Obama Did Not Inherit a Mess, But a Great Opportunity--Which He Wasted

[Wehrwolfen]

Obama Did Not Inherit a Mess, But a Great Opportunity--Which He Wasted​

by Joel B. Pollak
Obama Did Not Inherit a Mess, But a Great Opportunity--Which He Wasted

21 Oct 2012

President Barack Obama has often lamented that he “inherited” a mess from George. W. Bush. His opponents acknowledge that, but argue that Obama made the situation worse. “Did they come in and inherit a tough situation? Absolutely. But we’re going in the wrong direction!” Ryan said during the Vice Presidential debate on Oct. 11.

The truth, however, is otherwise: Obama inherited a fantastic set of political circumstances.

The economy was near the trough of the recession, and would likely have rebounded quickly, had Obama not intervened with radical new policies such as Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. Even allowing for the (disputed) argument that financial collapses lead to slower, longer recoveries, it is likely that the economy would have rebounded far more quickly had Obama not created new uncertainty, new business costs, and new debt.

The controversial bailouts--the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the auto bailout--were already under way, with the former passing Congress with bipartisan majorities and the latter initiated by Bush when Congress rejected it. Both of these massive expenditures, which also gave the government unprecedented economic control, could have been fodder for intense opposition under Obama--but he was spared the task.

On the war front, the Bush “surge” in Iraq--which Obama had opposed vigorously--had been a success, enabling Obama to devote more attention and resources to securing gains in Afghanistan. The key intelligence that would later be critical to locating Osama bin Laden had already been gathered, thanks to the capture in Iraq of Hassan Ghul and the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--which Obama had also opposed.

There was little, in fact, that Obama needed to do, other than that which ought to have come naturally to any new President: focus on the economy, with small adjustments to regulations, perhaps a few interventions (Obama’s original stimulus proposal was $50 billion), and maybe some appropriate prosecutions (which, curiously, never happened).

With the economy on the rebound, Obama would likely have coasted to re-election, and he could have used his second term to attempt more ambitious, transformative plans.

But Obama refused. He and his advisers chose to seize the crisis to implement radical changes, while his Democratic allies helped themselves to massive helpings of pork. The ill-fated stimulus of February 2009 rallied the opposition; the Obamacare push only galvanized it; and the 2010 midterm elections halted Obama’s transformative plans.

President Obama had a second chance--many second chances, in fact. He could have done what Bill Clinton did after his party lost control of Congress in 1994, and moved toward the center. He could have brokered a “grand bargain” with Republicans to cut the deficit and the national debt, much as Clinton had done in 1996 with welfare reform. But Obama refused, doubling down on “change” and causing the debt deal to collapse.
[excerpt]

 

[Amelia]

Good summary of Obama's tenure

 

[OODA_Loop]

He spent 100's of miilions to be the one to fix the mess.

How'd that work out ?

 

[Murf76]

Obama Did Not Inherit a Mess, But a Great Opportunity--Which He Wasted​

by Joel B. Pollak
Obama Did Not Inherit a Mess, But a Great Opportunity--Which He Wasted

21 Oct 2012

President Barack Obama has often lamented that he “inherited” a mess from George. W. Bush. His opponents acknowledge that, but argue that Obama made the situation worse. “Did they come in and inherit a tough situation? Absolutely. But we’re going in the wrong direction!” Ryan said during the Vice Presidential debate on Oct. 11.

The truth, however, is otherwise: Obama inherited a fantastic set of political circumstances.

The economy was near the trough of the recession, and would likely have rebounded quickly, had Obama not intervened with radical new policies such as Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. Even allowing for the (disputed) argument that financial collapses lead to slower, longer recoveries, it is likely that the economy would have rebounded far more quickly had Obama not created new uncertainty, new business costs, and new debt.

The controversial bailouts--the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the auto bailout--were already under way, with the former passing Congress with bipartisan majorities and the latter initiated by Bush when Congress rejected it. Both of these massive expenditures, which also gave the government unprecedented economic control, could have been fodder for intense opposition under Obama--but he was spared the task.

On the war front, the Bush “surge” in Iraq--which Obama had opposed vigorously--had been a success, enabling Obama to devote more attention and resources to securing gains in Afghanistan. The key intelligence that would later be critical to locating Osama bin Laden had already been gathered, thanks to the capture in Iraq of Hassan Ghul and the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--which Obama had also opposed.

There was little, in fact, that Obama needed to do, other than that which ought to have come naturally to any new President: focus on the economy, with small adjustments to regulations, perhaps a few interventions (Obama’s original stimulus proposal was $50 billion), and maybe some appropriate prosecutions (which, curiously, never happened).

With the economy on the rebound, Obama would likely have coasted to re-election, and he could have used his second term to attempt more ambitious, transformative plans.

But Obama refused. He and his advisers chose to seize the crisis to implement radical changes, while his Democratic allies helped themselves to massive helpings of pork. The ill-fated stimulus of February 2009 rallied the opposition; the Obamacare push only galvanized it; and the 2010 midterm elections halted Obama’s transformative plans.

President Obama had a second chance--many second chances, in fact. He could have done what Bill Clinton did after his party lost control of Congress in 1994, and moved toward the center. He could have brokered a “grand bargain” with Republicans to cut the deficit and the national debt, much as Clinton had done in 1996 with welfare reform. But Obama refused, doubling down on “change” and causing the debt deal to collapse.
[excerpt]

That's really what I thought he'd do, back when he was first elected. I was under no illusions about Obama's radical agenda, having researched him thoroughly by then. It seemed that the rational thing to do would be to institute small changes, curry trust with the people, and then drop the hammer down in a second term. I was actually pretty surprised when he chose an adversarial stance just three weeks into his term and has stood on it ever since. I mean, it's madness.

Underneath it all, what I think happened is that he just simply doesn't have the emotional maturity to keep his hatred of Republicans at bay or to take the heat when his liberal base prods him. If it was only that he had super-majorities in Congress for the first two years, tempting him to go for it right away and then make up lost ground politically afterwards, why wouldn't he have triangulated after the 2010 midterm?

 

[Jackson]

Obama Did Not Inherit a Mess, But a Great Opportunity--Which He Wasted​

by Joel B. Pollak
Obama Did Not Inherit a Mess, But a Great Opportunity--Which He Wasted

21 Oct 2012

President Barack Obama has often lamented that he “inherited” a mess from George. W. Bush. His opponents acknowledge that, but argue that Obama made the situation worse. “Did they come in and inherit a tough situation? Absolutely. But we’re going in the wrong direction!” Ryan said during the Vice Presidential debate on Oct. 11.

The truth, however, is otherwise: Obama inherited a fantastic set of political circumstances.

The economy was near the trough of the recession, and would likely have rebounded quickly, had Obama not intervened with radical new policies such as Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. Even allowing for the (disputed) argument that financial collapses lead to slower, longer recoveries, it is likely that the economy would have rebounded far more quickly had Obama not created new uncertainty, new business costs, and new debt.

The controversial bailouts--the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the auto bailout--were already under way, with the former passing Congress with bipartisan majorities and the latter initiated by Bush when Congress rejected it. Both of these massive expenditures, which also gave the government unprecedented economic control, could have been fodder for intense opposition under Obama--but he was spared the task.

On the war front, the Bush “surge” in Iraq--which Obama had opposed vigorously--had been a success, enabling Obama to devote more attention and resources to securing gains in Afghanistan. The key intelligence that would later be critical to locating Osama bin Laden had already been gathered, thanks to the capture in Iraq of Hassan Ghul and the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--which Obama had also opposed.

There was little, in fact, that Obama needed to do, other than that which ought to have come naturally to any new President: focus on the economy, with small adjustments to regulations, perhaps a few interventions (Obama’s original stimulus proposal was $50 billion), and maybe some appropriate prosecutions (which, curiously, never happened).

With the economy on the rebound, Obama would likely have coasted to re-election, and he could have used his second term to attempt more ambitious, transformative plans.

But Obama refused. He and his advisers chose to seize the crisis to implement radical changes, while his Democratic allies helped themselves to massive helpings of pork. The ill-fated stimulus of February 2009 rallied the opposition; the Obamacare push only galvanized it; and the 2010 midterm elections halted Obama’s transformative plans.

President Obama had a second chance--many second chances, in fact. He could have done what Bill Clinton did after his party lost control of Congress in 1994, and moved toward the center. He could have brokered a “grand bargain” with Republicans to cut the deficit and the national debt, much as Clinton had done in 1996 with welfare reform. But Obama refused, doubling down on “change” and causing the debt deal to collapse.
[excerpt]

That's really what I thought he'd do, back when he was first elected. I was under no illusions about Obama's radical agenda, having researched him thoroughly by then. It seemed that the rational thing to do would be to institute small changes, curry trust with the people, and then drop the hammer down in a second term. I was actually pretty surprised when he chose an adversarial stance just three weeks into his term and has stood on it ever since. I mean, it's madness.

Underneath it all, what I think happened is that he just simply doesn't have the emotional maturity to keep his hatred of Republicans at bay or to take the heat when his liberal base prods him. If it was only that he had super-majorities in Congress for the first two years, tempting him to go for it right away and then make up lost ground politically afterwards, why wouldn't he have triangulated after the 2010 midterm?

It was even more than that. He took the stimulus and turned it into pork during bargaining and after that spent his time on Obamacare instead of the economy. While having a majority in Congress, it would have been a wise time to foster alliances with the right. But he ignored all of these things until things got worse and still gave lipservice to the economy.

He just wasn't prepared for this job. We can see what a disaster his foreign policy has turned out to be.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Obama Did Not Inherit a Mess, But a Great Opportunity--Which He Wasted​

by Joel B. Pollak
Obama Did Not Inherit a Mess, But a Great Opportunity--Which He Wasted

21 Oct 2012

President Barack Obama has often lamented that he “inherited” a mess from George. W. Bush. His opponents acknowledge that, but argue that Obama made the situation worse. “Did they come in and inherit a tough situation? Absolutely. But we’re going in the wrong direction!” Ryan said during the Vice Presidential debate on Oct. 11.

The truth, however, is otherwise: Obama inherited a fantastic set of political circumstances.

The economy was near the trough of the recession, and would likely have rebounded quickly, had Obama not intervened with radical new policies such as Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. Even allowing for the (disputed) argument that financial collapses lead to slower, longer recoveries, it is likely that the economy would have rebounded far more quickly had Obama not created new uncertainty, new business costs, and new debt.

The controversial bailouts--the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the auto bailout--were already under way, with the former passing Congress with bipartisan majorities and the latter initiated by Bush when Congress rejected it. Both of these massive expenditures, which also gave the government unprecedented economic control, could have been fodder for intense opposition under Obama--but he was spared the task.

On the war front, the Bush “surge” in Iraq--which Obama had opposed vigorously--had been a success, enabling Obama to devote more attention and resources to securing gains in Afghanistan. The key intelligence that would later be critical to locating Osama bin Laden had already been gathered, thanks to the capture in Iraq of Hassan Ghul and the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--which Obama had also opposed.

There was little, in fact, that Obama needed to do, other than that which ought to have come naturally to any new President: focus on the economy, with small adjustments to regulations, perhaps a few interventions (Obama’s original stimulus proposal was $50 billion), and maybe some appropriate prosecutions (which, curiously, never happened).

With the economy on the rebound, Obama would likely have coasted to re-election, and he could have used his second term to attempt more ambitious, transformative plans.

But Obama refused. He and his advisers chose to seize the crisis to implement radical changes, while his Democratic allies helped themselves to massive helpings of pork. The ill-fated stimulus of February 2009 rallied the opposition; the Obamacare push only galvanized it; and the 2010 midterm elections halted Obama’s transformative plans.

President Obama had a second chance--many second chances, in fact. He could have done what Bill Clinton did after his party lost control of Congress in 1994, and moved toward the center. He could have brokered a “grand bargain” with Republicans to cut the deficit and the national debt, much as Clinton had done in 1996 with welfare reform. But Obama refused, doubling down on “change” and causing the debt deal to collapse.
[excerpt]

That's really what I thought he'd do, back when he was first elected. I was under no illusions about Obama's radical agenda, having researched him thoroughly by then. It seemed that the rational thing to do would be to institute small changes, curry trust with the people, and then drop the hammer down in a second term. I was actually pretty surprised when he chose an adversarial stance just three weeks into his term and has stood on it ever since. I mean, it's madness.

Underneath it all, what I think happened is that he just simply doesn't have the emotional maturity to keep his hatred of Republicans at bay or to take the heat when his liberal base prods him. If it was only that he had super-majorities in Congress for the first two years, tempting him to go for it right away and then make up lost ground politically afterwards, why wouldn't he have triangulated after the 2010 midterm?

It was even more than that. He took the stimulus and turned it into pork during bargaining and after that spent his time on Obamacare instead of the economy. While having a majority in Congress, it would have been a wise time to foster alliances with the right. But he ignored all of these things until things got worse and still gave lipservice to the economy.

He just wasn't prepared for this job. We can see what a disaster his foreign policy has turned out to be.

So what you've said is simply that Obama was "Inexperienced" when he took the job and "Incompetently" handled his position as most of Americans now believe. Then there's the fact that Oblamer just mouthed the words "Transparency" and never has followed through. We can all see the results by what occurred on 9/11/12.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Obama Did Not Inherit a Mess, But a Great Opportunity--Which He Wasted

Go, sit down, somewhere, Skippy......​

January 13, 2008​

"The recession-deniers were muzzled by a horrendous last two weeks of December, and the gloom-and-doomers are now out in force. Their key arguments:

* Plummeting housing will now drag down the rest of the economy.

*The "bad debt" problem is not just "sub-prime" folks who should never have have taken out mortgages in the first place. It includes credit card debt, "high quality" mortgages, car loans, and other leverage that have recently become a consumer way of life.

*Pressure on consumers is leading to a reduction in consumer spending (70% of economy), which, in turn, will lead to a reduction in spending by companies that sell stuff to consumers.

*The question now is not "will there be a recession?" but "how bad will it get?"

*The most optimistic forecasts in a NYT gloom-and-doom round-up are for three crappy quarters, regardless of what the Fed does. Less optimistic forecasts suggest that we are, well, screwed.

After blowing the last downturn, we've been worried this one since last summer (see below). We also suspect that, given the importance of housing to the economy and debt to consumer spending, the recession will be deeper and more prolonged than people think."

"U.S. Economy Screwed"​

Get back, to us, once you've completed Jr. High School.....

 

[SniperFire]

The guy never ran so much as a hotdog stand before being given the most important leadership job in the world.



And we were expecting....... ?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The guy never ran so much as a hotdog stand before being given the most important leadership job in the world.



And we were expecting....... ?

The TEABAGGERS' Boy!!

​

 

[NYcarbineer]

If losing 700,000 jobs a month, and GDP at minus 6%, just for starters, isn't a mess,

what is? How much worse would that have to be to be a mess?

 

[Zoom-boing]

That's really what I thought he'd do, back when he was first elected. I was under no illusions about Obama's radical agenda, having researched him thoroughly by then. It seemed that the rational thing to do would be to institute small changes, curry trust with the people, and then drop the hammer down in a second term. I was actually pretty surprised when he chose an adversarial stance just three weeks into his term and has stood on it ever since. I mean, it's madness.

Underneath it all, what I think happened is that he just simply doesn't have the emotional maturity to keep his hatred of Republicans at bay or to take the heat when his liberal base prods him. If it was only that he had super-majorities in Congress for the first two years, tempting him to go for it right away and then make up lost ground politically afterwards, why wouldn't he have triangulated after the 2010 midterm?

It was even more than that. He took the stimulus and turned it into pork during bargaining and after that spent his time on Obamacare instead of the economy. While having a majority in Congress, it would have been a wise time to foster alliances with the right. But he ignored all of these things until things got worse and still gave lipservice to the economy.

He just wasn't prepared for this job. We can see what a disaster his foreign policy has turned out to be.

Someone who knows how to lead would have done these things, especially the bolded. Proof once again that Obama is no leader.

 

[kiwiman127]

Breitbart? Now there's a non-biased point of view!
I think Obama could have done a better job with his stimulus but I also think in the long run that if there would have been compromise in Congress by both parties there would have been opportunities. There is way too much of "our way or hit the highway" going on in Washington. That phenomenon certainly played into the US's downgrade with our credit rating.
It's also a fact that the last three recession have lasted longer than previous recessions to recover (see charts below. As a matter of fact, the 2001 recession which was much smaller and much deeper than the one we are kinda recovering from took almost four years to recover. Look at the chart.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Had he concerned himself with the economy instead of ocare, that nobody wanted, he would probably be up double digits. In order to straighten out the economy you have to have some semblance of how actual economics works. Unfortunately, he doesnt and never did.

 

[SniperFire]

If losing 700,000 jobs a month, and GDP at minus 6%, just for starters, isn't a mess,

what is? How much worse would that have to be to be a mess?

LOL

Dumbass.

We didn't lose those kind on jobs until Obama became President Elect.

A Marxist POTUS freaked out our business owners - and they rolled up the carpet.


They don't call it 'smart money' for nothing, do they?

 

[FJO]

All anyone needed to see about the character (or, more correctly, the lack thereof) of this buffoon empty suit was the meeting he called shortly after the inauguration, during which he addressed Senator John McCain as "JOHN" and in typical Chicago bully punk manner told him "we won, you lost" or words to that effect.

Among other thing he so callously wasted was the opportunity to be a gracious winner.

But that is what happens when you send a boy to do a man's job.

 

[kiwiman127]

If losing 700,000 jobs a month, and GDP at minus 6%, just for starters, isn't a mess,

what is? How much worse would that have to be to be a mess?

LOL

Dumbass.

We didn't lose those kind on jobs until Obama became President Elect.

A Marxist POTUS freaked out our business owners - and they rolled up the carpet.


They don't call it 'smart money' for nothing, do they?

Let's look at the Big Picture:
If Romney/Ryan win next month do I expect the sluggish recovery to turn into a barn-burner recovery within a few months after they have been sworn in? No and neither does anyone else, no matter their ideology.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Remember Oblamer told us to judge him by those that surround him. You know, Jarrett, Axelrod, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Juanita Dunn, Holdren, Chu, Ayers, and Resko.
Now what more can anyone deduce by those that have surrounded Obama the proven failure.

 

[SniperFire]

If losing 700,000 jobs a month, and GDP at minus 6%, just for starters, isn't a mess,

what is? How much worse would that have to be to be a mess?

LOL

Dumbass.

We didn't lose those kind on jobs until Obama became President Elect.

A Marxist POTUS freaked out our business owners - and they rolled up the carpet.


They don't call it 'smart money' for nothing, do they?

Let's look at the Big Picture:
If Romney/Ryan win next month do I expect the sluggish recovery to turn into a barn-burner recovery within a few months after they have been sworn in? No and neither does anyone else, no matter their ideology.

Non sequitur. Business owners scared shitless that a Marxist just won the Presidency can chop jobs INSTANTLY.

And they did.

Much easier - and faster - to close down than to rebuild.

 

[francoHFW]

Thanks for the DEPRESSION and 3 1/2 years of mindless obstruction, Pubs and silly dupes.

Assume the position. The battleground states have heard about Pubs'/Romney's BS if idiot Red states and this forum's nutters haven't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If losing 700,000 jobs a month, and GDP at minus 6%, just for starters, isn't a mess,

what is? How much worse would that have to be to be a mess?

LOL

Dumbass.

We didn't lose those kind on jobs until Obama became President Elect.

A Marxist POTUS freaked out our business owners - and they rolled up the carpet.


They don't call it 'smart money' for nothing, do they?

Oh look a new myth.