BARACK OBAMA’s victory in Tuesday’s presidential election was in many ways a repeat of Ronald Reagan’s win 28 years ago.
His eventual success as president may depend on a willingness to do what Mr. Reagan did: be willing to combat long-term economic problems while accepting short-term pain and the risk of a prolonged slowdown that could damage his popularity….
In passing a tax bill, the Congress and Mr. Obama will have to balance the long-term deficit problem with the need for shorter-term stimulus.
Mr. Bush’s first tax bill presaged a leadership style that focused on partisanship and a determination to avoid compromise with his opponents. Mr. Obama’s first tax bill could show whether he will follow the bipartisan approach that he, like Mr. Bush before him, promised in the campaign.
The success or failure of his administration is likely to be determined by how well he deals with the long-term problems the nation confronts, not by how soon the current recession ends.
“The success or failure of his administration is likely to be determined by how well he deals with the long-term problems the nation confronts, not by how soon the current recession ends”
Very true. And a good reason to be wary of “stimulus” bills.
I’m more worried about the Democrats’ talk to get their hands on 401(k)s:
I just hope someone shows them some sense quickly.
Branford,
With a near-fillibuster proof majority in the Senate and a sizeable majority in the House, why in the world would they be interested in listening to ‘sense’ from any quarter which would prevent them from achieving their agenda?
I remember when the Republicans took the majority in both Houses, the Democrats were quick to say “you can’t be sore winners, you have to include us in all your plans and listen to us when making policies”, yet when they get the majority, it’s “sit down, shut up, and go along or you are toast!”
Which side was partisan, again?
oops, meant to say
1. Irenaeus wrote:
“The success or failure of his administration is likely to be determined by how well he deals with the long-term problems the nation confronts, not by how soon the current recession endsâ€
Very true. And a good reason to be wary of “stimulus†bills.
November 8, 11:55 am | [comment link]
2. Branford wrote:
I’m more worried about the Democrats’ talk to get their hands on 401(k)s:
Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.
Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly. . .
I just hope someone shows them some sense quickly.
November 8, 12:45 pm | [comment link]
3. libraryjim wrote:
Branford,
With a near-fillibuster proof majority in the Senate and a sizeable majority in the House, why in the world would they be interested in listening to ‘sense’ from any quarter which would prevent them from achieving their agenda?
I remember when the Republicans took the majority in both Houses, the Democrats were quick to say “you can’t be sore winners, you have to include us in all your plans and listen to us when making policies†[b]and the Republicans DID[/b]. Yet ….
Hey, Irenaus,
I’ve never seen that happen before. We must have posted at exactly the same moment and our posts intertwined!
🙂 🙂 🙂
Elves, please delete my posts 4 and 5 and this one. They went kerflooie, and the cut and past all messed up, and I don’t know what happened but it didn’t come out at all like it should have.
JE
[blockquote]I just hope someone shows them some sense quickly. [/blockquote]
Tar. Feathers.
Branford [#2]: I’d like to see some substantiation beyond a right-wing rag.
“I remember when the Republicans took the majority in both Houses, the Democrats were quick to say ‘you can’t be sore winners, you have to include us in all your plans and listen to us when making policies'” —Library Jim [#3]
What’s the evidence for this allegation?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“When they get the majority, it’s ‘sit down, shut up, and go along or you are toast!'”
Newly elected Democrats won’t take office until January. Democratic congressional leaders are still catching up on their sleep from a long campaign and a late election night. You’re projecting your own fears.
WRT the possibility that the Federal government might take over 401k and IRA funds, the BBC (hardly a right wing rag) has reported that the Argentine government intends to do something very similar to this by confiscating private pension funds and the bill has, in fact, been passed by their lower house. While it’s a long way from Buenos Aires to DC, the idea may well appeal to people who have found no problem with the Feds buying shares of investment banks, etc. Since the crisis began, we have seen things done that no one would have imagined only a few weeks earlier. I also recall that FDR confiscated all gold in private hands and paid the owners $20 an ounce. Once he had it in Ft Knox, the official gold standard became $35 an ounce, a 75% immediate gain.
Irenaeus:
Yet that didn’t stop Pelosi from calling on Bush to put Obama in charge now as “we can’t wait until next year for new leadership”.
As for my other “allegation”, it’s pretty much public record for anyone who wants to look it up (1994 – 1995). More to the point, I remember it being said. But I’ll do more research just for you to show you that, yes, it really happened.
There are things that Barack Hussein Obama can do as President to help our economy. If his actions help the economy but create for him a large number of enemies, he will have failed one of his objectives: to serve two terms so he can really get things done!
Jim K [#7]: You rightly declare that “it’s a long way from Buenos Aires to DC.”
Earlier in this decade, the Argentine government reneged on its foreign debt and partially confiscated dollar-denominated bank deposits. Nationalizing pension-plan assets is more of the same: par for the course by which Peronism has hobbled Argentina.
Debt-repudiation and asset-confiscation are self-defeating, as Obama and his advisors well understand. As Treasury secretary Robert Rubin (to take one example) faced down impeachment threats from Gingrich allies rather than let the government default on its debts.
[i] When the Republicans took the majority in both Houses, the Democrats were quick to say “you can’t be sore winners, you have to include us in all your plans†[/i] —LibraryJim [#3]
The Democrats called for bipartisanship. They never said “you have to include us in all your plans.” Never.