The Politico highlights seven potential vulnerabilities for those seeking to protect the president’s image. Most are frankly personality based, and you either are able to look past such things or you can not. But the first hits people where they live:
He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money
Economists and business leaders from across the ideological spectrum were urging the new president on last winter when he signed onto more than a trillion in stimulus spending and bank and auto bailouts during his first weeks in office. Many, though far from all, of these same people now agree that these actions helped avert an even worse financial catastrophe.
Along the way, however, it is clear Obama underestimated the political consequences that flow from the perception that he is a profligate spender. He also misjudged the anger in middle America about bailouts with weak and sporadic public explanations of why he believed they were necessary.
This is important not merely because it threatens to drain the fiscal oxygen from his party’s ambitious domestic social plans, but as Niall Ferguson points out, because it has real impacts in The Actual World:
(If) the United States succumbs to a fiscal crisis, as an increasing number of economic experts fear it may, then the entire balance of global economic power could shift. Military experts talk as if the president’s decision about whether to send an additional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan is a make-or-break moment. In reality, his indecision about the deficit could matter much more for the country’s long-term national security. Call the United States what you like—superpower, hegemon, or empire—but its ability to manage its finances is closely tied to its ability to remain the predominant global military power.
Budget some time for the Harvard professor and read why.
Bonus points to readers who can source this quote before following the link:
“My prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the [fiscal] crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt. And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar.”
Hint: The criticism was levied back in 2003, back before everything changed for the better.
You don’t have to be an economist to understand you can’t continue to spend beyond your means forever without it having a huge negative drag on your ability to project strength. Millions of Americans are living with the hangover of easy money induced, debt financed, spending beyond their means. They understand first hand what our leaders have refused to acknowledge. Whether they act in time to avert the crisis is an open question but one that depends on actions being taken there is simply no evidence to support the notion they will do so. In fact, the louder voices you hear just want to spend more. It is madness.
I’ve been saying for 30 years that the US’s military power is directly tied to its economy. I’m 55 now, so do the math.
I’m a competent Engineer and Surveyor, but Einstein I’m not. So why should a 25 year old Engineering Student know this “minor” fact, but the supposed best and brightest in the Wunwhowon’s maladminstration not understand that. Worse, tell me why the Republicans didn’t either. I know the left is manned by morons, but the Reps supposedly know better. At least they talk the talk.
As the title of Bob Whitaker’s book of 30 years ago said “A Pox on Both Their Houses.” Neither is of any use when it counts.
QM
Sadly I’m afraid most Republicans (myself a registered one) really can’t help but take every opportunity to miss an opportunity. We’re not called the dumb party for nothing.
As for our current leadership cadre, they are ideologically blind. Any fair person can say Bush was pretty ideological, but from that same vantage point Obama/Pelosi/Reid are downright scary. I don’t know which of the following (likely some, maybe even all) but they seem more interested in:
1.) Passing Health Care to fundamentally change the relationship between citizen and government to addict and pusher, cementing a permanent center-left majority and attempting to fill their inner black hole desires for power over us knuckle-draggers. They probably also expect us to praise them for the privilege of having to give them the money we earned so they can usher us into their “Utopia.”
2.) Intentionally indebting the country to a point where a net asset basis comparision between classes becomes much more “egalitarian.” Whether by causing a raise in the nominal or real inflation rate those who own any sort of savings based asset (bonds, stocks, cash accounts, etc.) will see a net depreciation in the buying power of those assets. This means the rich, and those about to retire. So the rich get taken down a notch, and not coincidentally those about to retire and who were responsibly trying to be self sufficient about it are now wiped out and can only turn to the government for “help.” No good deed goes unpunished in Obamaland.
3.) The effects on US power (and quality of life) be damned. At best they just don’t really care about America’s standing in the world. At dumbest they naively think the rest of the world is really full of interesting diversity that evil white males have just misunderstood for so long and exploited causing warfare. With their unclenched hand the whole world will sing kumbaya and pass climate treaties and there won’t be a need for a strong military or a world leading nation. At worst, they think America is a country of evil white males and secretly revel in reducing its power around the world.
QM, back in the late 70′s into the mid-80′s there was speculation, as we rode out our recession and Japan seemed to be an economic giant, that we’d soon see Hitachi producing gunships and Honda producing tanks for export, offering superior equipment for less cost than what the US or USSR could possibly produce. The fact that Deming was revered over there as a prophet and here most had never heard of him was seen as the nail in our coffin.
Of course, that didn’t happen and Japan now has its own economic problems, but the speculation was on-target — without an economic engine and the GNP to sustain a military, any trading nation is subject to economic strangulation by a more powerful neighbor via military force. Add to that now economic force which armies and navies cannot stop.
What I find particularly disturbing is England and China. England is an island nation entirely dependent upon trade for its economy, and it’s squandered its military for social programs. China has 5 times our population at 1.3 billion and a GNP of $8 trillion. We have a population of 300 million and a GNP of just over $14 trillion. Clearly England cannot defend it’s trade-based economy should push come to shove. China, meanwhile, takes ten people to earn what we do with one, but has leveraged itself into a controlling position in our economy by purchasing our debt. Both we and England can be sent to economic ruin by a country half our size because we simply quit paying attention to defending the roots of our economies.
– Max
Sir Julian Corbett pointed out that cash is the fuel of war, the foundation of strength, a century ago.
But when you let your country be run by bidnessmen and community organizers, the fundamentals are bound to be forgotten.
I dunno, Mike, having the country run by businessmen might not be such a bad deal after all, compared to having it run by people who think wealth is simply gathered rather than earned. The former might make a business decision to not do something as too costly, and leave some needs unmet. The latter will meet every need expecting the wealth to do so to be simply a matter of gathering it, higher tax rates on an ever-decreasing tax base, until the few still producing wealth tire of the game and leave. Then, the entire house collapses.
Which, oddly enough, we’ve seen before and never learned from, at least in the political class.
— Max
That might be a good idea, have people who understand that you have to have income in order to have money to spend, rather than the strange “just spend ” people now running the country. After reading that article, I am going to be morose for the rest of the week, at least.
The Brits beat Napoleon because they Government could continue to tax business…and the businesses didn’t collapse.
History…it helps you comprehend today, but…who’s got time for learning it when you’re making it?
I’m still thinking the legacy will be one of a flawed man, with flawed gate keepers, who were more concerned with the vote of the moment than the long term sustainability of a society that millions stive to become a part of, because theirs is failed/has failed.
That chart is nearly as depressing as the recently linked map showing the darkening of the country as unemployment number climb.
When (not if) the Chinese no longer want to buy our debt, we will be finished. Maybe that will be a few months or even a few years, but unless the Obama agenda is stopped, and reversed, it is inevitable.
You cannot spend your way out of debt, nor tax yourself into a recovery, nor grow government programs and expect reduced costs. Impossible, all!
IDIOTS!
Paul Krugman
ROFL!!! Krugman is one of those “scientists” that think they have a right to their own opinion, and their own facts (with apologies to Jerry Pournelle). The man is an idiot with a PhD – the sort that gives education an extremely bad name.
Much of your trouble Flit is you really don’t think your positions through. In this case, you simply reacted rather than considering that krugman is one of the most fact challenged talking heads in the news. The man would be a shame to any university. That Princeton claims him shows just how degraded that place is.
Actually, fliterman is correct. That was Krugman.
Didn’t ask for a quality check, just the facts
Yeah I know. I must say that what I said still stands. He got it before I came and read it.
QM, I see Krugman was one of those fellows who would be worth listening to, as long as he remains an objective professional, as opposed to a dogmatic ideologue. Alas, Krugman seems to prefer tribal fidelity and scoring talking points off the opposition.
Paul Krugman, now there is a voice of sanity in this desert of debt. Not. He’ll be in the WSJ telling us debt is a good thing, we need more, and taxes need to raised on those scoundrels making more than 50K per year.
But the smart ones will get through the next economic maelstrom by buying gold and silver. See China buy. See India buy. Have at least 20% of your portfolio in those assets that cannot be confiscated by the feds a la FDR. As someone remarked at an Angel’s financing pitch “sorry man, you are one debt away from death”.
The ever mercurial Mr. Krugman- bit.ly/5OeMzf.
He is not the person I would turn to for sage advice, though even a blind pig can find an acorn on occasion.
I know the other 6 have more to do with perception of personality than mere substance. However, I would argue that they are equally important for a man elected largely on his personality.
He is a pushover. We’ve seen that with his threats to Congress over healthcare, with his posturing with Iran and even in the campaign with his statements about Afghanistan.
The article is right that Obama wants to be President of the World; his focus has been largely outward since he took office. And while he presents himself as the be all, end all – The One – the rest of the world has started to yawn.
Is he a leader or a puppet? Given the control he’s allowed Pelosi to take in Congress, and knowning what we know about Rahm Emmanuel and the rest of the cabinet of cronies… Those of us who really studied this man before his election knew he’s no leader. The rest of the country is starting to wake up…
Part of the Politico article actually talked about Obama’s narcisissm (though they didn’t call it that). The interviews, cover stories – even being seen carrying a magazine with his own picture on the cover.
All of this adds up to a person of style over substance. Taken individually that probably describe each one of us in some way. But taken as a whole they paint a picture of a man so far out of his depth as leader of the free world – that the free world is starting to notice.
The one consolation in all this is – he’ll be a one termer.
Kris, I sure hope you’re right, one-termer wise. Now, if we can just find his exact opposite and get them elected by a landslide, ala Reagan ’84.
IJ
If that is gonna happen somebody has to get out of the gate. I don’t see a dark horse 15 furlongs back making a move.
More like the dog who chased cars until he actually caught one.