As our commander in chief, the president of the United States is supposed to lead. Barack Obama has done everything but that.
With each passing challenge, Barack Obama gets smaller and smaller. The limited role he’s defined for himself over the past three and one-half years has turned him into the incredible shrinking president. The latest example may be the one that finally makes him disappear altogether. Will history mark John Boehner’s departure from the debt ceiling negotiation table on Friday night as the effective end of the Obama presidency? Historians aren’t always an agreeable bunch, of course, but, in the full context of his performance as commander in chief, that verdict isn't unrealistic.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - zingzing
take that thinking to corporations, clavos.
27 - handyguy
The right wingers on BC are following the Tea Party off a cliff. Their rhetoric just gets more extreme and shrill every week. The discussions continually become too ugly to be meaningful or to be worth participating in.
28 - Dr Dreadful
You of course know I was speaking of income tax, which in fact the bottom 40% not only don't pay, but of whom many are actually PAID a "rebate" (talk about misnomers -- how can you have a rebate when you haven't paid?)by the government.
[annoying kid at back of class raises hand]
Um... how exactly does one get a tax rebate when one hasn't paid any taxes? In order to get a refund (which was your money to begin with anyway - you're basically giving an interest-free loan to the government), you must first - all together now...
...file a tax return.
29 - Clavos
Exactly, Doc. yet the government does pay these people (according to ferrara's article nearly as much as the middle class pays).
Go figure.
30 - Clavos
Their rhetoric just gets more extreme and shrill every week.
As does obama's as he foments inter-class hatred and envy.
The big difference, of course, is he has the bully pulpit, and as the putative leader, should be trying to unite, rather than divide.
31 - El Bicho
So you want people to presume what you mean as opposed to responding to what you write. Duly noted
32 - Clavos
I don't want people to do anything they're not comfortable with, Bicho.
Read 'em any way you like.
Pixels.
33 - zingzing
no, clavos, the right wing is creating "inter-class hatred and envy."
no one gives a shit about the rich, they'll be alright. stop fucking the poor. the poor will fuck you up if you don't quit it.
34 - Cannonshop
#33 Zing, do we really have to quote back to you your own rhetoric? It could fill PAGES.
35 - Clavos
@#33:
Obama:
"most Americans don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare benefits before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get."
This is an outright lie; no one but Obama has even mentioned "asking a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare benefits."
And, piling up his hypocrisy, the tax break for corporate jet owners was adopted in the Obama stimulus to create jobs in corporate jet manufacturing.
In his speech last Monday, he said, "we would not have enough money to pay the bills -- bills that include monthly Social Security checks."
Which is also an outright lie, as he well knows; the money to pay SS checks is reserved by law, it's there and available; not even he can touch it without risking impeachment. But he says it, and freaks out all the little old ladies (male and female) drawing SS, and pitting them against the younger generation.
And it goes on and on.
In one speech, he said the USA is a country "with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few." If that isn't an attempt to set one group of citizens against another, I don't know what is.
Divide and conquer.
In 2009, he declared, on national television, no less, that there was no way the Obamacare individual mandate that would force citizens to buy the health insurance the government dictates, could be classed as a tax.Then, after the damn Obamacare bill was enacted into law, this bum sent government lawyers into court to argue that the individual mandate is constitutional because it is a tax!.
He is scum. He's a sleaze.
No one, not even GWB, has ever dishonored the office of President of the United States as much as Obama.
36 - zingzing
cannonshop: "#33 Zing, do we really have to quote back to you your own rhetoric? It could fill PAGES."
yours too, cannonshop. but it does sound silly, doesn't it? think about how it sounds coming the other directions. (it sounds silly.)
37 - roger nowosielski
A good ole heated-up debate. Let me put my two cents' worth in.
Everyone knows I'm no great fan of Obama. The disparity between his campaign promises, the kind of hope he instilled, the kind of things he ran on, and his actual performance in office is so staggering in fact that most of the radical Left is no longer supportive of the president. And the laundry list of disappointments is long and variegated, ranging from our military disengagements worldwide, to becoming more "humane" in our treatment of "enemy combatants," to curing our economic woes.
It's also ridiculous to argue that the president is not supportive of Wall Street, as Clavos aptly points out. Just look at the stimulus package and who really benefits, the American people or the investment firms. Our economy and stock market are up, if that's what you want to call it, only on account of our finance industry. They're the only ones who are making huge profits. And thus far, none of that had invigorated Main Street, in spite of all assurances to the contrary. Indeed, look at Obama's cabinet - all ex-Wall Street guys almost without exception. I'm convinced that the future, historical significance of this presidency will be mostly symbolic, that a person of color had been elected to the highest office. It's not going to be judged in terms of this president's accomplishments or lack thereof.
Which brings me to Glenn's opening remark that one can't expect very much any longer a single person, from the office of the presidency, from any one party. Indeed, except I would add that we can't expect anything anymore from our defunct political, social and economic system. What we see under Obama has become the norm, not the exception, and it wouldn't make any difference which person occupies the Oval office or which political party is in power. We have reached as stage in our history that the political-economic system which, some may argue, may have worked well enough for a stretch, is no longer workable. It cannot deliver. So it's not just Obama's fault. The problems are systemic and chronic, and nothing but radical revamping of our entire political and economic structure can produce anything but cosmetic result. It's for that reason that focusing on any one person, be it Obama or anyone else, misses the point. It's no longer about personalities or political parties and their respective platforms. All such discussions are sterile, irrelevant and a certain dead end. We must raise the level of political dialog to concern itself first and foremost with the needed structural changes which need to be implemented in order for our politics to begin to make a difference. Of course, given the present political climate in America, no politician can possibly run on any radical platform. Consequently, expect more of the same in the foreseeable future - empty campaign promises unrealized.
There are promising developments, however, from parts of Europe, Germany in particular - and mind you, from the conservative head of state. The very idea of capitalism as a necessary system has become a subject of a national debate, is it really working, the people are encouraged to ask, what else can we have in its stead. I refer you here to a link I posted on another thread, an interview of Richard D. Wolff on the Democracy Now! show, see comment #186.
It's about time to radically alter the contours of our political dialog in this country as well. All the indications are, the people are ready.
38 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
1 - on asking a senior citizen to pay more for his or her Medicare benefits - ever heard of Medicare "Advantage"? Yes, you certainly have. And then there's the Ryan Plan - you know, the voucher plan that y'all swear somehow ain't a voucher plan - where our elderly would get to shop using a voucher check...and THEN if the elderly person wanted better service (like they have access to now), then they get to pay extra for it.
2 - Social Security isn't included in our monthly bills? Oh, I get it - since it's ALREADY taken out of our paychecks, it's somehow not a bill.
3 - On the tax breaks for corporate jets, Clavos, are you really so naive that you don't know how Congress inserts earmarks for their own districts or friends? If YOU will go back and check to see who it was that inserted that particular line, I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that it was a REPUBLICAN. And was Obama supposed to veto the ENTIRE stimulus because someone (almost certainly a Republican) inserted the bit about tax breaks for jets? No. He did what he had to do to get the votes to get the stimulus passed.
But I get it - Thou Shalt Blame Obama for giving a Republican what the Republican wanted in order to get a crucial bill passed...and Thou Shalt Call Obama a vile hypocrite for it, too!
4 - You said, In one speech, he said the USA is a country "with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few." If that isn't an attempt to set one group of citizens against another, I don't know what is.
Here's some MORE education for you, on the growth of family incomes before and after Reaganomics took effect:
1947-1979:
Bottom 20 percent of the income distribution: 118 percent increase
Second-to-bottom 20 percent: 100 percent increase
Middle 20 percent: 111 percent increase
Second-to-highest 20 percent: 114 percent increase
Highest 20 percent: 99 percent increase
Highest 5 percent: 86 percent increase
1979-2008:
Bottom 20 percent of the income distribution: 7 percent decrease
Second-to-bottom 20 percent: 6 percent increase
Middle 20 percent: 11 percent increase
Second-to-highest 20 percent: 23 percent increase
Highest 20 percent: 49 percent increase
Highest 5 percent: 73 percent increase
Highest 1 percent: 224 percent increase
The above numbers were rated "mostly true" by Politifact.com.
So in YOUR view, it doesn't matter that the income of the top 1% INCREASED 224% while the income of the bottom 20% DECREASED 7% since Reaganomics, because the poor rich people are already paying too much!
Clavos, do you not see how utterly insane it is to protect the rich? THEY DON'T NEED YOUR PROTECTION! The poor do. The disabled and elderly do. The middle class does. But the rich DO NOT need your protection!
39 - Clavos
Glenn, you Presented nothing but strawmen and didn't answer my points, especially the one about social security. Obama is scaring the bejesus out of the old farts, making them believe the Republican refusal to raise the ceiling will result in there being no money for SS checks. That's a flat lie; the SS MONEY IS THERE, and has nothing to do with the debt ceiling; Obama cannot touch it, nor can he reduce SS payments unilaterally, that's grounds for impeachment. Your point about the corporate jet money is pure speculation, you have no idea and don't merit a response on that one.
You can spout relative figures until you're blue in the face, but the bottom line is the top 1% are already paying the majority of the income taxes, while nearly half the country gets a free ride from the Feds.
40 - zingzing
clavos, what percentage of federal revenue comes from income taxes? you seem to think it the be-all end-all. since it's less than 50%, who really pays the taxes around here?
41 - roger nowosielski
It's a double whammy, zing. As argued for in the video of an interview with Richard D. Wolff, by not taxing the corporations and the rich at older rates, not only doesn't the government is deprived of much needed revenue. It's also the case that it has to borrow from those very sources to finance its rising debt.
42 - Clavos
@#40:
I have no idea, zing, but it's got nothing to do with my points about Obama's mendacity. He's a liar and provocateur who is trying to turn Americans against each other by lying to them and scaring them .
Hardly a fitting endeavor for a sitting president.
What an unscrupulous individual he is!
43 - Clavos
@#40 again:
The government does not make money; ALL of its revenue comes from confiscation of the citizen's funds, whether such confiscations are named "income tax," or "excise tax," or any one of tens of thousands of "fees" imposed on the citizens by their various levels of government, the bottom line is that ALL money in the possession of the government is taken from the citizens -- 100 percent of it.
44 - zingzing
"I have no idea, zing, but it's got nothing to do with my points about Obama's mendacity. He's a liar and provocateur who is trying to turn Americans against each other by lying to them and scaring them ."
why on earth would he do that? that's the thing about your night terrors, clavos... there's no solid reason behind them. they're just fairy stories you choose to believe.
as for #43, congratulations on discovering that, but it doesn't really answer my question. you seem to think that the top 1% pay a majority of the taxes, but that's just not the case. you can say it all you like, but it's silly every time you say it.
45 - roger nowosielski
Political power and holding on to political power is the only game in town. Anyone who thinks otherwise suffers from a delusion.
46 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Glenn, you Presented nothing but strawmen and didn't answer my points, especially the one about social security
I DID answer your points - but you simply refused to accept their validity. But I'm getting used to BC conservatives refusing to acknowledge the validity of ANYTHING that's contrary to conservative dogma.
For example, you keep going on about how great a percentage of the nation's taxes the rich are paying, but you flatly IGNORE the obvious reasons I showed you why. Again, you need to apply your own vaunted sense of cynicism to your conservative dogma. But you won't. You never will.
But I tell you what - let's give ALL the money to the top one percent, and then let's see how you're going to continue to defend their paying one hundred percent of all the taxes!
47 - Glenn Contrarian
And Clavos -
On #43 - if the fact that you have to pay taxes for the myriad services you DO receive - and yes, you DO receive many, many services for those taxes - then you're either going to have to commit suicide (which is NOT an option), or you're going to have to find a deserted island that somehow hasn't already been claimed by a nation.
Otherwise, you complaining about the government taking money from you (in the form of taxes) isn't really that much different from crying about the rain or the sun.
And btw - how 'bout that little fact that our tax burdens are LOWER under Obama than under any other president since Truman? Not that you'll ever give him any credit for it - he's Obama, and therefore whatever he does must be wrong and evil and badbadbad....
"And if you don't eat your peas, Obama will come to haunt you in your night terrors!" Oooooohhhh!
Sorry - couldn't resist.
48 - Clavos
you seem to think that the top 1% pay a majority of the taxes, but that's just not the case...
But it is, zing. The data is disseminated by the IRS.
Of course, the IRS is a government agency, so they're probably lying.
49 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
What Clavos doesn't get is that the greater the income inequality in favor of the rich, the greater the percentage of the taxes the rich WILL pay...
...and since the income of the rich has skyrocketed in the past 30 years while the income of the rest of us has stagnated or even fallen, of COURSE the percentage of the taxes paid by the rich will seem to be disproportionate.
It's NOT a matter of tax policy, but a matter of income inequality - but he refuses to see that (especially since it's a liberal that says it).
50 - Clavos
if the fact that you have to pay taxes for the myriad services you DO receive - and yes, you DO receive many, many services for those taxes - then you're either going to have to commit suicide (which is NOT an option), or you're going to have to find a deserted island that somehow hasn't already been claimed by a nation.
Once again, you're not even close, Glenn. My point was only to remind all of those who think they are getting something from the government when that check arrives in the mail, they aren't, the money was theirs in the first place, the government has no money of its own, it's ours.
My point was not to complain about the taxes they take from me; they take a far smaller percentage of my income than they take from Warren Buffet.
And just out of curiosity: why is committing suicide not an option? Plenty of people do, every year; obviously, it was an option to them.
51 - zingzing
"But it is, zing. The data is disseminated by the IRS."
yeah, clavos. when you only count one number (if that's even true, although i haven't seen anything that would back you up in the slightest), it may look like that, but it's still not true.
52 - zingzing
i can't find a bit of information that even gets close to your numbers, clavos. maybe a link is in order.
53 - Clavos
of COURSE the percentage of the taxes paid by the rich will seem to be disproportionate
Never said it was, Glenn.
You just don't get it do you? My point was that YOU (and your boy,Obama) say that they don't pay enough; mine is that they pay more than everyone else put together (well, the bottom 95% anyway). Nothing else, Glenn.
It tickles me that people are so enraged that the Bill Gates and Larry Ellisons of the world have accumulated enormous sums of money, as if there's only so much money in the world, so when Bill Gates makes a buck, it comes out of everyone else's pocket.
Not only is that ignorance, it's one of the seven sins: envy.
Even Obama talks of "spreading the wealth," as if that's a good thing; and he once said, "I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money," which is easily one of the most stupid, ignorant things I've ever heard a president say.
He's clueless. A moron.
54 - Clavos
Here, zing:
The American Spectator:
"before President Obama was even elected, official IRS data showed that for 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined. The top 1% paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes that year, almost twice their share of income. The middle fifth of income earners (the actual middle class) paid 4.7% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40% of income earners as a group paid no federal income taxes that year."
The New York Times:
"The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.42 percent of total federal income taxes in 2007, according to the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service.
This represents the second year in a row that the richest 1 percent paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95 percent (not, however, the bottom 99 percent)."
(The NYT includes a link to the applicable IRS tables)
55 - STM
America's going down the gurgler.
Congress fiddles while American and overseas investors get burnt.
It's serious business, this ... and threatens to derail the global economy, again. You know what happened last time it went pear-shaped: We all got shafted.
If you think the GFC was bad, wait for round 2 if America defaults on its debt (not because it can't pay it but because a couple of loonies in the House have no idea how capital markets work and want to play politics).
In that scenario, the America we all knew finally changes forever. I'm not sure as a non-American I'd really want to be to be witnessing that, especially when the alternative is the rise of China.
And if I were American, I'd almost certainly not want to be in America when it happens.
Sad stuff ... especially because, right now, it doesn't have to happen.
56 - zingzing
well, clavos. those numbers are higher than i expected. (it's still not exactly "a majority of all taxes," if one wanted to phrase it that way though.) i do wonder, however, how it is that (even in my poorest days), i've been paying income taxes all these years. in my college days, i paid income taxes, yet i'm sure i was in the bottom 40% then.
57 - roger nowosielski
I'd still say that Clavos presents only one side of the story. The other side is, the top 1 percent commands/generates (nearly?) 95% percent of the total assets and/or income. Which again brings to fore the earlier raised question:
Isn't there something categorically wrong with a country which boasts such a skewed disparity as regards social rewards, a disparity far more acute than the one would expect from any Bell curve as regards intelligence, resourcefulness, or any other individual quality one might think of?
In short, even in terms of social-Darwinism, the backbone of conservative philosophy, apparently there are other factors at work. One only wonders what they might be.
58 - roger nowosielski
It's only a matter of time, STM, so why postpone the inevitable? These are the consequences of capitalism running amok, all pretenses and disguises having been shed at last. You're seeing the beast in the raw, in its pure and natural form.
I hope you'll never get there, but you will. It's not just about good or bad people anymore. It's the system that turns people so. So yes, I see it as a run-away train heading for a certain collision.
Re-watch Wall Street, the money never sleeps.
59 - handyguy
No one is talking about radical, confiscatory taxation -- just returning the marginal rates for high earners to the Clinton-era rates. The "roaring 90s" were not, I think, a time of great suffering for the upper classes.
And zing, it's primarily families with minor children who get the type of income tax breaks that would allow them to pay very low or no net income tax. Us single and childless folks are not granted this benefit.
The implicit [yet unstated] argument running through this thread is that poor people are undertaxed. But payroll taxes and sales taxes, etc, can be a pretty big bite out of a smaller income.
60 - handyguy
Obama's alleged 'divisive class warfare' rhetoric came in response to GOP refuseniks who will not vote for $1 in additional tax revenue, not no way, not no how.
This ludicrous "negotiating" posture is also a form of class warfare, protecting the precious shekels of corporations and high-income individuals while insisting on gigantic budget cuts that will mostly affect middle and lower income people.
Grover Norquist has caused even potentially reasonable Republicans [possibly including John Boehner] to box themselves into this indefensible position: we ain't gonna raise taxes, so we have to chop entitlements [meaning mostly Medicare and Medicaid].
It should also be a self-destructive position if there is any justice in the world, but that remains uncertain.
61 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
I was going to go on another long diatribe giving you example after example after example - all of which you'd no doubt dismiss as strawmen or non sequitur no matter how relevant they were to our discussion.
So let me ask you one set of closely-related questions: look back at the numbers I posted where I showed you how income growth was roughly equal among all income groups before Reagan came along, but since Reaganomics took effect, the wealthy have seen their incomes skyrocket while middle- and lower-class incomes have either stagnated or fallen.
Why do you think that happened?
What made the difference before and after the advent of Reaganomics?
Do you think it is good for the nation that the wealthy continue to see their fortunes grow while the rest of us see ours stagnate or fall?
And if you don't think this pattern is good for the nation, how would you go about correcting the disparity?
And when you answer, remember that our total tax burden are LOWER under Obama than they were under Bush, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, or Eisenhower...which issue you and every other BC conservative have refused to address.
(and YES, all this is directly related to the discussion about the percentage of our taxes that the rich are paying)
62 - handyguy
It would be fine for the top earners to do so well -- if middle and low income folks were not slipping so badly at the same time. To pretend that this is "just the market working," and is therefore not objectionable, is tunnel vision at its worst.
Actions have consequences. Let's not pretend otherwise.
63 - roger nowosielski
It's that kind of conciliatory politics, as expressed in #59, that gives liberals and the so-called "progressives" and their apologists a bad name. That's why the American people remain unconvinced and, quite rightly, hold the Democratic Party in a state of contempt. "A gutless wonder" is a better term.
If we're not talking about radical taxation, we definitely ought to be. Here are some facts.
In the 40s, the rate of corporation's tax burden compared to that imposed on individuals was 3 to 2. Today, this ratio is reversed to favor corporations. For every dollar paid by individuals in income taxes, corporations pay 25 cents. Likewise in the 50s, 60s and 70s: the corporate income tax rate was nearly 95 percent
the source.
64 - troll
Clavos - what % of income should the working poor pay in income tax to make the system fair iyo?
...if each household making the median income or less paid an average of 10% that would raise about $60 billion on a $1.5 trillion federal budget
65 - troll
(actually I said that wrong in #64 as $60 billion is about 10% of the total income of all households making median income or less)
66 - troll
(I give up...$4 trillion budget)
67 - handyguy
With Grover Norquist's blind robots forming a majority in the House, no tax increase, confiscatory, tiny, or in-between, is going anywhere. The Dems could rant and rave about it every day [and some do], but it still won't happen. [And in fact there are probably not the required 60 votes in the Senate for any major tax increase either.]
"Conciliatory" is not how I feel right now. But what you describe as conciliatory is just an attempt to get something through the legislature, rather than remain in deadlock. Talk is cheap.
68 - roger nowosielski
It's the right kind of talk by FDR, his fireside chats, that prepared the country for times ahead and paved the way. And it worked. But this president has been conciliatory from day one, and he had set the tone. What we're reaping are the results.
Besides, FDR was an aristocrat and a true populist. He could afford to stand on principles and see this country through. This one, contrary to all appearances, is in the pocket of Wall Street and the American people see right through him. In this respect, Clavos is right.
The Tea Party movement is a populist movement, in spite of it having been misguided by unscrupulous politicians. It's not a reaction, as some on the Left try to portray it, against a president who happens to be black. It is, rather, a movement, which is populous in its makeup, and yes, by ordinary people like you and me, to fill the void which has been allowed to form by passive presidency, and that's to put it mildly. In more acute terms, the bulk of the American people, whites, blacks and whatever, and regardless of their political persuasion, feel they've been sold by this president down the river. He may still get re-elected, but it won't be by virtue of his performance in office but only because there aren't any viable alternatives.
The best thing Obama could do for the country would be to owe up to his failure (or at least inability to have fixed our problems) and refuse to campaign on the Democratic party ticket. That would be the honorable thing to do. We know of course that such a thing won't happen.
So yes, I agree that talk is cheap. And it has been nothing but cheap throughout this presidency.
69 - Clavos
On Friday, The Commerce Department revised downward the GDP figures which had been predicted for Q1 2011 and Q4 2010. This, of course, accounts for the drop in securities markets on Friday, and the anticipation of this bad news contributed to the erosion in the Dow all last week.
Growth, which has been anemic since the end of 2007 (when it hit its peak) slipped yet again in both Q4 2010 and Q1 2011. Per capita GDP is much lower in real terms than it was in 2007: "In the second quarter of this year, average annual real output per person stood at $42,499, still 3.3% below its peak of $43,956 in the fourth quarter of 2007."
Commerce reported that "...first-quarter GDP growth was 0.4%, not 1.9% as first reported. In the second quarter, it grew at a tepid 1.3% pace."
The economy is tanking once more. The stimulus and TARP did not accomplish what the Keynesians told us they would, unemployment has not yet stopped rising, and the administration keeps throwing new regulations and conditions into the marketplace, making small and medium business owners/managers uncertain about the future. It is estimated that business is sitting on some $2 trillion in capital, afraid to commit it. These funds, invested for purposes of growth and expansion, would have gone a long way toward creating new jobs and alleviating (or at least helping to reduce) unemployment. Ironically, passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, intended by the administration to help the American citizenry (or so they said), with its attendant new regulations affecting small and medium businesses, and the uncertainty its passage has caused, has had exactly the opposite effect of that intended, as it is chief among the uncertainties making businesses hold their cash back.
Despite the presence of numerous Ivy League-trained financial/economic experts (at least 70 by some accounts) in the administration, its lack of leadership and effectiveness in solving the nation's economic woes is, IMO, the primary economic problem we face.
And, apparently, a growing number of voters agree with that assessment. On Friday, Gallup released the latest results from polls on the president's job approval numbers. They hit a new all-time low: "Just 40 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama’s performance as president. That is down three percentage points from Thursday. Fifty percent say they do not approve of the job he is doing."
This president is a disaster for the nation.
Even prominent Democrats are beginning to say so. Here's Robert Reich, writing in The Huffington Post -- impeccable progressive credentials on both counts.
70 - handyguy
Your "IMO" and Robert Reich's are diametrically opposed...you would barely agree with him that the sun rises in the east. So don't be quotin' him as if you're on the same side.
And I've asked before, without getting an answer, but I'll try once more:
Do you really believe the recovery would have been faster and better under President John McCain, President Hillary Clinton, or President Ron Paul? If so, your sense of cause and effect is out of whack, and the credit/blame you assign to the executive branch of government is vastly disproportionate.
The same report also showed that the recession was far deeper than previously reported -- something that cannot be called the "fault" of this or any administration. And it showed that the weakest part of the economy is not business spending -- that's up -- but consumer spending. It's a demand problem, which has nothing to do with your artificial bugaboo, government regulation.
Your reaction to the economy is 100% ideological. You don't make any allowances for any inaccuracy in your one-note "IMO."
71 - Clavos
More on the [mis]handling of the economy by the White House.
72 - roger nowosielski
It's not a link to Reich. Obviously, Handy didn't even bother to check, just shooting from the hip.
73 - Clavos
Do you really believe the recovery would have been faster and better under President John McCain, President Hillary Clinton, or President Ron Paul?
Immaterial and irrelevant. They aren't in the White House. Obama is.
But I'm inclined to give the nod to Clinton, yes.
Your "IMO" and Robert Reich's are diametrically opposed
Except that we both agree that Obama isn't doing his job...
It's a demand problem...
It's actually both, as my sources pointed out. Demand is down because, among other failures, unemployment is high, creating crippling insecurity, even among those still working, and Obama's "measures" to improve the economy have done nothing for unemployment; they haven't even slowed it.
Your reaction to the economy is 100% ideological. You don't make any allowances for any inaccuracy in your one-note "IMO."
Rrriiiight...
74 - roger nowosielski
And BTW, Robert Reich has long predicted the tanking of the nation even under Clinton, when Secretary of Labor. See The Work of Nations.
It's doubtful Clavos would disagree with Reich's penetrating analysis.
75 - handyguy
Roger, please. Clavos referenced Reich, and I objected. That wasn't aimed at you. Calm down.