I think he should, though I think he could emphasize the difference between him and Romney on things like the auto industry more.

Axelrod is an amazingly brilliant campaign strategist, though. He will do fine, and so will Obama.

[kentuck]

20. I guess we agree about Geithner, Gates, Panetta, and the taxcuts...

I am not very confident after the Repubs won a record number of seats in 2010. I'm not sure Obama can fire up the voters like he did in 2008? I hope he can but I sense there is a lot of discouragement in the Party. I hope I am wrong but I think this is going to be a very close election unless something changes between now and ten weeks.