Obama: "We will call you out."

[Gerry Clinchy]

Eight years of Bush neocon policies and the largest disaster since the Great Depression, eight months of Obama, and everyone wants to blame HIM!?

I do so wish we could put this "to bed".

There are very few that would refute the economic situation we face now was not created by Obama. But it was also not created by Bush, alone. It started even before him. The perceived solutions to the financial meltdown appear to have been the same between Bush and Obama.

As I recall, if I have the timeline right, and I could be in error, the prior administration saw the handwriting on the wall about 2 years before the election; just about the time the Congress gained D majority. On this board, there are those who do not see govt $ being the preferred solution, even though it was chosen by both leaders.

Personally, I think they were all pretty ignorant not to anticipate the end of the housing boom. The pattern of boom, then bust had occurred before in California. This time the boom spanned many more geographical areas. How could they believe such inordinate increases in housing prices could last forever? It never did before.

We do not know how a Republican administration would have acted when it comes to the AIG or GM bailout. We do know that O chose those solutions, so he becomes responsible for those actions. We cannot lay responsibility for the problem at O's door, but we can hold him responsible for whether his preferred solutions turn out to be correct or not.

So why should we hold O responsible for "fixing" the problems? Because he insisted that he could do so. We cannot relieve O of his responsibility because Bush did something "x" years ago that was just as bad or worse. It's reasonable to expect someone as intelligent as O should learn from past errors; and having a literal army of advisors to help analyze what did and didn't work ... as long as pragmatism takes precedence over ideology and special interest groups.

So, if we don't like what B did in the past, then we should advocate with our representatives to take whatever action we believe should be supported to improve the status quo. Whatever B or other predecessors did, is no longer of any consequence except insofar as it points us to more effecttive solutions. And, in fact, what worked before may not work as well if the conditions (economic or diplomatic) have changed in the interim. No amount of anger for past errors will help fix anything. If it distracts from finding the better solutions, it is very counter-productive.

When O's tenure is over, we will be able to analyze which of his actions were useful, and which were not. During his tenure, we should also be assessing results of policies on an ongoing basis.

[YardleyLabs]

I do so wish we could put this "to bed".

There are very few that would refute the economic situation we face now was not created by Obama. But it was also not created by Bush, alone. It started even before him. The perceived solutions to the financial meltdown appear to have been the same between Bush and Obama.

As I recall, if I have the timeline right, and I could be in error, the prior administration saw the handwriting on the wall about 2 years before the election; just about the time the Congress gained D majority. On this board, there are those who do not see govt $ being the preferred solution, even though it was chosen by both leaders.

Personally, I think they were all pretty ignorant not to anticipate the end of the housing boom. The pattern of boom, then bust had occurred before in California. This time the boom spanned many more geographical areas. How could they believe such inordinate increases in housing prices could last forever? It never did before.

We do not know how a Republican administration would have acted when it comes to the AIG or GM bailout. We do know that O chose those solutions, so he becomes responsible for those actions. We cannot lay responsibility for the problem at O's door, but we can hold him responsible for whether his preferred solutions turn out to be correct or not.

So why should we hold O responsible for "fixing" the problems? Because he insisted that he could do so. We cannot relieve O of his responsibility because Bush did something "x" years ago that was just as bad or worse. It's reasonable to expect someone as intelligent as O should learn from past errors; and having a literal army of advisors to help analyze what did and didn't work ... as long as pragmatism takes precedence over ideology and special interest groups.

So, if we don't like what B did in the past, then we should advocate with our representatives to take whatever action we believe should be supported to improve the status quo. Whatever B or other predecessors did, is no longer of any consequence except insofar as it points us to more effecttive solutions. And, in fact, what worked before may not work as well if the conditions (economic or diplomatic) have changed in the interim. No amount of anger for past errors will help fix anything. If it distracts from finding the better solutions, it is very counter-productive.

When O's tenure is over, we will be able to analyze which of his actions were useful, and which were not. During his tenure, we should also be assessing results of policies on an ongoing basis.

I agree with your post. Bush had eight years to fix any problems he inherited and to build the kind of economy that he believed possible. He did not have a completely free hand with Congress, but enjoyed a level of support that few Presidents have had over the last hundred years. What he delivered was a country with much more serious economic problems than the one he inherited. For a little more than half of his Presidency, the country saw economic growth. However, that growth was financed by national and consumer debt and collapsed, leaving us in the present situation. It will take years to reverse the damage done. If we actually begin to live within our means, as we must, we will not see a return to the standard of living enjoyed by the most wealthy under Bush because that standard of living was not supportable.

For now, I think the President's priorities have to be to arrest the slide, stabilize employment, and restore at least moderate growth. That turnaround will make the debt problem worse in the short term but growth will reduce that effect as it kicks in. While it now looks like the economy is growing, that growth is still being financed by debt. In the longer term (2 to 3 years), the growth in the deficit needs to be cut dramatically. However, I do not see any possibility of generating a surplus to begin paying down our debt in the next four years without crashing the economy in a way that would actually reduce tax revenues and increase the deficit further. Over a period of eight years, however, it should be possible to begin paying down debt. In part, this will be achieved through higher taxes and in part it will be achieved through reduced expenditures including cuts in both social and military programs.

With respect to responsibility, I agree that Obama must be accountable for the effects of his policies, including his effectiveness in working with Cogress and his effectiveness in leading the people. Absent an unprecedented miracle, Democrats will lose seats in the next election (as have virtually all prior administrations in their first mid-term elections). In another three years, he will be judged by the voters on his successes and failures in office. For now, I think he has done both good and bad things but has generally been moving in the right direction on the economy.

[zeus3925]

You speak well, Gerry!

[Gerry Clinchy]

Yardley

With respect to responsibility, I agree that Obama must be accountable for the effects of his policies, including his effectiveness in working with Cogress and his effectiveness in leading the people. Absent an unprecedented miracle, Democrats will lose seats in the next election (as have virtually all prior administrations in their first mid-term elections).

O ought to be thinking of this very carefully, i.e. effectively working with Congress. I don't believe he has yet been very good in coalescing his own party; and less successful at nurturing bi-partisan support.

Whatever O's agenda may be, whether I agree with it or not, will not matter if he does not win over the Congress broadly on both sides of the aisle. For better or for worse, change is not easily effected by being heavy-handed, or giving the appearance of being heavy-handed. On this point, his lack of longer length of tenure in Congress is a disadvantage for him.

[Henry V]

Great posts Gerry and Jeff. Well stated and a good assessments of the situation.

[dnf777]

I do so wish we could put this "to bed".
.

I do too! The first step would be to acknowledge responsibility for failed policies. No, Bush is not 100% to blame, but he certainly get the lion's share of the blame! the last two years of his regime did have democratic majorities in both houses, but they did NOTHING to stand in his way, and he got ALL his budgets AND supplemental war bills passed easily, did he not? So let's put blaming this on two years of democratic congress to bed!

The reason I keep mentioning this, is I am also very concerned about gov't spending. I've been saying that for the past 12 years. I want to make sure we don't forget who ran up our $11 Trillion debt, so we don't mistakenly elect them again and worsen the problem. The other reason, is, I have been complaining for 8 years about runaway gov't defecit spending. I feel I have legitimacy in complaining now. The most vocal tea-baggers, birthers and deathers have been SILENT over the past 8 years. Where do they gain credibility NOW all the sudden to voice protest with such indignation? Is it because a democrat is in office? I ask again, Where was the outrage??? Had they been protesting Bush's MASSIVE, RECORD SETTING defecit spending bills, I would be donned my tea-bags and been right there with them. (although most Bush protesters were either silenced or kept out of camera's eye view, maybe that's why I never saw them!)

As it was, I never heard or saw a peep from these folks, until the country chose in a democratic election that we were headed in the wrong direction, and elected the opposing party. Now everyone's panties are in a bind.

[Gerry Clinchy]

I do too! The first step would be to acknowledge responsibility for failed policies. No, Bush is not 100% to blame, but he certainly get the lion's share of the blame! the last two years of his regime did have democratic majorities in both houses, but they did NOTHING to stand in his way, and he got ALL his budgets AND supplemental war bills passed easily, did he not? So let's put blaming this on two years of democratic congress to bed!

I'm willing to do that ... there is no sense in trying to parse what %-age of "blame" should be assigned to whom unless it serves the purpose of learning from the errors.

The reason I keep mentioning this, is I am also very concerned about gov't spending. I've been saying that for the past 12 years. I want to make sure we don't forget who ran up our $11 Trillion debt, so we don't mistakenly elect them again and worsen the problem. The other reason, is, I have been complaining for 8 years about runaway gov't defecit spending. I feel I have legitimacy in complaining now. The most vocal tea-baggers, birthers and deathers have been SILENT over the past 8 years. Where do they gain credibility NOW all the sudden to voice protest with such indignation? Is it because a democrat is in office? I ask again, Where was the outrage??? Had they been protesting Bush's MASSIVE, RECORD SETTING defecit spending bills, I would be donned my tea-bags and been right there with them. (although most Bush protesters were either silenced or kept out of camera's eye view, maybe that's why I never saw them!)

Since I might consider myself one of the "johnnie-come-latelys", I don't see any good reason not to join forces with you on those issues upon which we can agree ... like fiscal responsibility.

Some hunters might view hunt tests and field trials as frivolity, but certainly is a good thing to join with them to defend the right to bear arms. The hunt test & competitive crowd is more likely to see what the HSUS can do to infringe on our dog ownership. If the hunters only catch on later, should we turn them away?

As it was, I never heard or saw a peep from these folks, until the country chose in a democratic election that we were headed in the wrong direction, and elected the opposing party. Now everyone's panties are in a bind.

It is also possible that the silent majority just finally reached its limit of acceptance?

There are likely some irrational on both sides. I put the birth certificate crap to bed long ago. I did, however, found it disturbing to see legislation proposed & quick voting encouraged without the ample time to even read the stuff, much less understand it.

I'm getting a little annoyed that O is spending more time on speeches than "doing", like making sure that his "examples" are accurate ones. The school kids' message, the 9-11 messages, a stint on 60 minutes, and a visit to Wall Street all in one week's time.

Instead of just saying that illegals would not be covered, he could have actually said that legislative details would be modified to specifically exclude them. Either he didn't know that the attempt to enter such wording had been voted down in committee; or he did know & was insulting my intelligence by trying to gloss over it? Not sure which is worse.

I will admit that I intuitively didn't care for the super-glossy facade of O from the get-go. Got that same feeling with Slick Willy. "Plastic" was the first word that comes to my mind.

That said, much as I respect McCain, he didn't convince me he should be President. Refreshing as I found Sarah Palin's spunk, that wasn't enough to convince me of her qualifications to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I do wonder that this might have been one of the toughest choices ever for everyone who went to the voting booth last November ... if they were really thinking about it. I'm almost certain that all of us would be complaining just as loudly if McCain had won.

If there is an up-side to all of this, it is maybe we have all sat up and started paying more attention to our civic responsibility & holding our elected representatives accountable.

[dnf777]

I'm almost certain that all of us would be complaining just as loudly if McCain had won.

I was thinking about that the other night. I'm sure there are many quick fire responses geared at Obama bashing, but honestly, where would we be if McCain was elected? Assuming he would carry on many of Bush's platforms, what would the economic recovery look like right now? More tax cuts? A little less defecit spending than Obama? How 'bout the wars in Iraq and A-stan? After listening to Obama, Levin, the Generals on the ground....I have no idea in hell what our goal is. To be fair to Obama, I never did know what our missions were/are. Kill osama? Rid the taliban? Neither is very likely anymore, so what are we doing there?

By design, change comes slowly in our democracy. Frustrating at times, it also provides stability that has served us well for 233 years.

[Gerry Clinchy]

To be fair to Obama, I never did know what our missions were/are. Kill osama? Rid the taliban? Neither is very likely anymore, so what are we doing there?

Both Osama and the Taliban avowedly want to destroy infidels, and the U.S. and Israel seem to be their personifications of infidels. So, I have to believe that reducing/eliminating the radical influence of Osama & the Taliban are at the core of why we're over there.

I also think that bringing education to women in these countries will effect change in those countries beyond imagination in comparison to centuries of stifling women's possible contribution to their societies.

If Chinese leaders can be watching their backs because of their populace discovering capitalism, betcha Osama & the Taliban aren't in favor of spreading education and raising the standard of living.

I wonder if Osama is actually already dead? No mention is made any longer of his kidney disease. Surely would not be to the benefit of their cause to let the outside world know if Osama did die, as he has been the powerful figurehead of jihadism.

I think it is undeniable that the recent demonstrations in Iran show that as the memory of the Shah's rule fades among the younger people who don't remember him, the oligarchy rule of the mullahs is going to be taking heat as well.

While the original premise of going to Iraq may have been flawed, our action created a void in the orderliness of their society. We actually have, I believe, a responsibility to clean up the mess we created. A society doesn't move from multiple generations of being regimented by a tyrannical govt to freedom of thought & action overnight. There is a need to provide a safe environment so that the people can adapt to what freedom requires of them to keep it.

[M&K's Retrievers]

DNF said in part "The reason I keep mentioning this, is I am also very concerned about gov't spending. I've been saying that for the past 12 years. I want to make sure we don't forget who ran up our $11 Trillion debt, so we don't mistakenly elect them again and worsen the problem."

Let me get this straight.. Your concerned about the spending for the last 8 years but have no problem with the out of controll spending of Obama, Pelosi, Franks, etc and the hugh increase to the deficit this health care "solution" will cause. I don't get it and I don't think you can explain it.