This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1modalursine
Ha! You have to ask?
Paul Kruman, in an op ed piece in the NY Times Fri Sept 02, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03krugman.html?hp
hopes that Obama will "go big", i.e. call for aggressive , dramatic measures to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment.
Nobody knows what the future will bring, but we can guess the odds.
Anybody want to guess that Obama will go "double or nothing" ?
I'm putting my money (metaphorically) on Mr Too-little-too-late.
Paul Kruman, in an op ed piece in the NY Times Fri Sept 02, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03krugman.html?hp
hopes that Obama will "go big", i.e. call for aggressive , dramatic measures to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment.
Nobody knows what the future will bring, but we can guess the odds.
Anybody want to guess that Obama will go "double or nothing" ?
I'm putting my money (metaphorically) on Mr Too-little-too-late.
2perdondaris
His opponents are doubling down on extreme capitalism and its failed policies so he should stand up to them with the same rigor.
3timspalding
If he were to go big on spending, he'd need Congressional support. Congressional Democrats would need to make this central to their campaigns in November because you can bet their opponents would make opposing it central to theirs. If he had doing that, we would already know, because he would have already raised the issue with them to make sure he had the votes. Springing this on them would affect their campaigns, and make them hopping mad.
So, no, he's not going to go big. Not on spending for sure.
Rather, he'll propose some tax cuts "for the middle class," but will also not continue the Bush cuts "on the wealthiest." This will combine some perceived action on the economy with enmity toward rich people—a good mix for him politically, or anyway the best he can do in the situation.
So, no, he's not going to go big. Not on spending for sure.
Rather, he'll propose some tax cuts "for the middle class," but will also not continue the Bush cuts "on the wealthiest." This will combine some perceived action on the economy with enmity toward rich people—a good mix for him politically, or anyway the best he can do in the situation.
4modalursine
If the conventional wisdom is correct, and the talking heads and TV pundits are not too far off, then its likely the Republicans will win back the House and make gains in the Senate.
The chances of the Democrats passing any substantial legislature or of doing anything even remotely controversial will be vanishingly small. They'ld be lucky to fend off Republican attempts to roll back the health care reform or even to keep regulatory reforms in place.
Obama is therefore on the fast track to becoming a one term president and a premeture lame duck at that.
In my opinion, his only hope (and the Democrats with him) though it is a slim one, is to call upon his rhetorical skill backed up with repetition, the hammer of learning, to "sell" the need for a "new deal"-like dramatic intervention in the economy.
There are plausible narratives backed up by sufficient academic trappings , never mind for a moment whether those narratives and trappings in fact represent a truer understanding of the working of our economy than their rivals and alternatives, to help them make the case for a dramatic intervention, if they were to put enough energy into the effort.
For better or worse, though, its not clear that the POTUS or his closest advisors really believe that a keynsian "pump priming", "new deal" clone is the way to fly (and never mind that anything like that would
be fought "tooth and claw, in the awfullest way you ever saw" , by the Republicans).
So add the lack of actual intellectual commitment to the idea of a new "new deal", to the personal penchant for being "No drama Obama", and we've got athe makings of a perfect storm half hearted, half baked and half considered psuedo solutions designed to look as if the administration is "doing something", but which won't appear to rock the boat either.
The Republicans, of course, will act is if they think the
(as yet unrevealed) proposals are a quick slide to perdition , even if it should turn out that they are former Republican positions warmed over and re cycled, and will demonize them to the hilt.
Unless the administration pulls some sort of rabbit out of a had, or does a complete about face , which would be quite out of character, the pundits have called it this time.
Bye bye Obama presidency.
The chances of the Democrats passing any substantial legislature or of doing anything even remotely controversial will be vanishingly small. They'ld be lucky to fend off Republican attempts to roll back the health care reform or even to keep regulatory reforms in place.
Obama is therefore on the fast track to becoming a one term president and a premeture lame duck at that.
In my opinion, his only hope (and the Democrats with him) though it is a slim one, is to call upon his rhetorical skill backed up with repetition, the hammer of learning, to "sell" the need for a "new deal"-like dramatic intervention in the economy.
There are plausible narratives backed up by sufficient academic trappings , never mind for a moment whether those narratives and trappings in fact represent a truer understanding of the working of our economy than their rivals and alternatives, to help them make the case for a dramatic intervention, if they were to put enough energy into the effort.
For better or worse, though, its not clear that the POTUS or his closest advisors really believe that a keynsian "pump priming", "new deal" clone is the way to fly (and never mind that anything like that would
be fought "tooth and claw, in the awfullest way you ever saw" , by the Republicans).
So add the lack of actual intellectual commitment to the idea of a new "new deal", to the personal penchant for being "No drama Obama", and we've got athe makings of a perfect storm half hearted, half baked and half considered psuedo solutions designed to look as if the administration is "doing something", but which won't appear to rock the boat either.
The Republicans, of course, will act is if they think the
(as yet unrevealed) proposals are a quick slide to perdition , even if it should turn out that they are former Republican positions warmed over and re cycled, and will demonize them to the hilt.
Unless the administration pulls some sort of rabbit out of a had, or does a complete about face , which would be quite out of character, the pundits have called it this time.
Bye bye Obama presidency.
5perdondaris
I don't trust the pandits--they are as much an authority as their East Indian namesakes. The Left will have to cobble together a Popular Front to keep the far Right out of power. Otherwise this country is headed for a Hell of a disaster that will make Reagan and Bush look like a walk in the park.
6timspalding
>4 modalursine:
Obama's reelection hinges on the economy in 2012, as Reagan's did in 1984. Reagan, like Obama surely will, lost seats in the midterms--losing the Senate and increasing his gap in the Congress. Reagan found new legislation difficult after the 1986 elections, as Obama surely will. And Reagan made the recovery of the economy the center of his successful argument to win in 1984. And he he won.
I see no reason this logic won't apply in 2012, provided the economy is recovering. If it's not, Obama's attempt to get a second term is likely to fall victim to economic weakness, as Carter in 1980 and Bush Sr. in 1992.
Obama's reelection hinges on the economy in 2012, as Reagan's did in 1984. Reagan, like Obama surely will, lost seats in the midterms--losing the Senate and increasing his gap in the Congress. Reagan found new legislation difficult after the 1986 elections, as Obama surely will. And Reagan made the recovery of the economy the center of his successful argument to win in 1984. And he he won.
I see no reason this logic won't apply in 2012, provided the economy is recovering. If it's not, Obama's attempt to get a second term is likely to fall victim to economic weakness, as Carter in 1980 and Bush Sr. in 1992.
7perdondaris
Americans today have a very short memory. Only 8 years after the first Bush administration debacle people reelected his equally incompetent son.
The reason repealing the New Deal has never been popular until late is that the Great Depression created lasting memories of the dangers of bare capitalism. Not until very recently could someone say "let's get rid of social security" without being ridiculed as crazy. That is why history books are important--they point out the folly of irrational ideologies like conservatism and objectivism.
The reason repealing the New Deal has never been popular until late is that the Great Depression created lasting memories of the dangers of bare capitalism. Not until very recently could someone say "let's get rid of social security" without being ridiculed as crazy. That is why history books are important--they point out the folly of irrational ideologies like conservatism and objectivism.
8modalursine
I see no reason this logic won't apply in 2012, provided the economy is recovering.
Agreed, but everything hinges on that little word "recovery".
To economists, "recovery" means that GDP is growing, and not falling for two successive quarters.
For the man in the street, "recovery" means that I've got a job and have a reasonable expectation that if that one goes away, there's another one at least as good not too many weeks away.
The 2012 election is two whole years (and change) away.
Plenty can happen in that time and nobody knows for sure what will, but given where we are now, its not too crazy to guess that at best, unemployment will about where it is now. If we're lucky, a little less. If not, not. But if unemployment isn't dramatically better by then, or if something really unforseen doesnt happen, its not looking good for Obama or any Democrat in 2012.
Agreed, but everything hinges on that little word "recovery".
To economists, "recovery" means that GDP is growing, and not falling for two successive quarters.
For the man in the street, "recovery" means that I've got a job and have a reasonable expectation that if that one goes away, there's another one at least as good not too many weeks away.
The 2012 election is two whole years (and change) away.
Plenty can happen in that time and nobody knows for sure what will, but given where we are now, its not too crazy to guess that at best, unemployment will about where it is now. If we're lucky, a little less. If not, not. But if unemployment isn't dramatically better by then, or if something really unforseen doesnt happen, its not looking good for Obama or any Democrat in 2012.
9perdondaris
If Sarah Palin or Ron Paul is elected in 2012 it will have proven the Mayans were right after all.
