This is one hell of a way to win.
Barack Obama owes his victory in large measure to the prospect of the longest and deepest economic downturn in a quarter-century and perhaps since the Great Depression. If he performs well, he could become a great president. If he flubs it, he could get the same reception as Jimmy Carter. In the crassest political terms, it was good luck to have the financial crisis hit so close to the election. But Obama’s lucky streak will end in a hurry if he can’t find a way out of this mess. He will also have to manage expectations: Even if he does everything perfectly, we probably won’t turn the corner for 18 months, and the downturn could last far longer than that.
Nothing like a little selective amnesia to help the argument along. Here’s the editorial in a nut shell: it’s all Bush’s fault! Obama, while nearly perfect, is only human, so don’t expect him to be able to overcome Bush’s evil magic mojo anytime soon. So four years from now when there is another election and the economy still stinks, remember it’s all Bush’s fault!
Dave C [#1]: Well, Bush deemphasized preparedness against Al-Qaida, attacked Iraq under false pretenses, mishandled the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, turned a fiscal surplus into a yawning deficit, ballooned the national debt, and leaves the Middle East probably more vulnerable to Al-Qaida than it was before. Just for starters.
Well, Irenaeus, Bush did not deemphasize preparedness against al-Qaeda, did not attack Iraq under false pretenses(among others, note Stephen Hayes’s article “The Connection” in the 6/7/04 issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD), did not mishandle the occupation of Afghanistan(more troops are needed to stabilize the region there) and Iraq(Iraq is not perfect but the Iraqis are learning, stepping up, and policing their own country now; not to mention voting); I don’t personally agree with deficit spending but unfortunately it’s usually necessary when fighting wars on two fronts, after the USA was ATTACKED on 9/11, and the Middle East is nowhere near being more vulnerable to al-Qaeda than it was before.
I also disagree with the usual misdirected liberal rant that we are pushing democracy on countries that don’t want it. This was a strategy to defeat terrorism by putting our presence right in the center of its Middle Eastern hotbed, and getting rid of a troublesome, unstable mass-murderer in the process. I do consider it true that we really won’t know whether or not this was a successful strategy for another 10-15 years from now. Not to mention, anyone who agrees with pulling all troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan has no knowledge of military strategy or tactics. We still have troops in Japan and Germany, e.g., and that is a good thing. Sad to have to do it, but the wars were won–and nation-building is something that doesn’t happen in a day.
Obama may look like a statesman, but whether or not he truly is one remains to be seen.
If I were you I would be more concerned with our Democratic Congress, its lovely 10% approval rating and the economic Fannie/Freddie/Lehman egg all over its face.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Whatever will you do when you don’t have Bush to blame for all this?
Greek says: “Whatever will you do when you don’t have Bush to blame for all this?”
Blessings upon you, friend, but they are still blaming President Hoover. Modern Liberals never forget and they never forgive. They are also often alien to truth. Residents Hoover and Bush were definitely in the upper half of statesmen presidents of the last 100 years.
Don
Bush deemphasized preparedness against Al-Qaida
What planet are you living on, Irenaeus. Are you somehow rehearsing the tired saw about not going after Osama while he hides in Pakistand? Is deciding that distabilizing a semi friendly Muslim country with nukes so we can track down an isolated and hense obsolete man with kidney failures would be a bad idea, is that in your mind not being preparred against Al-Qaida? Can’t you do better than that? Do you not see how pathetic is your reaching to find a club to beat a President you clearly don’t like?
It won’t hurt Americans to eat humble pie for a few years. Economic hard times tend to make people stronger. The Depression prepared a generation of Americans for the challenges they would face in World Wars. The comfortable 50’s, on the other hand, prepared a generation for Woodstock Nation and the abandonment of traditional values.
Yes, one does get weary of hearing how stupid, how stubborn, how evil President Bush is, but we never hear the well-documented series of events that brought us into this mess — a cover-up of Democrat policies that finally blew up in all our faces. And what do you know? Those folks that gave us that debacle are now in charge of the whole enchilada. And what are the chances we will ever be able to connect the dots and throw those perps behind bars where a good many of them belong? Everything our president-elect does for the next four years will only be smiled upon by the MSM. He is, after all, the long-awaited Messiah, and in four years (if we have only dug ourselves in deeper) we will have to give him another four because the poor man inherited such a mess from the Republicans. Same old, same old.
Meanwhile this nation has been safe from further terrorist attacks, but, oh, my! We are hated the world over — that is, until the next time our help is needed by some beleaguered country. I had never thought of myself as an isolationist, but it sounds better and better to me as the years go by.
One thing is for certain, America has been (at least temporarily) equalized, and just think of the Libs who are happy about that.
7, I am surprised that Bush is not blaimed for handing the fruit of the tree of knowledge to the serpent. The liberals absolutely hate Bush and have from the start.
[i]Some of the comments here are getting rather personal towards other commenters and getting sidetracked from the article. Please focus on the text. Thanks.[/i] –elfgirl
Reading that stand-alone first line, I thought right away, leave it to a Jewish commenter to kvetch about such a success! Complain, complain – here Stiglitz’ guy has won the Presidency, but still he has to lay out some circumstances that could prevent the President-elect seeming to really be the Messiah the voters had been waiting for. As if he [i]could[/i] do everything perfectly!
Then I thought I’d better go read about Stiglitz himself. Interesting to discover that he grew up in the eventual Rust Belt (Gary IN), and attended Amherst a generation before Rahm Emanuel’s older brother did so. Rahm attended Macalester, the same small college as Kofi Annan, about a generation later also. I began to think, such a ‘disclaimer’ as this article sets out to be might be more a way of preparing the voting public for a rather different outcome than they were looking for, by some who have planned and worked for years to make this President-elect their man in the White House any way they could.
Then I read the comments here – fascinating.
There hasn’t been much, if anything, in print about the significance of the involvement of many young people, on campuses especially, in the Democrats’ success. It recalls for me the season of 1969-70 in Chile (which I witnessed for several weeks) when very active students, unabashedly in the tradition of Parisian and other European university activists, helped achieve the Marxist candidate Allende’s election. A quite similar phenomenon has now rooted in US universities, facilitated by new communications technologies, and it’s not likely to be a socially productive trend. It was really surprising to me 40 years ago how little study took place and how completely politics, and alcohol and sex, dominated the lives of some of the students I met there.
[blockquote]Obama should also consider taxing dividends and capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income: It would reduce the deficit, have few short-term adverse effects on an already reeling economy and make the tax code more fair. After all, why should speculators — whether on oil, food or real estate — be taxed less than those who work long hours to make a living?[/blockquote]
For a Nobel laureate, this guy doesn’t seem too bright when it comes to taxation consequences. For someone who appears to be a Socialist, I guess it is not too surprising that he seems to determine the outcomes he wants and then “prove” that these outcomes are true.
Dividends are already subject to double taxation at the corporate and then individual level (quadruple taxation of you consider they can push one into taxation of Social Security benefits and are taxed at death if the dividends are reinvested instead of consumed). As a CPA I love this stuff, it pushes people into spending lots more money figuring out how to minimize their tax bite.
Finally, using the now pejorative term “speculators” to cover those who receive capital gains and dividends really is an ad hominem attack. If it was not for investments made by those with capital, there would be no long hours for workers to work. I assume Stiglitz means for government to control all capital and invest it where it will “do the most good.” We all have seen how well that has historically worked out in the various Socialist Worker’s Paradises that have been attempted.
“Obama should also consider taxing dividends and capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income: It would reduce the deficit, have few short-term adverse effects on an already reeling economy and make the tax code more fair. After all, why should speculators—whether on oil, food or real estate—be taxed less than those who work long hours to make a living?”
I have no doubt that the Chosen One will do so. This is part of the reason that 401k and IRAs have been an obvious ponzi scheme from the first. Not only will the income withdrawn be taxed at higher rates than were “saved” using the pretax savings (as income taxes will surely rise) but Congress will implement the plan, touted during Clinton’s time to have a “one time” tax on all investments, thus depleting the 401ks before withdrawal.
That way the folks who did not save for retirement, (like the folks who bought more house or credit card debt than they could afford) will be bailed out by those who denied themselves in order to save for their retirements.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.invest.stocks/browse_thread/thread/f94d193c6f2b299f/4c2dc9d0b2b7bd50?lnk=raot
Here are the democrats (just in 2007) discussing ways of confiscating 401ks in order (as they put it) to “spread the wealth”.
Clinton proposed a similar plan in the 90s.
It is significant that Obama and his wife do not believe in investing in 401ks and IRAs.
I too, like Obama, have cleaned out my 401k.
Daniel,
Sometimes taxes are useful, sometimes they aren’t. confiscatory taxes are not useful. Targeted taxes are.
I admit, I get confused by the way people use the term “socialist” on this blog. I’m not sure what it means. Stalinism? Of what sort? Canadian, French or Hungarian style? Capitalism flourishes well in most socialist companies. In fact, American companies seem to do well in countries where the state handles social insurance.
John Wilkins,
Targeted taxes traditionally mean using the tax system to accomplish social policy. Sometimes it works, more often it breeds negative, unintended consequences. I would like to see testing of different taxation methods to which taxpayers could opt-in. For example, Warren Buffet could opt-in to the system that had him pay more taxes – he says he should, so let him. I might like to opt-in to the system that taxes consumption at a low, flat rate and has no taxes for investment and no deductions for things like home mortgages and charitable deductions. It would be instructive to see which taxpayers opted for which systems and how it affected both their incomes and the taxes they payed over time. Better than a bunch of politicians and economists cloaking their own political desires in academic/economic jargon to justify tax changes.
Actually, Daniel, there is nothing stopping Warren Buffet from giving more to the Government than he is required to give.
In fact, I am pretty sure that there is an option on tax forms that asks “Would you like to give additional funds to help relieve the National Debt?”.
The real question is: Why doesn’t he?
WE can live in a country where there is social trust, where people have freedom, but there are disincentives for little monarchies and big monopolies. Or we can live in one where wealth breeds entitlement. It is probably social policy to say that we don’t need a country of Paris Hiltons. I think it is probably better policy.
We can live in a country where an economy is more like a gold rush than one which is like fishing. ina Gold rush economy, someone gets lucky. They then own the mine. In fishing, some are better than others, but its due to hard work and endurance.
I suppose Warren could choose – but then could he choose whether or not to fund the war? He might argue that our wars have made us less safe.
Daniel, in the abstract, you may be right. But not taxing also has unintended consequences as well. Individually, sometimes people make decisions that are rational for them short term, but collectively horrible. Like pollution. Easy for me to dump in the middle of the street. Easy for everyone to. But if everyone does, there’s a problem. Who cleans it up?
“Who cleans it up?”
No problem. We simply have an unfunded mandate stating that John Wilkins cleans it up, since John Wilkins is the currently unpopular minority class. We agree that we will pay John Wilkins a nickel to clean it up, and insist that he clean it up whether or not a nickel covers his expenses. Then we sit around talking about how lazy and greedy John Wilkins is and how we should sue John Wilkins because we slipped on a bananna peel that had been thrown on the street and John Wilkins had not gotten to it already, in between working his day job. The we promise Library Jim 10 cents to spy on John Wilkins to make sure that Wilkins is cleaning the streets to our rigorous satisfaction, and if he is not we ask for claw backs from Joh Wilkins and pay Library Jim with the claw backs as John Wilkins is committing “fraud and abuse” by not cleaning our streets what with us paying him and all.
Currently I am seriously considering giving up private practice, and moving to a VAMC position. I figure that my income will drop 50,000 this year, but may actually rise by more than 50 thousand withinin three years.
“I suppose Warren could choose – but then could he choose whether or not to fund the war? He might argue that our wars have made us less safe.” John, I don’t understand. Are you saying that Warren should have the right to choose what he funds of government programs and not fund those he doesn’t like? If so, why doesn’t your argument also fit the paradigm of the members of TEC who disagree with its liberal social programs and reapprasing theological innovations?