The Party's Over!
| The Obama Presidency is over. Oh, we're still in it, but much like Germany was lost when the Allies landed on Normandy Beach before the actual surrender, this war has been decided. The country is in a funk, and when we are in a funk, the guy at the top loses his job. It's the American way. When a football team is unable to win, rarely do owners look at the bunch of losers suiting up every week as the problem, because to do so would also necessitate looking at who hired them. Nope, when a football team fails to live up to expectations, the coach is dismissed and they try another approach. And that is what is going to happen here, and no amount of wishing, hoping, reasoning, or complaining is going to change this metric. Because day by day, President Obama is losing his base. A new study from the LA Times reveals the problems he is facing. In a state where he still outpolls every GOP challenger, a state where government largesse is legend, people are calling on the biggest employer in the nation, government, to put more people out of work. Yes Virginia, even California is calling for reduced government spending. If a Democrat is going to have issues in California, how is his message going to play in Missouri? Virginia? Nevada? or Pennsylvania? These are all states Obama must win to secure the nomination. Now I know people can point to a host of reasons behind these findings. You can probably even argue that the GOP has been the driver of the bus to oblivion. But that will not matter. What will matter is what the Clinton War Room instinctively knew in the 1992 and 1996 elections. It's the economy stupid! And right now our economy sucks and does not look like it is getting better anytime soon. This has been coming for the Democrats for a long time. It is their day of reckoning. As it is for our country. What we are facing is not a GOP manufactured, or a Democrat manufactured crisis. What we are facing is the natural result of our headlong rush to live outside of our means. Instead of saving and buying, as our parents and grandparents did, we believed we were entitled to a better life and we borrowed to get it. Sure the political parties enabled us, and to a point, even exacerbated the problem, but no one put a gun to our heads and forced us to refinance our houses did they? Who made you buy your son that shiny new bicycle when he could not yet ride it? Did someone sign our names on all those charge receipts for dinner at the local Sizzler when we were short of money, short of food, and wanted to feel better about it? The Republicans are right. We have been on a spending spree for years now, and the note is now due. Unless President Obama can figure out a way to get this economy moving without additional funds, in the words of old Dandy Don Meredith on Monday Night Football, "Turn out the lights, the party's over!" Labels: Bill Clinton, Economy, Elections, President Obama |
posted by Dave Miller at 8:46 AM
Comments on "The Party's Over!"
-
BB-Idaho said ... (4:05 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (7:55 PM) :
-
btc said ... (4:43 AM) :
-
Tim said ... (3:38 PM) :
-
BB-Idaho said ... (7:06 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (8:51 PM) :
-
dmarks said ... (5:36 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (7:04 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (8:37 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (5:33 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (5:46 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (7:57 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (8:35 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (2:34 PM) :
post a commentGuess I'm a pessimist; our economic
problem transcends poltics..doesn't trickle down,
doesn't trickle up..just trickles
offshore.
Shaw, it looks like Obama will have to win both PA and FL, no small feat.
The country just seems to be polling away from him and he does not seem to be able to portray himself as a strong leader.
Americans expect that in a leader and will forgive a lot if they perceive him, or her to have what it takes.
President Obama does not even seem to be able to stand up to his own party and maintain discipline, let alone the GOP.
Sadly...
Excellent points. I'll add that blaming the President for the economy is usually a bit odd --considering the Executive Office generally cannot do much to directly affect the economy. The President's economic problem is that the traditional liberal model requires a constantly booming economy coupled with constantly booming population growth.
That said, don't count any politician from Chicago out until the votes are counted. Between the weak GOP field, white guilt, and the President's uncanny ability to pass the buck, this one ain't gonna be over til the fat lady sings.
He still has a chance if he brings home our soldiers. Say what you want about Nixon, but he ended Vietnam.
On the economy, there is still hope. I don't think this new plan will work as well as just raising some taxes on the rich and getting government borrowing under control. That capital is better used by the private sector.
The Republicans will self-destruct.
Perry: anti-science, anti-social security...and ANOTHER drawling
Texan....
We'll see BB...
This is a party that claims o represent middle America yet says if you do not have medical insurance, we should just let you die...
They said yes to that question in tonight's debate...
Shaw asked:
"So, you think the American people will throw Mr. Obama out and reinstate the people who caused our financial meltdown?"
The meltdown was caused by Fannie and Freddie forcing banks to give out massive bad loans. The individuals who were the architects and protectors of this policy, such as Barney Frank, never left power.
After the recent NY vote, there's a chance he might actually get bounced.
dmarks, you continue to peddle the fannie and freddie argument...
Were it not for a relaxation of credit requirements and banking regulations advocated by President Clinton and put together by Phil Gramm, we would not be in this mess.
That and the inability, or unwillingness of corporations to regulate themselves coupled with the general publics desire to get something for nothing converged to become the perfect storm of all of our own making.
Dmarks... what in this article is factually untrue?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/one_betrayel_too_many_20110915/
Well, we can start with this factual untruth from your article:
"Sure, [Obama] inherited an enormous mess from George W., who whistled “Dixie” while the banking system imploded."
The truth is very different. From the New York Times in 2003:
"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios...."
Far from whistling Dixie, Bush tried to stop the meltdown well before it happenedl. If you want to look to see who was "whistling dixie", look at this quote from Barney Frank: "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis"
Barney Frank and the Democrats in Cognress blocked this, insisting there were no problems with F&F.
Here is another article from a left-wing news source about how F&F caused the financial meltdown.
I am "peddling" nothing. Just realizing the fact that the financial meltdown was caused not by the government taking a hands-off approach to banks, but by government agencies (Fannie and Freddie) forcing banks to behave very badly. The objective journalists (not commentators) at NPR, another left-wing news source, in a matter of fact fashion call the F&F situation the "trigger" that caused the financial collapse.
No F&F, no meltdown.
Also, lets look at this part of the article you link to:
"He blindly followed President Bush’s would-be remedy of throwing money at the banks and getting nothing in return for beleaguered homeowners."
This was actually Obama's policy also. Senator Obama voted for the bailout/handout which did this in late 2008. Oddly enough, most Republicans opposed it, along with the more hard-left in Congress.
Blind? Who knows. But by voting for the "would-be remedy of throwing money at the banks" in the Senate even before Bush signed this into law, he was acting even before Bush, time-wise.
As for the bailouts he initiated during his administration, remember the "buck stops here". These were his choice, not Bush's.
Dmarks, you cannot hammer the dems for not regulating fannie and freddie and then also say the problem was for lack of regulation...
Obama did inherit a mess of trouble from the previous admin...
Were things rosy when he came into office, or were they bad and getting worse?
In the end, you are arguing for more regulation, generally a democratic position... what GOP leaders, apart from Bush, supported his position and were also pushing congress to act on this in 2003? Weren't they in control of both the house and the senate?
For GOP partisans to argue that Bush could not control his party and get his legislation passed, while at the same time deriding Obama for the same is disingenuous.
I hope that is not what you are say Dmarks.
And yes, i agree the buck, at this point stops with Obama, and why I believe he will lose his reelection bid.
As my post points out.
Dave said: "Dmarks, you cannot hammer the dems for not regulating fannie and freddie and then also say the problem was for lack of regulation..."
F&F are government agencies, so anything they do either way is regulation. Bush wanted better control and policies for these organizations, and the Dems resisted this.
If you want to blame Bush here, blame him for not fighting the Dems hard enough.
I do admit that I am not aware of the general GOP actions during this period on the F&F scandal.
However, if I google
republicans protect fannie mae
and
democrats protect fannie mae,
for the Republicans I find mostly articles and entries about efforts to protect the American people from these agencies, while for the Democrats I mostly find articles and entries about the Dems trying to protect the agencies themsevles.
"Obama did inherit a mess of trouble from the previous admin..."
...one big example of which was the $700 billion dollar bailout. Which greatly expanded the debt... and which Senator Obama approved of.
The big problem is that while Obama inherited a mess of trouble, he made it much worse. On his watch, unemployment has increased 20%, and he has caused the entire national debt to go up by 50%. Let's not even look at the results in gas prices, where Obama has been working to increase foreign oil importation.
"In the end, you are arguing for more regulation, generally a democratic position.."
Actually, the regulations at fault were the government agency (F&F) policies which forced banks to make bad loans. A destructive and unneeded intervention by the ruling elites into the private sector.
Without these regulations, banks would have hardly done this at all. So this is a case of where less regulation would have been ideal.
DMarks, as Scheer argues, the lack of regulation on Freddie and Fannie was a result of legislation proposed by the GOP and signed into law by president Clinton.
Specifically GOP Senator Phil Gramm was a big proponent of this.
Now whatever President Bush did, the fact remains that under his watch, there continued to be less regulation and more risky loans.
His party controlled Congress during those years, so he gets either the credit, or blame.
Just as Obama does for stuff during his Admin, which I agree with and have argued will ultimately cost him a second term.
But..... let's not use the term force when speaking of the banks. Believe me, if they did not believe they would be making some big $$$, they would have found a way to not loan the money.
They are businessmen.
The constant revisionism of people on both sides to place blame solely at the feet of one party is ludicrous.
Both the Dems and the GOP cut corners, sought financial gain, removed regulations that for years had protected people, and then looked the other way.
And it is continuing today. The industry needs to be held accountable for their actions and then re regulated.
Who is arguing for that?
Sadly, no one!