Obama’s slowness to pass judgment
Steve Chapman calls Obama’s 48-hour delay in strongly denouncing Blogajevich a “my pet goat moment.”
Wrong analogy. Bush’s “moment” lasted only a few minutes. He was awaiting further word from aides after getting incredibly shocking news while in front of a group of schoolchildren. What’s Obama’s excuse?
In this case, the person I am reminded of most is not Bush but rather Mike Dukakis, Democratic Presidential candidate in 1988. It is widely thought that his bloodless answer to the far less important (and hypothetical) question about what his response would be if his wife had been raped turned the election tide against him. People perceived him as too wonky to be truly human—or to be President.
As for Obama, his slow response time seems to be a pattern. His delays in condemning the offenses of former friends or associates (Blogajevich, who was endorsed by Obama, would have to qualify as at least the latter) has been noticeable. One might even call it a character trait: when in doubt, Obama reserves judgment and speaks cautiously and generally. His stronger words come only after the evidence is overwhelming, usually long past the point where most people would have spoken out.
Obama has been described as emotionally cool and cerebral. Despite his soaring rhetoric, there is something excessively calculated and controlled about him. In crises so far, much of the time he simply mouths generalities and does nothing. Sometimes this works out in his favor, such as during the beginning of the financial crisis prior to the election, when the contrast with John McCain’s emotionality—and frenetic, although largely unproductive, energy—could not have been more stark.
It’s not that Obama did or said anything that was especially intelligent or helpful (and some of what he said was decidedly unhelpful, IMHO). But many people liked the way he said it, and his calm demeanor that indicated he could not be easily rattled.
I agree that composure under fire is a good trait for a President to have. But Obama’s foot-dragging slowness in denouncing the Reverend Wrights and Blogajevichs of this world, even when the evidence of wrongdoing is clear, is not. It bespeaks a cloudy moral code and a difficulty in making judgments and decisions. These are most assuredly not good traits for a President to have.
Obama needs to check with someone to tell him what to think. Contrast the scripted O to the unscripted O. Bottom line — He just ain’t that quick.
Actually, I think it has more to do with making sure which way the political winds are blowing. That way he always makes sure the wind is at his back.
Neo is right, though. In the case of Blago, his need to be on the political “right” side just highlights his apparent lack of any sort of a moral center.
I think it is of mixed use. He may indeed use it to buy political time, but if he also uses it to consider alternatives that’s fine with me.
It is certainly possible that his slowness in distancing himself from – well, from any number of people, actually – is deserving of the worst possible interpretation. I am not ready to come to that conclusion without a lot more data.
Neo wrote, “As for Obama, his slow response time seems to be a pattern.”
It bugged me when Obama did it for:
1) The financial crisis – and then called McCain eratic yet he couldn’t commit to a ‘solution’ or an affirmative answer on the ‘plan’.
2) Georgia – His response was lagging a few days and when finally given was tepid.
I don’t find that cerebral nor do I find him one with convictions or core principles.
Yes, it is wise to weigh all the details and give a thoughtful response and not look frazzled (as Bush did in front of the class), but Obama gives answers that miss the mark even after weighing the details.
Obama was about 20 years too slow in denouncing Wright and two election cycles too slow in figuring out Blago was a crook. I won’t even get into his “bone-headed” work with Rezko. It’s not just in his crisis management that the lack of a moral center is evident. Perhaps had he practiced making judgements during the last 25 years or so, his reaction time would be better.
And he asked us to vote for him based on the superior judgement he showed in opposing the Iraq war. I doubt that he did half the reading on terrorism and Iraq that I did. He has never revealed the basis for his “judgement.” I suspect that it was the Hyde Park wind. When he noted the resistence to the surge, he figured he could ride that wind to PA Avenue.
Some day, perhaps he will learn that he has to govern with his feet on the ground. While others are impressed by his cabinet appointments, I see them as a group he will delegate blame or shift responsibilty to. They are buffers between him and the hard decisions that require some sort of moral and philosophical fundament.
It is strange that he calls himself a pragmatist. If you take the common definition of pragmatism as truth being what works, Obama has been strangely reluctant to test whether his grand ideas work or to take responsibilty when an experiment failed. He doesn’t really want to gain wisdom–not if that interferes with his likeablity.
If I had to choose between Obama and Hillary Clinton as someone to be on my side in a fight, I would pick Hill every time. (McCain is too obvious to even include in the thought experiment) Something about Obama shrieks conflict avoidance, accomodation, appeasement. I wonder how he would have handled himself as a voting rights worker in the south in the 60s. Does he have the courage of a Dr. King when it comes to displaying physical courage? I await his proposed speech in the capital of an Arab state with trepidation. What will our adversaries conclude after hearing him?
I have a suspicion that BHO never expected to
achieve anything more than the nomination. Losing to McCain would still have left him a top Democratic dog, safely dithering in the Senate and lining his pockets in good old Chicago style.
We have elected a fraud. His presidency will be about directing blame away from himself. Such principles and beliefs as he does have can only lead towards totalitarianism.
I like the comparison to Dukakis’ rape response. It is better.
One thing that gets me is the way people/media commenters always say: “I don’t think this [pick a faux pas] will hurt Obama. If something else, happens, then he may be in trouble.”
Then something else happens, and they say “If something else, happens, then he may be in trouble.”
Then something else happens, and they say “If something else, happens, then he may be in trouble.”
Then something else happens, and they say “If something else, happens, then he may be in trouble.”
?!?
And, though I have such admiration for AssVillId that he is like my secret mentor/big brother, his statement is another form of the same problem. He says
Just HOW MUCH information does my secret mentor need in order to declare Barack a lightweight and a fraud? I would like to know. I would like to know WHAT is the “something else” which must happen for Barack to finally suffer some political damage? And I would like to know exactly WHAT information people need to see in order to declare Barack a fraud?
It bespeaks a cloudy moral code and a difficulty in making judgments and decisions. These are most assuredly not good traits for a President to have.
He is waiting to see what path will net him the greatest political power. And in this respective, it does not matter who gets harmed in the process, so long as it isn’t him.
Gcotharn,
Over on this side of the Pond we had the same frustrating experience with Tony Blair in 1997, 1998, 1999 etc. It was always going to be the next thing that would hurt him with the media and some people. The whole process can be likened to throwing pebbles into a pond. You throw one and nothing happens. Two, ditto. And so on. But eventually, those pebbles do start appearing. My suspicion is that with Obama those pebbles will appear a lot sooner than they did with Blair.
Okay, those pebbles are some small consolation. Thankfully.
I have never understood just what the Left expected President Bush to do when he got the initial information on 9/11. He had almost no information to act upon. A too hasty decision at that point could very well have made the situation much worse. And acting too rashly could not only have created a panic within that classroom and school but across the entire country.
As with the “shoe” incident in Iraq, I greatly admire his ability to deal with extremely stressful situation with calm courage.
It’s clear the “Messiah” can’t speak on any subject without sensing it’s safe to do so. It’s reflective of a timid, insecure mind only comfortable with rehearsed dialogues. I thought Bush also had slow reflexes but only AFTER he became President. When the weight of the office bore down. The false prophet, on the other hand, has never mustered the nerve to leave the starting gate unbridled. I can only imagine what the lag time now will be with this idealogical turtle in the White House. I also doubt his worshippers will notice being so drunk on the ‘Hope and Change’ Kool Aid. lol
” It bespeaks a cloudy moral code and a difficulty in making judgments and decisions. These are most assuredly not good traits for a President to have.”
Yes exactly. That, and he seems to have no compass or grounding. His response to controversy that comes IN his way is weighed and discussed with his confidants. An internal consensus is taken, but with no compass. How things will go? Not well.
As much as I have a hard time understanding him, Bush IS a man with some foundation. Unfortunately for this country, he was missing something that was desperately needed in the last 4 years. He and his administration has seriously failed, and I fear what he did right in his first 4 years has been undone by what he has done terribly wrong in the last 4.
I am truly frightened for us all.
At one level, I think we still don’t know enough to be certain how Obama will handle the pressure of the decision-making cycle. I can make an argument that Obama is smart enough to know what he needs to do, and he does only that.
There is a fancy German word I remember from my lit studies many years ago: Rezeptionsgeschichte, translated as “History of Reception.” The idea here is that a work doesn’t have intrinsic and durable meaning, but only the meaning ascribed by its readers at the time, and this meaning can change.
The funniest (and I am afraid the most painfully accurate) line of the election was, that people were voting for an Obama that only existed in their minds.
The IDEA of Obama is terribly important to a lot of people, and it will take a lot of convincing for people to give up this idea.
All Obama has to do is to keep reinforcing the image of this Obama enough for his followers to dismiss criticism coming from the other side, and to minimize or dampen the volume of any information that might cause his followers to think twice. So slow probably works pretty well for him, and so does saying things that could be construed as taking the side of every hot button issue. He is smart and disciplined enough to keep at it.
Whether this strategy works so well in the world of Realpolitik is harder to foresee. Certainly, Obama will come up against people whose interests are opposed to those of the United States and who do not tremble at the idea of a bad notice in the New York Times. He will also come up against people who will want concessions from the US who will praise Obama’s intelligence,flexibility, nuance, and worldliness if he gives in. Mind you, he might actually get irritated enough to defend US interests from time to time, just to muddy the picture.
The combination may give the followers just enough the keep the political myth of Obama going for a very long time. You must remember that Stanley Baldwin enjoyed runaway electoral success during the middle 1930’s.
If nothing else, Obama is consistent, as neo- has pointed out. his slow to react/respond in the face of the Blagojevich scandal is all too familiar. The pattern is clear — first he outright lies: “Ayres is just a guy in my neighborhood…” “This is not the Reverend Wright I know….” “We had absolutely no contact with the governor…”
As the issue lingers, he and his “team” (Axelrod & Co.) appear to test public statements intended to appease the public. When this is not enough, he reveals a bit more, commits to some point of view — but only when prodded. As gcotharn, I, too find the uber-tiptoe-ing by the media and punditry especially irritating. But then, that’s the power of the presidency, isn’t it?
I honestly don’t know if his is the absence of a moral compass, the lack of a clear personal identity, or the calculations of the pure politician.
It has also occurred to me that his meteoric rise and the super powers that his acolytes appear to ascribe to him, might have bred an arrogance that allows both he AND his closest advisors to believe they are untouchable and can do as they please — which is pretty much the status quo.
I haven’t read his manner and behavior as cool and cerebral as much as avoiding a committed position which might distance some supporters. As neo pointed out:
“much of the time he simply mouths generalities and does nothing. Sometimes this works out in his favor, such as during the beginning of the financial crisis prior to the election, when the contrast with John McCain’s emotionality–and frenetic, although largely unproductive, energy–could not have been more stark.”
I was fairly floored when the financial crisis hit the fan and Obama, after criticizing McCain’s suspension of campaign, declared (referring to Congress), “They know where to find me if they need me.” Right! That’s a leader if ever I heard one. Frankly, those words seem a fitting phrase for a man who prefers neutral distance to firm commitment if he can possibly do so! I never understood why McCain did not use that as a political club while he was battered by the Obama camp and the MSM re: his choice to (ostensibly) prioritize his duty as U.S. Senator over Presidential candidate. (Interestingly, there was an Op-Ed today in the WSJ by Fouad Ajami, a Middle East expert, which attempted to sum up the efforts and effect George Bush has had on the Arab-Muslim part of the world, while contrasting expectations regarding Obama policy. In sum, he made it clear that Obama has clearly signaled his disinterest and clear intention of as little involvement with foreign policy as possible in order to focus completely on re-inventing domestic policy — and what that might portend re: the Arab world’s attitude toward us. Time will tell…….
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122939127053709259.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
(In last post, the reference to the Fouad Ajami article was because it essentially pointed out the very same characteristics that are the subject of this post.)
Although the “unproductiveness” of McCain’s effort early in the financial crisis has become a truism, I suggest that there is no evidence for that assertion. When he showed up in Washington, he made it clear that there was in fact no agreement between the two sides, regardless of the statements of the Democrats. He then spent several days working the phones and negotiating. Finally, a deal was made. How much of this compromise was due to McCain? He chewed up political capital while the Dems and the press sniped at him.
McCain – worked the phones
Obama – said “call me if you need me”
Press – Had their agenda and misreported. Journalism is dead.
Indeed.
Was there ever any specific polling that indicated that voters prefered Obama’s approach to McCain’s during the meltdown?
I know that’s the conventional pundits’ wisdom–especially from those who go on about Obama’s cool and intelligence–but it seemed to me that McCain was doomed as the incumbent party’s candidate pretty much no matter what.
“Just HOW MUCH information does my secret mentor need in order to declare Barack a lightweight and a fraud?”
I can’t speak for my assistant (me being the actual village idiot) but I agree with his statement there. I say so because we have yet to see Obama under real pressure. As is he has made decisions at the last possible moment – that can be truly decisiveness or just caution. Indeed, if one were to simply look at it from a point where him being president is the main goal (whereas many of us have other principles) then he has made a fine showing – in fact one of the best ever. If he can deliver that same ability towards another goal, then well, he will be upon Mount Rushmore.
Even in medium pressure environments (lets say a national level competition at a IDPA match simulating a combat environment) there will be some stay calm and focused, some flail around wildly. You take the same people into real high stress (say combat instead of the simulated stuff) and, while most calm will stay calm and most flailers will flail, there will be some panic that shouldn’t and some rise to the challenge.
So far we have not seen Obama outside of the IDPA match and he is top end of mediocre for a specific class at best (not the class I belong, yet a class none the less). Until we see him in the true combat sense we just simply do not know.
I can be fairly sure that he isn’t going to suddenly become “The Greatest President EVAR!!!!!” yet I am reminded of one of Murphy’s Laws of Martial Arts – “The guy that won all his matches on sheer luck will suddenly turn into Bruce Lee during your match”.
In the end he has the following go for him – a republican can be the greatest president to ever live and a good 1/3 of our population will hate him even more than if he was horrid, 1/3 will not be sure which side to believe (after all the other 2/3 are all lieing political hacks), and 1/3 will support him. A democrat could be the worst ever and 1/3 will like them no matter what, 1/3 not sure what to believe, and 1/3 try and support the country no matter what. That pretty much means Obama really only has to be average at best to be a success.
While he certainly has the potential to out Jimmy the Carter Presidency there are too many out there on his side and on the other side that will fight to make things work, with a (R) next to his name he looses at least half his support, in fact that half will actively seek to sabotage anything and everything (their idea is that anything with an (r) after their name is wrong by its very nature).
Part of the problem for Obama haters is that he comes to power at a real low point for the U.S. — clearly the lowest in our lifetimes.
Two wars remain unwon and the economy is in the worst shape it’s been since the Great Depression. China, Russia are gaining global economic and political power fast and a basket of Latin American dictators are freshly emboldened.
That — not Obama’s image or actions — is the reason his poll numbers are still rising as of this week, even after thrashing McCain and the Republicans in the actual election.
There’s every reason to believe that after an extended recession, the business cycle will reassert itself and the economy will recover, to a degree. The emerging consensus is the second half of 2009, or first half of 2010, just in time for the mid-term elections.
When that happens, Obama and the Democrats will naturally get the credit as most Americans will find it difficult to credit Republicans, given their record under Bush and the fact that they weren’t in power when the recovery took hold.
Like it or not, the only way the Republicans can possibly recover some of their lost political dignity would be if the economy gets a lot worse and stays that way and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan metastasize in ways not related to the mistakes we’ve already made there.
Obama has many weaknesses, but it’s a rather glaring mistake not to view them in context of the current state of the United States.
Many Americans not necessarily inclined toward liberals are saying to themselves: How much worse could he be than Bush?
Ironically, conservative bloggers help lower the bar by painting Obama alternately as some kind of secret communist ideologue or the man without a soul. For a while, the meme was the Obama was gaff prone and not knowledgeable and or intelligent. You guys keep unwittingly setting up the straw men, then act surprised when Obama knocks them down effortlessly.
@strcpy 3.26 am
Exactly. Your last 1/3 points to a critical myth of the Left: Republicans (once upon a time, Conservatives) are evil–mean, stupid, violent, prone to smearing well meaning reformers as communists, racist, and so forth. In short, The Other. Therefore, they can be given no credit for actual accomplishments under any circumstances.
I suggest that a large number of people hold on to this myth as central to their identity: “I am NOT one of THOSE people, and therefore I am justified as a righteous person.” I know kind, well-meaning, conventionally well educated people who are honestly surprised when they meet a conservative who is kind, generous, tolerant, and public-spirited.
Old Boggy’s advice is useful (whether or not that is what he intends): don’t act in ways that reinforce the Myth of the Mean Republican. You only strengthen the self-righteousness Left and confuse the mixed-up middle.
no offense taken gcotharn – I take your point clearly and worry the same thing. We have enough data that Obama is that sort of person. I maintain we do not have the data whether the new job changes him. It has others. Sometimes for worse, however. Obama could become even more indecisive, after all.
My alternative possible explanation is that Obama is sufficiently crafty to adjust, if only for the sake of his own narcissism. I agree he has not faced real pressure yet and the early signs are not encouraging. Some people rise to the occasion – Truman did more than half the time, Clinton less than half. Obama is answerable to an entirely different constituency and set of rules now. I suspect that he will behave as he did before, running another presidency that is a 24/7 campaign cycle, as we had ’92-’00. His willingness to throw associates under the bus could now be a positive, however.
Bogey wrote, “Part of the problem for Obama haters”
Only hater I see here is you. Disagreement with a man’s policies is not hate.
Bogey, I hope you remember this post of yours and the date of late 2009/early 2010.
I disagree with your timeline and the recession could be deeper and longer if he goes forward with corporate tax rate hikes, capital gains tax rate hikes and income tax rate hikes.
As far as Obama’s intelligence, I’ve yet to see him state an economic or tax policy that based on good reason or thought.
As far as claims that conservatives call him a communist – the word is socialist. So was Bush’s policies.
How much LARGER must government grow and take the wrong steps before liberals realize we need to take conservative’s advice. We have NOT had a conservative in office. Besides strong national security measures and tax rate decreases which preceded a very strong economy for 6 years – Bush has been on the liberal side of the fence to ‘us’ conservatives.
We hope to see America prosper despite Obama’s policies. We conservatives know that government has been the cause of the problem. Subprime was forced on bank’s to help low income. Fannie and Freddie were GSE’s created by the government. Obama and Dodd were the largest recipients of money from F&F. What CHANGE in policy would Obama enact on lending that would be beneficial to America.
If you read Michelle Malkin’s column and many other conservatives you see that we think that people should put money down and have a fixed 30 year mortgage – never a teaser subprime rate so that the poor person can afford more house than USUAL.
It is bleeding heartism that got us here. Repackaging and bad portfolio’s is symptom. The core of the problem was the loans in the first place. The repackaging and calling these packages AAA rated was the after effects… What do you do with these bad loans and what percentage of these portfolio’s were bad. A 5% bad portfolio killed the rest of the portfolio.
And now that home values have plummeted – through no policy of Bush’s – we elect somebody who LIKED THESE teaser subprime rates for low income people IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Sorry about the horrible grammar
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/16/spending-soars-25-before-bailout/
1 trillion dollar deficit BEFORE the bailouts…
excerpt 1:
The report showed that U.S. debts and liabilities are close to passing the value of the U.S. population’s net worth
excerpt 2:
The government makes a lot of commitments that cost a little in the short run but a lot in the long run, and this document is one of the only government documents that show the long-term cost of the long-term commitments,” Mr. Riedl said. “What it shows is that future trends are completely unsustainable because the government has promised more benefits than the taxpayers can pay for.”
excerpt 3:
The increases in spending have prompted many conservatives to criticize President Bush, who ran in 2000 on reducing the size of government and introducing spending restraint. Under Mr. Bush, the size of government has grown by more than under any other U.S. president since President Roosevelt implemented the New Deal and fought World War II.
excerpt 1 means to me:
Spending and commitments in spending have outweighed any conceivable way of taxing (removing wealth from one group) and giving it to others.
excerpt 3 means to me:
I as a centrist have the correct solutions that McCain and Palin were pushing.
1) Freeze government spending except for veterans benefits or for national security needs – that is centrism
2) Lower capital gains and corporate tax rates. Our country has the 2nd highest corporate tax rates and companies have been fleeing America. A few have gone to Switzerland for example. Capital needs to move. This is centrist and good for America as REVENUES into the government will increase as the economy picks up. This is proven repeatedly as Kennedy, Reagan and Bush lowered tax rates and saw revenues increase dramatically.
I have to disagree with Bogeyman about two wars being left unwon. My go-to guy on this stuff is Michael Yon (www.michaelyon.com) and he has been saying for a while what most of the cautious and downright scared are afraid to say – the war in Iraq is won. I won’t reiterate what he says about continued fighting, etc. better you should go and read for yourself.
That being said and back to the initial point of neo’s post
I like thoughtfulness – weighing all the options – then deciding. However, this never seems to be the case with Obama. Instead he always seems to waiting to see where the political chips are stacked before showing his hand. It could cause him and the country a lot of trouble down the line.
Given that most Democrats believe the Republicans still control Congress, Bogey just made a fool of himself once again.
Part of the problem for Obama haters is that he comes to power at a real low point for the U.S. – clearly the lowest in our lifetimes.
I suppose not even Bush could have prevented the internal enemies of America from bringing America to that low point.
As Baklava underscores, even conservatives are disappointed with Bush:
“Bush has been on the liberal side of the fence to ‘us’ conservatives.”
I don’t blame conservatives one bit for being disillusioned. For all the talk about “bleeding heartism,” they know it was Bush who promoted and signed the costliest single entitlement ever, the prescription drug bill. Worse, he lied about how much it would cost.
Conservatives also know the Republican-controlled congress failed to control spending in general and never even attempted to balance the budget.
Thus the Republicans have a huge credibility gap with fiscal conservatives.
So however bad Obama may be at controlling spending, he arrives at a time when a crucial part of the electorate just doesn’t believe Republican vows to cut spending.
On foreign policy, Bush has also lost credibility with many conservatives.
For all the talk about not negotiating with terrorists, it was exactly that — diplomacy that brought Iraqi insurgents over to the American side — that turned the tide in the Iraq war. More important, the Bush administration has followed virtually a carbon copy of the Clinton policy on North Korea — once the “axis of evil” approach collapsed around itself.
Same for Iran. The Bush team started out with boisterous cowboy threats and ended up executing a European/Clinton style policy of diplomatic pressure.
To me, it looks like reality collided with Bush’s naive notions about cowboy geopolitics. But it’s very understandable that conservatives would simply believe he sold out to public opinion.
Just keep in mind, it’s against all this that swing voters cast their ballots for Obama. And it’s against it as well that the president-elects popularity has been rising since the election.
You guys should try laying low for awhile on Obama. He will make plenty of mistakes and, surely, some big ones. How much better to just wait until he does, then criticize him for that, rather than trying to extrapolate disaster from the unknowns about his personal quirks, etc.
From my current reading on the Great Depression (Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man), it is striking how BHO’s attitudes and professed plans mimic FDR’s.
There is widespread agreement among economic historians that FDR made a bad thing worse. And the US wasn’t in debt up to its eyebrows then, though it is now. Will our present mild deflation persist, or will Obama and Bernanke try to inflate us out of debt? A major question for us all.
The similarities with FDR are important as are the differences.
The U.S. economy is far more diversified industrially, demographically and geographically in 2008 than it was 70 years ago. That means greater resilience, but also greater vulnerability on a wider front.
One looming problem FDR did NOT face: in his day, America financed itself. As a direct consequence of the Reagan/Bush economic formula, the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans have been financing our deficit spending. That’s both good and bad: Good when the borrowing leads to growth, bad when it doesn’t.
In the current cycle, there is no growth, so we’re left with no choice but to increase borrowing and simply pray the Chinese and Japanese don’t throw in the towel on us.
As a direct consequence of the Reagan/Bush economic formula
try again…
try the old geezer at the fed who liked kenysianism… how many presidents did his employment and power span? 1987 to 2006
oh bout the time your blaming the presidents. presidents are not kings, they dont have as much control as people imagine they do. when does presidents set monitary policy on the fed? heck, the fed seems to tell the president more than the other way around.
no?
Bogey-
I fear you are wrong about US diversification and its goodness. We have more aged (nonproductive), our industrial base has way shrunk (service sector up, manufacturing way down), and being spread out does nothing for us.
Bogey wrote, “So however bad Obama may be at controlling spending, he arrives at a time when a crucial part of the electorate just doesn’t believe Republican vows to cut spending.”
Bad? Obama didn’t even promise or hint at controlling spending. Your spin is incredibly lacking in factual basis….
Bogey wrote, “so we’re left with no choice but to increase borrowing ”
no. Another bad opinion based on a misunderstanding of the facts.
In the current cycle, there is no growth, so we’re left with no choice but to increase borrowing and simply pray the Chinese and Japanese don’t throw in the towel on us.
No, our debt holders are not going to let us spend our way out of this and why should they? Obama’s New New Deal won’t happen except in rhetoric.
wrt spending.
Ever see anybody turn down another hit of government goodies?
I think it has gone far beyond a misunderstanding of “facts” here in America.
I don’t blame conservatives one bit for being disillusioned. For all the talk about “bleeding heartism,” they know it was Bush who promoted and signed the costliest single entitlement ever, the prescription drug bill. Worse, he lied about how much it would cost.
Conservatives are not like whinny fake liberals who talk about being easily duped.
Many conservatives knew very well that Bush meant what he said when he described himself as a compassionate conservative. They just didn’t think Bush would be foolish enough to take “compassion” to the extent of working with Democrats like Ted Kennedy and attempting to appease people like you, Bogey. Those two objectives are fool’s errands, but conservatives do not say that they were fooled or disillusioned by Bush: not with any real honesty. Bush was Bush and that was so from day one. Only gullible fake liberals could be confused on this score.
“Our debt holders are not going to let us spend our way out of this and why should they?”
You know the old saying, if you owe the bank a million dollars, they own you. If you owe them 100 million, you own them. That’s one reason the Chinese and Japanese won’t dump their Treasuries. If they did, the economic collapse in the U.S. would cut off their most lucrative export market.
Nor is it primarily charity that drives the purchases of Treasuries by Asian governments. They also do it — especially the Chinese — to hold down the value of their currency. If China starts dumping Treasuries, the yuan will soar, cutting revenue and profit at exporters, the economic lifeblood of the country. Same goes for Japan and South Korea.
Everything from oil to iron ore to gold is still priced in dollars on the global market. So at the moment, we are still clinging to tremendous global leverage when it comes to financing our overspending. The day of reckoning isn’t nigh, but maybe nigh to nigh, so we can’t be completely unconcerned.
Bogey wrote, You know the old saying, if you owe the bank a million dollars, they own you. If you owe them 100 million, you own them.
So how can we apply that to the American’s appetite for Democrats to give more and more goodies that can’t be ‘afforded’.
Just because a baby wants something doesn’t mean you should give it.
Just because a teenager wants something doesn’t mean you should give it.
Just because we the people voted for Obama’s trillion dollars in new spending doesn’t mean it should happen.
We should start being responsible.
Do you have an argument against being responsible?
I seem to remember that during Bush’s “regime”, Leftists would always come here and complain about how Bush spends too much. Now it is that we can’t spend enough?
Talk about NKVD.