This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Why Contrary To Popular Opinion Gridlock Would Be A Catastrophe; Is Obama More Like Clinton Or Bush
Some entertaining observations from BofA's Ethan Harris, who describes in detail why there are 500 billion reasons why gridlock would cripple the economy, and asks whether Obama is (or should be) more like Clinton or Bush in dealing with the approaching deadlines that will result in the first openly negative GDP print as soon as Q3 (good luck justifying thoat 10% EPS growth when the economy is about to decline). And just to confirm how bad it is, Jan Hatzius chimes in to explain why the economy will face a nearly 2% point headwind from inventory liquidation and negative fiscal catch up (think Cash For Clunkers gone viral) nearly every quarter in the coming year.
Gridlock is not Goldilocks
With the election looming and huge decisions facing President Obama and the Congress, clearly politics will play a big role in the economic outlook. Republicans are likely to take over the House, while Democrats are likely to retain the Senate. The Iowa electronic market puts the probability of a Republican victory in the House at 74%, but only at 20% in the Senate. Some analysts argue that split government and gridlock in Washington is good for growth: it prevents the government from interfering further in the private sector. Others argue that a Republican victory is good because it means more business-friendly policies. The reality is a bit more complicated.
In the short term gridlock is very bad for the economy. If Democrats and Republicans can’t reach a compromise, there will be a major tax shock at the start of next year. Gridlock also means awkwardly drafted regulatory legislation adopted in the past two years will move forward without retroactive refitting.
Thus, in our view, the key to the economic outlook is not who wins, but whether the two parties can work together. Congressional Republicans will have to decide whether to block legislation with even small flaws or work to reach agreements. Presumably, a strong election result will make them less inclined to compromise.
We believe that the pressure to compromise will be greatest for President Obama. Both the Congress and the President Obama face declining popularity ratings (Chart 8), but rightly or wrongly the President is held accountable for the economy. As Table 2 shows, economic issues dominate all others. We’ve recalculated some economic models of elections and they suggest Obama will lose unless the economy gets several strong growth quarters in the run-up to the election (we will write more on this later).
From a Machiavellian perspective, President Obama has several choices about how to prepare for the next election. Should he be like Bill Clinton: moving to the center to attract independent voters and aid his re-election? Should he “triangulate” and adopt some of the Republican views? Hopefully this would reduce business uncertainty, spurring corporate hiring and investment. Or will he mimic George W. Bush, taking a more partisan approach to energize his base. A third option would be to “fake right, go left:” that is adopting business-friendly policies for the next year and a half, stimulating the economy, and then revert to the left, with populist rhetoric in front of the election.
Triangulation or strangulation?On the margin, we think the Clinton scenario is more likely. If we advised the President, we would tell him that the unemployment rate will trump all other factors in the Presidential election and the way to get the unemployment rate down is to tack to the center, extend all the tax cuts and reduce regulatory uncertainty. That still leaves the option to shift back to the left in the months leading up to the election and energize his base. However, first things first: no amount of populist policy can overcome a bad economy. [oops]
So what should investors watch for? We do not expect any sign of compromise before the election. After the election, we think the Obama Administration would be more likely to move first than either party in Congress. Any hints that they are amenable to either a temporary extension of upper income rates or of raising the threshold for tax increases (say, from $250,000 to $500,000) would be a hopeful sign of compromise. A bad sign would be both sides emphatically restating their current position.
We will also watch for who Obama picks to replace outgoing members of his policy team. A recent Wall Street Journal piece (the main section, not the op ed page) argued that “White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is likely to resign in a matter of weeks, hastening a remake of the Obama White House that could lead to a lower-key, more cooperative approach after the November midterm elections.” The article also noted that by filling Larry Summer’s seat with a business executive and by offering tax credits the Obama Administration could show it can “make a course correction.”
Shocking tax math
How bad would it be for the economy if all of the Bush tax cuts expired? One scary calculation is to take the tax hike—say $250 bn—annualize it—$1 trillion— and assume a 50 cents on the dollar shock to spending – $500 bn. That would be a 3.3% hit to GDP growth and enough to easily push the economy into recession. Fortunately things are not quite this dire. The shock to the economy is mainly psychological rather than monetary. Even if the tax cuts are allowed to expire, we would expect most to be reinstated by late January when the new Congress gets down to work. So the direct shock to spending would be small. The bigger risk is that households and businesses go into wait-and-see mode as they watch dysfunction in Washington play out. This could mean a slowdown in hiring, capital spending and purchases of consumer durables starting in November and building the longer the dysfunction continues.
Quantifying such a potential shock is difficult to say the least. If all of the tax cuts are allowed to expire, then perhaps the economy will behave similar to the run-up to the War in Iraq in 2003. Then the worry was of either an oil shock or terrorism. Uncertainty rose sharply in the spring, causing payroll employment to drop in February, March and April. GDP was flat in Q4 2002, but rose 1.6% in Q1 and 3.2% in Q2 of 2003.
Alas, the tax "game theory" thing is not the only thing that will cripple the economy very, very soon. Oh no, pretty everything else will too. Here is Jan Hatzius explaining why Obama is screwed.
Among the many factors that will influence real GDP growth over the next 1-2 years, we can distinguish between two broad groups. The first consists of short-cycle impulses to growth, which can swing sharply from positive to negative and back within a few quarters. Two key examples are the inventory cycle and fiscal policy, but the short-cycle factors also include impulses from monetary policy, shifts in businesses’ willingness to hire and invest, “shocks” to financial conditions or energy prices, and exogenous factors such as the effects of natural disasters, wars, and terrorist acts. These factors are the staple diet of business forecasters.
Our forecast at the beginning of the year that real GDP growth would slow sharply through 2010 was based on a pessimistic outlook for the short-cycle factors, specifically a sharp decline in the impact from inventories and fiscal policy. Indeed, the chart below shows that this impact has gone from around +4 percentage points in late 2009/early 2010 to +1.2 points in the second quarter of 2010, and that it is likely to deteriorate further to around -1½ points in late 2010 and 2011.
It would be a mistake to argue that this 2.7-percentage-point deterioration will lead to a 2.7-percentage-point slowdown in real GDP growth compared with the second-quarter growth pace of 1.6%. First, as we argue below, there does seem to be some gradual “healing” in the economy underneath the surface, which should translate into a gradual pickup in underlying growth (excluding the fiscal/inventory impact). Second, the second-quarter GDP figure of 1.6% looks a bit “too weak” relative to other measures of economic activity during the quarter, including the business surveys, the labor market data, and indeed the GDP figures measured from the “income side” of the national accounts (the latter showed real GDP growth of 2.3%). One possible reason lies in a statistical overstatement of import growth, whose implausibly strong growth subtracted sharply from the conventional “expenditure side” measure of real GDP in the second quarter.
But despite these mitigating factors, the further deterioration in the “short cycle” factors does pose a significant downside risk to our forecast that real GDP will grow at a 1.5% rate in late 2010. Moreover, these risks remain large in early 2011. Under our baseline fiscal expectations—in which only the upper-income Bush tax cuts expire but all other cuts are extended—the fiscal/inventory effect remains around -1½ percentage points in 2011. But there is some risk that gridlock in Congress leads to a full expiration of all of the tax cuts passed under President Bush in 20101-2003 and President Obama in 2009. This would mean a much bigger tax increase and would imply an additional 1½-percentage-point hit in early 2011 relative to the baseline, i.e. a -3 perrcentage point impact (see Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s US Daily Comments on this issue). This would sharply increase the risk of recession. (It is also possible that all of the tax cuts get extended; this would imply a modestly smaller amount of restraint in early 2011 than in our baseline assumptions.)
»
- 7353 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
ELECTION DAY 2010
http://williambanzai7.blogspot.com/2010/09/election-day-preview-2010.html
OBAMANOMICS (REPOST)
http://williambanzai7.blogspot.com/2010/08/obamanomics-explained.html
AMERICAN IDEALISM
http://williambanzai7.blogspot.com/2010/09/american-idealism.html
Well, OK, williambanzai7, thank you for your posts and links.
If I had to guess re who's policies would work better, normally I would choose R...
As they would take less than the Ds.
.....
At some point the Bearing, with his limited time, will have to check out your site...
Banzai is a good man. His site has nothing to do with revenue of any kind. He has a good day job. He expresses himself through his creative mind and passes along the links. And he gets junked for no reason whatsoever. There is nothing in it for him. He just is having fun and letting out his frustration regarding the world at large with Photoshop and creativity. Ponzinomics for Dummies was a classic. And there are so many more.
Go and check out his top 20. He was a great help when I did the fundraiser and is just a blogger that never sleeps. It's not like he is the Mad Hedge Fund Trader that posts nonsense to get people to his for profit blog. Banzai is in it for expression, plain and simple. I know he won't mind me speaking for him--unless he sends me an email and tells me to STFU. :)
The math in this paragraph is not 'shocking', it's simply dodgy.
Extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich would increase the budget deficit by $500b. Isn't austrian economics teaching you that increasing budget deficits is ... bad?
Or, if you dont accept that austrian view and if you argue that the government should spend an extra $500b (which you seem to be in favor of) - i.e. if you argue in favor of implementing a keynesian stimulus, then extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is rather bad and ineffective stimulus economics: it has a very low multiplicator as tax cuts for the rich will only strengthen deflationary forces as the rich will hoard the cash (which they dont need), not put it to work.
But you cannot have it both ways.
The rich will 'reinvest it in the economy' is a fairy tale fantasy. The rich are hoarding a trillion dollars already, today, and are not 'reinvesting' it into the economy at all. (they are not reinvesting it because they are savvy businessmen and know that growing corporations while the demand is not there is money thrown out the window.)
Giving the rich half a trillion more wont do any good on that front - unless your goal is to baloon the deficit by another ~4% and if you want the US economy to fail spectacularly.
A better way to spend that $500b would be to cut the taxes of the middle class (those are who bore the brunt of the recession anyway), and/or to stimulate the economy in other ways that increase aggregate demand, to close the ~4% output gap the US has today.
Once the output gap has been closed, companies will start ramping up production again. We have seen it in 2009 that closing about half of the output gap produces rather good growth. (the post-2008 output gap was ~8% and the Obama stimulus was about ~4%)
Closing the output gap fully would cure many of the demand shock problems that today's economy is collectively suffering from.
Let's say this together now, "You do not create Debt with Revenue."
Once more with Gusto, "You do not create Debt with Revenue!"
The way you create debt, is with Spending. Anyone who tells you different is lying to you and robbing you blind while they are at it.
You wanted to say that "You do not create Debt with reducing Revenue", right?
Sure you create debt that way, and this is accounting 101. If a corporation decides to pay out dividents, or decides to reduce prices, it reduces profits and hence negatively affects the bottom line. (corporations pay dividents rutinely do it when they have a budget surplus - but they do it very rarely if they are in the red.)
The situation is similar for countries: if a country decides to reduce revenue, by reducing taxes, or by sending tax-cut cheques to individuals, it directly affects the bottom line and imbalances the budget.
A country can cut taxes of course - and it will have all the positive effects of a stimulus - and will have all the negative effects of more debt if it's done on a deficit economy.
Seriously, I didn't think I'd have to argue such basics on ZH.
Seriously, I didn't think I'd have to argue such basics on ZH.
It an unfortunate reality that trolls bear a heavy burden. You guys should consider unionizing.
"Giving the rich half a trillion more wont do any good on that front"
This is where I stopped reading. The flaw in your logic is to believe that the government is "giving" the rich anything. The money belongs to those who earn it - rich or poor - in the first place, and is then taxed away by the government. Allowing people to keep more of the money they earn is not giving them anything, any more than the street mugger who robs you but allows you to keep $20 is giving you money.
(Too bad, it helps to read your opponent's arguments at least once.)
What makes you believe that you 'own' all the money you earn in the US? By the law of the land you do not. The thing is, you were born into a vastly complex society built by hundreds of millions of other people - most of whom are dead by today. Those people voted, legislated, fought for a system which, no matter how imperfect, is the law of the land. You have the privilege to earn an unlimited amount of money by using this complex system - as long as you play by the rules. If you dont like that - effect a change in the laws or leave the country and found your own country.
There's a really nice country not far away, which has private law, private security, no taxes and no government: Somalia. Reportedly it's somewhat weak in terms of infrastructure and in terms of quality of living - but you get what you pay for, right?
Really, and I'm truly curious - what gives you this sort of unbelievable sense of entitlement that you now have the right to use such a complex system to its fullest, none of which system you have actually built yourself, without giving a fair price for it (taxes)?
Also, even if you disagree about taxes, why does this issue cause you to ignore basic economics? Cutting revenue means increasing the deficit. Increasing spending means increasing the deficit. An increased deficit is an increased deficit. You cannot have it both ways really - a budget imbalance is a budget imbalance.
OK, we get the point. The pickaninnies will slave away their lives on the plantation and like it. And yet, I have a dream...
If your dream is to be allowed to live in a modern society (built by others) and make money there, while not paying the price for it (taxes), I suspect you will have to wait and dream for a long, long time.
If you want to live in a society with no taxes and no government there's plenty of options all around the planet right now and nobody is holding you back from going there. Somalia is waiting for you!
Your claim that the money you make in a modern society is "all yours" is simply not true (freeloaders have been frowned upon since the stone ages), and you should not be surprised if society comes after you if you try to freeload by 'avoiding' to pay those taxes.
It's a very simple business proposition: you get access to a safe and developed country with a huge market, you get contracts enforced, you get emergency services, you even get the option to pay the costs (income taxes) only once per year (instead of per transaction) - in exchange it is expected of you to truthfully pay those taxes.
If you dont like this deal, if this deal is against your principles, if you think taxes should be eliminated, you can leave the country anytime and you can forfeit your US citizenship.
It's really that simple :-)
I think we have to say D & R collaborated closely to FUBAR everything. There is no other conclusion that can be safely reached.
HE IS MORE LIKE AN AHOLE.
Voters thought they were voting in "I Am Legend" when in fact they elected "I Am Loser."
~Misstrial
New bumper sticker:
"I VOTED FOR A SOCIALIST MUSLIM COOL GUY AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS PATHETIC VAIN BANKSTER PUPPET"
very funny and apropos.
The only problem I see here is that Obama doesn't seem smart enough to triangulate his way out of this mess. Clinton could do it because, let's face it, he had no principles other than self aggrandizement - Obama seems to actually believe the nonsense he's peddling and thus if some sage advice comes his way on how to deal with a GOP Congress, he not only won't take it, but won't see why he should.
now that is friggin brilliant, but i just got flagged, so there you go. i seem the three of them as a presidential trifecta of doom.
Clinton also was in a secular bull market. And he had Greenspan aiding him all the way to the bubble.
It's not about intelligence. It's not about policy or politics. We are in a secular bear market. Unless the Austrians infiltrate the White House and the Keynsians are tarred and feathered, we are forced to watch the demise. It's really that simple.
+1 and it's good to see you HB.
We're doomed. Obama is as imcompent as Bush and as sleazy as Clinton. What a combination
problem is who is going to suck his dick in the oval office, if he is Clinton, and what new war can he start if he is Bush. We already have two wars and Michele watches him like a hawk (pardon the partisan pun)
After a statement like that all you apologize for is the hawk pun?
BARRY IS AN IDOLOGUE. Only when the surfs are surfs does he care. As a Marxist, the means do not matter (die whomever) and only America gasping for it's last breath is what he wants - to the ends. He hates us. Why are so many clueless and do not get it...
"Charlie Doesn't Surf." This message brought to you courtesy of the Serf Board.
"Charlie don't surf."
This message brought to you by pedantic Smurfs for the correcting of movie references by serfs.
You either surf, or you fight.
And we all know why we're here, right?
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! Sorry...it's a sports thing...
"Charlie don't surf."
This message brought to you by pedantic Smurfs for the correcting of movie references by serfs.
The serfs thank you. What "smells like victory?" I went for that the other day and couldn't recall.
And the winner is ......dead on analysis; thankyou
Still fooled by the shadow puppets I see. That's good. You keep them thinking that they have the common folks fighting amongst themselves.
+10000
More like Mwai Kibaki.
It amazes me how few people notice the strings rising from all of our presidents and disappearing up into the shadows above the stage.
but barry is a muslin socialmalist!! vote R, none of them are puppets, brilliant leaders like Palin will save us from the socialmalist demoncraps. keep voting R or D so you don't throw away your definitely-counted vote.
Jack Johnson or John Jackson?
Fingerlican or Tastycrat?
So many choices! I'd better just listen to what the spokesmodels on tv tell me to do.
Its the Keith Hennessey school of economics.... B of A, wow, talk about one fuckin turkey of an American company..
Barry understands the 1984 side of things. Of course he wants you to say that 2 + 2 = 5. He hates you and you are better off letting the government help you. Control the people. Thats what the elites say. Loved Logan's Run
THX1138
2+2 = 5 is correct, for high values of 2... the world is rarely discrete.
OK, I suppose I'm ready to be clobbered for my stupidity after the elections, but I just can't prejudge this one as a big winner for Republicans.
Tea Party candidates seem far more likely to harm Republicans than Dems, and while the existing administration isn't making anyone happy, I still see plenty of mindless Obama-support amongst the few affluents I still know in the Dem-enclave of NYC.
As for the incoming Congress working together...um...well...nah. Not happening. For that part it doesn't matter what happens at the polls.
They might start working together when there's blood in the streets and a million peasants with sharpened scythes on the steps of the Capitol, but for now this is still all pretendy-time for our great leaders.
Most of those assholes really still believe that either tax-cuts or stimulus-spending are going to save us all. Hah.
the numbers don't get counted until the returns are in.
The numbers may not add up to generate those returns, but that's all OK, 'cause defecates don't matter.
The people who vote decide nothing.
The people who count the votes decide everything.
- Josef Stalin
Brilliant. I'm goin' long Diebold.
Speak for yourself - Diebold may say otherwise.
there is absolutely no reason to think Obama or the Senate will govern like anything other than a Republican cabal (Bush Sr. style)... it's what they have governed like so far. And a House led by Teabaggers is just icing on their kabuki cake.
American storming our own Bastille cannot come soon enough.
No way Obama gets reelected.
Funny, I was listening to a fairly conservative talk radio show out of Boston and the callers were uniformly livid that Scott Brown had voted for the farcical financial regulations bill. They all seemed to regard it as a sort of betrayal on his part.
Are they just not conservative at all? Are they wrong that it was a betrayal of Brown's purported principles?
Or are you wrong in your description of how Obama and the senate have governed so far?
I suppose you could argue that Bush sr. style republicans aren't really conservatives but I don't see what other outs you have.
That bill was a sham. Anything less than a restoration of Glass-Steagall was just more theatre... might as well have been a Republican bill... but it wasn't.
I wouldn't begin to speculate on the conservative credentials of a bunch right wing talk show callers without hearing the episode.
Howie's show? yep. - Ned
"Teabaggers" Yeh hate those white middle class folks. You know the ones who clean up after a rally. They are the root of all evil.
A spending freeze is Austerity Bitches!!!! Got Fucking Ammo? You better if the lights go out for all of those Broke, Hungry Fellow American's!
Republicants v. Dumbocrats all owned by the Lobby so there is NO! difference between the two...
Abortion Ticket? Pro or Against? cause that's going to bring jobs back to America...
I hope the lights do go out, I will be in the fucking Bahamas... no worries after You bottom feeders kill enough of each other off I will come back to claim my portion of whats left, not burning and / or still standing.
AUSTERITY BITCHES! ='s Hungry Masses!!! Hell Ya!
I'm hoping for a military coup.
Get back under your rock.
You may get it someday, but first comes Caeser. I think Barry got close, but he is not the one.
Let me list out all the countries whose situation improved after a military coup:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
uh, Turkey, maybe???
One might hope for a better option.
@Mad
Add another -- Chile. They were going down the shitter under that Marxist head case Allende. Pinochet was a bad-ass in many ways, but his economic instincts Were good and he put in the foundation of what is today the most vibrant economy in SA.
hmm, a CIA backed military coup that resulted in thousands being "disappeared" and allowed the "chicago boys" to implement their "reforms" which meant corporatising services and industry, allowing amrkn corporations to resume the pillaging of chilean resources. . .etc. etc.
you must be hella happy with how things are going back here in the "homeland". . .
Barry is just as ideologically flexible as Clinton - just not as slick.
Cecil-no flexibility at all in the guy, he's anti-colonial, why he's anti-Rhodes! - Ned
Doesn't anyone remember that Clinton was a total washout and looked like a one-term loser? Then in '94 he got smart and hired Dick Morris. Morris ran the country while Clinton ran for reelection. Look for Obama to do something similar now that he's axed his entire Whitehouse staff.
i understand Hillary will take a run at him, the BITCHEZ are mad!!
this indiscriminate flagging has go to stop!! Obama is like the atomic bomb, and Bush is like Truman. That's all!!!
What makes you think it's indiscriminate?
Edit: I see by the junks (without comments) that I have a faithful following.
WOW! This comment section is something else:
Not ONE word on how the reichpubliscums have been the most obstructionist opposition in the history of this Republic. Not ONE word on how the BLue Dogs, a.k.a. the congenital morons have sabotaged pretty much any initiative for the right or the left.
Man! It's all Obama's fault! Why don't we impeach him already and everything shall be peachy-dandy again, right?
As for the article itself, it's derisively easy to see how these guys are parroting talking points while talking their book. Who the fuck will believe that returning to the Clinton era tax rates will shellshock this economy?
Come on!!
Vote Christine O'Donnell, she will save us all!!
(from masturbating)
you've just had a hex put on you.
Anyone who watched Bush, Cheney and the Republicans ram through shit in an endless stream... cannot honestly defend a D led WH Senate and Housewho capitulates at best at every turn.
There is no D party anymore. No more than the invasion of Chicago School economics which now permeates all is Keynesian failure. The Dem party is at most 15 percent of a shadow of its former self. Meaning the D party of the last Depression.
And how many 99ers will fall completely off the radar this month, or over the next 12 to 18 months? I sure hope they are sharpening pitchforks!
Nice post NorthenSoul. There seems to be a guilt by association these days just commenting here. The balance is gone.
You've been around here as long as I have. Junkers everywhere, total nonsense on the blog unless a few of us chime in from time to time. Deadhead, if you are out there, help save the blog once in awhile. MsCreant thankfully keeps her sharp and witty comments coming. Lizzy is still with us. Miles is still with us, as is CD.
This is what was the most specious premise of the piece written:
"One scary calculation is to take the tax hike—say $250 bn—annualize it—$1 trillion— and assume a 50 cents on the dollar shock to spending – $500 bn."
That's just an idiotic assumption. To assume that those making $250K+ and up to the billionaires will cut spending by 50 cents on the dollar? That's what not extending the tax cuts would do and this is how they sell it? Start with a faulty assumption and then expound on the misery we will face.
I say horseshit. Get the taxes back where they were. I want the TBTF's to go down, I want the system cleansed, but I don't want it to be paid for by the 95% of this country that are less fortunate. If we are going to go down in flames, at least fleece the top too.
@Howard_
I guess you also believe that the 95% "less fortunate" pay 95% of the taxes? Doesn't work that way tool.
It's a show. No matter who you vote for the government gets in. At this point we are just shuffling name plates around as the fire rages to the water line. I'll go on record now, this republican revolution will be just like the last one (what a nightmare), they will fiddle in DC while the empire burns. The blues of course are no different, there are no choices except to brace for impact. This theatre is really for the history books, for future generations and to give the people a reason why their standard of living collapsed.
Excellent comment. TY.
+10 Well said!
The catostrophe Fight Clubbers of course is right now. When the Democrats walked out (taking all their toys with them) they abandoned any pretense of governance let alone showing they could give one hoot about their man in the White House.(aslkgjal;djgas;fdj!!!!!) the lack of outrage was palpable. needless to say "the intent was to damage the market." instead the market soared. in short "we have no governance whatsoever and equity markets know it." that's an alloyed good btw if you're long the market. if you're long peace, freedom, democracy, cute little puppies, sunshine and lollidrop sparkles on the other hand...
The Germans had it right when they said, "There's an empty suit in the White House."
Obama is Bush part 2... Obama has run with everything Bush started... picked it up and ran with it...
Everyone here who is pushing for either party is the ignorant masses... the sheepeople... the problem.
It never occured to me that I would agree with JW on anything, but I do on this.
Miracles happen. I have been writing this for the last year and those not captured are finally getting it. Left, Right, Nuts--none of it matters. We need a new system.
Hi, Howard! I know -- dogs and cats living together. This may be a sign of the times.
Perhaps in order to get that new system we'll go thru a period of no system at all?
Obama is saving Jimmy Carter's reputation as the worst President in the last 50 years.
Excuse me, Obama has destroyed Jimmy Carter's reputation as the worst President in the last 50 years.
Oh, but for wasted opportunities!
"We're going to save America and save the world" - John McCain 2008 Campaign debates.
See, it all could have been alright again.
Yes!!! I am convinced Phil Gramm would have FUBAR'ed whatever was left of the economy even faster than Larry Summers!
Anagrammatically, the three names combined provide a hint of their potential historical legacy:
Cannibal Hobo Smut
...I think that's the working title for John Carpenter's new sequel Escape From D.C.
heh Just wait until objective circumstances require real talk of austerity to go along with revenue increases.
Gridlock a catastrophe? For whom? The people need less government, way less, like way, way less. It is the pols who will suffer in the end, especially the likes of Barney Frank, OHbama, and PelOhsi. Leave the people alone and they will solve their problems. But their problems will ony get worse so long as the pols keep hold of centralized power. This article is total nonsense. Breakdown would be good and looks to be the only solution to 80,000 pages per year in the Federal Register.
Currently, Obama has the legislative agenda but has to agree everything with the Senate Rs. After the elections, the Rs will have the legislative agenda but they will have to agree everything with the Senate Ds and Obama. Not much difference. Still looks to me like a recipe for more 10% of GDP deficits.
I blame ordinary Americans who simply refuse to accept that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Maybe the coming default will bring some realignment in politics. I wish I didn't have to choose between the public employees mafia and the creepy televangelist party. But I 'm not holding my breath. I guess I'll be voting against nutcases who want to ban the teaching of evolution in schools until they lay me in my grave.
I don't mean to pick a partisan fight here, but if I could just give some advice to the devoted Rs on here who from time to time feel the need to wage one: Please stop pretending that you're appalled at Clinton's lack of morals. Is there really one, I mean just one of you who is truly morally outraged by a guy married to Hilary playing sex games with his white trash intern in the White House? Don't you realize that it was the wildly exaggerated R posturing that was by far more repugnant to most people? Clinton could have easily won a third term. Everybody sympathized with him, men and women. He's still the most popular living president by a mile. All you're doing by still harping on that more than a decade later is making Rs look weirdly hung up and self-repressed. Just a bit of friendly advice.
not to mention the more cognitively dissonant (because prior chastity claimed more stridently) republican sex scandals, both hetero and homosexual, of the last dozen years of so. ron paul 2012.
It should be noted that there is an Obama radio interview from about 2003ish, where he specifically criticizes Clinton for failing to ram healthcare through, moving to "the middle" and passing republican legislation like NAFTA and welfare reform. Combine that with his "transform America" delusion, his narcissistic personality, and there is little chance this guy is not a True Believer in history declaring him a glorious leader who was unfairly dumped after one term. Kinda like Churchill.
nothing obama said prior to his election as president and very little afterward, tell one anything about his future actions. they all think they're glorious. bush2 had himself called churchillian and had a bust of winston hanging around. but then few of us were in london in 1939-1940, were we?
W's comparison may have been more appropriate than you realize. If you study history, Winston Churchill was basically a drunken asshole who happened to be really stubborn and not realize or acknowledge when he had fucked up. That was the great extent of his skills. Does that sound at all familiar?
Obama's strategy will be to move even further left. He knows the economy is in the toilet. And now he will be able to blame the Republicans.
By moving further left, he believes he can force the right to the new center.
And if he can use executive orders and the veto pen to his liking, he will be in full blame mode on the Republicans.
There is going to be a lot more pain in our future. It's the price we are paying for years of ignoring what the "compassionate conservatives" were really doing to us.
Bush liked Churchill because they both could have had themselves put into paintings with exploding collapsing buildings in the background.
Except Churchill would be smoking a cigar and making the V sign. Bush would be reading My Pet Goat.
Clinton was Obama before Republicans took both houses. Republicans held the purse strings and balanced the budget and reformed welfare despite 2 vetos -- passing it on the third, with a kicking and screaming Clinton vowing to overturn it. Now Clinton claims credit for all the economic successes and says Welfare reform was "his" crowning achievement.
Clinton owes a wing in his presidential library to Newt.
Well NerObama is a fascist right wing corporate whore. Same with Bush and Clinton. So, who's he like. Both.
Who do we need a president like. Neither.
Again.
Gridlock = Staus Quo
Staus Quo = Bailouts
Staus Quo Bailouts = unlimited
No way will both sides join up to turn of Helicopter Ben's printing presses.
If they *could*, it would take months. It will take day(s) to print into hyperinflation. So we're screwed.
Glass/Steagall or Die....
....by dumbass fascist corporate whores running us into the ground...whether it be D, R or Tea Party. They're ALL whores.
Now, how should he govern. How about like an American?
He sure can't continue to FAKE LEFT, GOVERN HARD RIGHT WING.
Fascist Health Care
Fascist Education
Fascist Fin Reg
Tax Cuts
Reform in Name Only
He needed to govern like FDR, instead we got Hoover/Bush/Jefferson Davis.
You judge a president with how he governs. Not his 'I prefer single payer'...but we'll get right wing fascist think tank version....where 'bending the cost curve' is the ONLY metric in it. Everything else was ancilliary.
Right Wing NerObama. Those are the facts. Dismiss them at your peril. (both left - thinking he isn't, and right - thinking they'll get something else)
You won't. He's a fascist, corporatist, whore. Any D that doesn't see that is as blind as a 2004-20XX Republican.
That's the truth. Those are the FACTS.
By any measure, Neuremburg or Geneva, our President, is a fascist...and a war criminal.
Don't expect anything but worse from Repubs or Tea party, as they are the fascist kings.
We're so screwed.