"Man Up, Obama" and Other Nonsense
I stole the title from an article in today's WSJ by Joe Queenan. I thought I would post the link here because it provides an interesting perspective on what people should expect from the President and I think I'm probably one of the few people here that reads the WSJ.
The key point is that people need to make sure they understand what the majority of the country wants, and not just what they want. You can't honestly accuse the President of wimping out and caving to others unless what you want is what the majority of the country wants. Sometimes we all need to take a step back and compare those two items. He's governing for all of us, not just one or two of us.
See the link below, it's a quick read.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489700704666232.html
I read the WSJ from time to time, and am always pleased to see them defending the President.
Liberals will not get all we want from this President, probably ANY President, at least not all at once, but what we do get will be preferable to anything we would get from a repub President. I hope we are able to remember that.
If we come out of this eight years a center left country, instead of center right, I will consider Obama to have been the best President in a very long time. We have time.
October 26, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that the Presidents we have had for the last (nearly) three decades have been Reagan (twice - blargh!), Bush The First (only once, thankfully), Clinton (meh), and Bush Junior, easily and by far the worst President in the history of the United States, I'd say Obama's being the best President in a long time is pretty well a slam dunk.
October 26, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say Obama's being the WORST president since the incompetent Carter is pretty well certain.
October 26, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did they repossess your bridge?
October 26, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, after nine months... based on what?
The economy he worked to keep from slipping into a complete depression after the destruction and raping of our economy by Bush/Cheney?
You really must have your head in the I'm a republican sand.
October 27, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
What did Obama do that saved the economy from the brink of collapse? Give the banks billions in bailout money? Oh yeah, that was started in 2008. Allow the Fed to expand its balance sheet and buyback Treasuries and Agency debt? That was also started back in 2008.
October 27, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The impact of the stimulus package is hard to define. How do you know if things would be better or worse without the stimulus package? Economists can run computer models based on their own biases and come out with results that confirm their theory.
With consumer spending down, the government was the only entity capable of putting money back into the economy. Cutting government spending may have worsened a downward spiral. Raising taxes may have frozen consumer spending even more than was already occurring. There was no easy solution.
To state that Obama did "nothing" is disingenuous.
If you know for a fact that the stimulus plan had "zero" impact, than I need some of what you're smoking.
October 27, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you look at the Q2 GDP numbers, very little of the pickup came from consumer. A lot came from private investment by businesses. And I don't think they have benefitted from the Stimulus very much. Stimulus so far hasn't really improved consumer spending or unemployment.
I did not say nor mean to imply that Obama has done "nothing". My point is that many of the reasons driving the improvements in the capital markets are due to policies put in place in late 2008.
October 27, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, MCB. Bush began the bail out.
But why did we need that, again? Whose policies had led us down that road into the gutter? Who had the surplus at the beginning of their first term?
October 27, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surpluses at the beginning of the term? Yes but that was 8 years ago and a lot happened post that. The dot-com bubble burst and we had a recession in 2001/2002. We went to war. We had a housing bubble crash and credit crisis.
As for the "policies that led us down this road"? I would argue that everybody on both sides of the aisle propped up the housing bubble. It had been building for a long time. I can't see how it was just a Dem or Rep problem.
October 27, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was it a housing bubble or a mortgage house of cards? Now don't get all Freddie and Fannie in reply. Banks were complicit, willing partners, but probably the most scurilous in the system were the brokers who wrote bad loans, banks that bought those loans and then bundled and sold them rated Grade A Prime, when they were rotten. It's no surprise to any bankers so many loans failed. They all thought they were the only ones doing it and they could sell them to someone else. It was karma.
October 27, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
E. All of the above. Affordable housing was profitable for banks and it made good headlines if you were running for re-election. But banks like Countrywide would only originate low-quality loans if they knew somebody was out there to buy them. And you've already cited who the largest buyers were.
October 27, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If consumers were not spending money. Who was the customer private industry was gearing up to purchase their products?
October 27, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was the customer? It was the intermediates. Not the end-users. Companies took their inventories down to unsustainable levels. Now they have to start ordering raw materials again to make their products. So Sony has started to buy parts from Intel and AMD that make the components, but that doesn't mean Joe the Plumber is buying a new TV yet. And retailers had taken their inventories down dramatically too. So they're starting to replenish them.
It is true that government spending grew at a 5.6% annual rate for Q2, moderating the contraction in GDP. But most of that increase came from the defense sector, not the nondefense sectors targeted by Stimulus. Defense spending grew at a 13.3% annual rate, in part a rebound from a 4.3% first quarter contraction. Nondefense spending grew at a 6% annual rate, contributing 0.15 percentage points to overall growth.
The economy can use all of the help it can get, but it’s too soon to declare that federal spending is effectively making its way into the system.
October 27, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who pays out the money for Defense spending?
If the intermediaries took their inventories down because no one was buying, who is expected to buy the replenished stock?
October 27, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who pays out the money for the defense spending? Uncle Sam.
Who is expected to buy the replenished stock?
Consumers eventually. But they aren't spending yet, despite all the stimulus spending.
October 27, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consumer spending would be expected to lag because of the stagnant economy and poor job market. Therefore for a period of time government spending is going to be required. Defense is government spending. Stimulus is government spending.
October 27, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stimulus needs to stimuluate. And so far it's not been very stimulating. The defense spending is not from the stimulus package. The spending by the private sector isn't because of consumers now buying more than they did before because they're spending more.
October 27, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who gives a good rat's fuck what you think?
You wouldn't know good if it bit your sorry chihuahua ass.
October 27, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
October 26, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I occasionally read the WSJ. I actually found this article via twitter; my news wire.
October 26, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for sharing this article. That writer must have been in my head.
October 26, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The author of the piece, Joe Queenan, writes not only for the WSJ but for a broad spectrum of other publications as well, including the NY Times, The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, and many more.
Regarding his strikingly empathetic perspective on Obama, Queenan grew up poor, and much of his early life was dominated by the pain of a dysfunctional relationship with his father:
http://www.smithmag.net/memoirville/2009/05/15/interview-joe-queenan-author-of-closing-time/
October 26, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting this.
October 26, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh wow... BFD!
Will wonders ever cease? A writer plugging his memoir by filling 24 column inches in the Wall Street Journal bitch-slapping a fellow writer from the New York Times is news and interesting commentary? Who gives a big crap?
Oh and... this wordsmith Queenan hasn't really listened to what the President has said, to everyone, left, right, or center. And that is, if you want Obama to get something done you're going to have to make him do it.
You don't get him to do things by shutting your trap and being a good little soldier following blindly nor sitting on your hemorrhoid pillow.
~OGD~
October 26, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it every. single. time the Left is criticized about the way they offer "criticism", they immediately shot back with this make-him-do-it crap and "don't tell us to be quiet"?
Not one word or sentence in that article suggests that the Left or anyone stay quiet. Not one person anywhere on this earth is preventing you from speaking up. The author of that article is completely right on all points.
And "make him do it" involves writing, faxing, calling and e-mailing your people in Congress and the Prez. It involves protests, marches, etc. Telling the president, via blogging, to man up is not effective. It just adds to the noise of all that cable and radio chatter.
October 27, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah ... Go blow hot air up your own ass . . .
~OGD~
November 2, 2009 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Queenan's column was pretty funny and middleclassbill, I appreciate the link and commentary.
And Queenan has a point. But the left has a point too, just like the right had some good points about Bush -- the base throws the passion into getting these guys elected. Yes, they will always let the base down. But it's not the base's job to let up once their candidate becomes president. If the base believes what the base believes it should keep the pressure on.
Oh and all your base r belong to us or something.
October 27, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Queenan is an old, disagreeable, out of touch, elitist guy who is little more than a naysayer about everything and everyone. On rare occasion he makes a good point but it isn't often enough to have to expose one's self to such a nattering nabob of negativism.
October 27, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink