It's just another crayoned resume embellishment.
Posted on 07/06/2012 8:20:16 PM PDT by Brandonmark
For eight decades, Democrats have successfully blamed Republican Herbert Hoover for the decade-long Great Depression. That, even though Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal failed to restore prosperity or dramatically lower unemployment, and his tax increases in 1937 snuffed out a nascent recovery.
Now today's Obamacrats are apparently going to try and Hooverize President Bush in an effort to shield themselves from the potential political fallout of a prolonged recession. It will take years to fix the American economy, Obama says, and years of trillion-dollar budget deficits to do it. And everyday it seems that Team Obama tries to lower economic expectations, such as bearishly predicting that unemployment would hit double-digits.
The not-so-subtle message in the middle of all these pessimistic prognostications: When ya'll go to vote in 2010 and 2012 and a) unemployment is still as high as it's been in decades, b) income growth is sluggish at best, c) the budget deficit is running at a trillion bucks a year, and d) stock prices remain stubbornly low -- hey, don't blame us, you can't rebuild Rome in a day or even in a first term. Remember, Bush really left us a mess.
The incoming administration has apparently learned the lesson of Bush's big mistake when arguing for the Iraq War, that when embarking on a decision that will define your presidency, it's better to underpromise and overdeliver. Of course, Obama has every reason to honestly believe the economy is going to stay on the mat for a good long time. According to the just-released minutes from the Federal Reserve's December meeting, the central bank now thinks the economy will "decline for 2009 as a whole" and that the jobless rate is "likely to rise significantly into 2010." And in its new forecast, the Congressional Budget Office said the U.S. economy is now in a recession that "will probably be the longest and the deepest since World War II." What's more, the CBO says, the economy will shrink 2.2. percent this year and grow a wimpy 1.5 percent next year as unemployment exceeds 9 percent. Finally, respected Harvard University economist Kenneth Rogoff just released a paper demonstrating that the aftermaths of financial crises are usually marked by "deep and lasting effects on asset prices, output and employment. Unemployment rises and housing price declines extend out for five and six years, respectively." So the consenus is gloomy.
But can a repetitive "Blame Bush" mantra allow Democrats to hold their huge Congressional majorities in 2010 and get Obama reelected in 2012 if they economy is as bad they think it will be? The latest iteration of Obama's stimulus -- I mean "economic recovery" -- package indicates that Team Obama has its doubts about voter patience and the economy. The larger-than-expected tax cuts, even if they are really just disguised government spending, are an effort to rejigger the plan to provide more economic oomph this year. Indeed, as the CBO said when Obama adviser Peter Orszag ran the joint, using infrastructure spending to juice the economy is "totally impractical." There just aren't enough "shovel-ready projects" to make effective use of the hundreds of billions Obama wants to throw at the recession.
Obama can own the depression that’s coming.Some people say it’s here now.
It may not matter whether he “owns” the recession or not when you add up 95% of blacks, two-thirds of hispanics, single women with children, government employees, hard-core lefties, homosexuals, etc.
It is quite possible for Zero to win the election even as a complete failure as a president.
True enough. Get dependency to a high enough level and the recipients of government largess will vote to keep the gravy coming regardless of who is responsible. Root causes don’t count for much in politics.
It also helps to have the US version(s) of Pravda working 24/7 on his behalf.
It also helps to have the US version(s) of Pravda working 24/7 on his behalf.
You are correct to leave off the plural “s” after “version.” The reason that “journalism” is singular is hiding in plain sight — it is the Associated Press."People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam SmithThe AP “wire" is a continual, 24/7 virtual “meeting” of all the major news outlets. It is quite literally a conspiracy against the public. It promotes journalism (which exists to interest the public) over the public interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.