« The Incredible Shrinking Barack Obama
Undocumented on Edge Before U.S. Supreme Court Ruling (La Jornada, Mexico) »
Quote of the Day: What Barack Obama Forgot About Change
Our political Quote of the Day comes from Paul Tullis, writing on the Huffington Post, about what President Barack Obama seemingly forgot about change:
This battle over the debt deal was not a matter of who believes in Keynes.
It was a matter of Republicans caring more about power than about governing, and Democrats being unable to wrest that power from Republicans so that they can govern.
The reason Democrats lost (and their constituents will suffer) is the problem with the entire Obama presidency:
He forgot that the corollary to “Change comes to Washington” is that all the people who brought change to Washington — Lincoln, FDR, MLK, whoever — were willing to do what the Republicans just did: risk everything (and in some cases lay down their lives) for what they care about.
What’s pathetic is not that Pres. Obama did what he said he would do, and lost.
He didn’t even try.
He’s the most forceful American orator in two generations, who’s proven capable of killing a wedge issue and shifting the terms of the debate just by standing behind a podium and opening his mouth.
But his version of getting people behind him on the debt deal was a couple of press conferences — where by definition you don’t control the agenda — and a primetime speech from the Oval Office, which was immediately overshadowed by its response.
10 Responses to “Quote of the Day: What Barack Obama Forgot About Change”
Tullis fails.
Does he really believe that stuff, or is he just making things up like many others appear to, out of weird frustration and outrage about the deal?
The funniest part is all the loathing many liberals are expressing for the budget deal, and saying they wanted it to fail, didn’t want it to be made law, and how many Democrats voted against it.
Yet they disdained and worse, the Tea Party people they now copy.
That Liberal Hypocrisy, Again!
Well just because it had to pass to avoid a huge financial mess doesn’t mean all the crap the GOP forced down our throats is something we have to feel good about.
But I’m with Gcotharn, the dems could have avoided this entire mess if they had some balls and got things done when they had the chance instead of wimpering in the corner hoping people will still like them tomorrow.
“This battle over the debt deal was not a matter of who believes in Keynes.”
Yes, it matters a lot if you believe in Keynes or not, because Keynes apparently said that debts don’t matter, whereas history says they matter a lot. Keynes theory vs reality is exactly what this fight is over.
One problem with the Republicans winning a majority is that they have overstepped their bounds and taken a small majority position and treated it as though they had a mandate.
Another problem with politics these days is that some political leaders want things their way and will not allow their opponents any say.
Well for the record, last year when the Dems became a minority in the House they were adults and willing to let Republicans have a say in the debt ceiling. The Republicans took that position and brought us to where we are today. It is the Democratic Party who was forced to relent because as bad as the debt deal is, the alternative, to lose the nation’s sterling credit rating and being unable to pay its financial obligations is worse.
Business people generally (and certainly stock market traders) understand that the Republican plan will reduce government spending, government will reduce jobs and the fragile economy we are in will slip back into recession. The Republicans, by refusing to a balanced approached to the deficit, have cut their noses to spite their face. I just wish I didn’t have to pay for their mistakes. But if the Dems had refused to give in, then we would be in a stalement and the consequences would be far worse.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-didnt-democrats-raise-the-debt-ceiling-last-december/
I don’t think that Keynes ever said that about debt, but what I believe he said was that when you are in the middle of a recession with a high unemployment rate and a central bank offering money at near zero interest rates, the only way to kick start the economy is for Government to start employing people, and being the fairly conservative that he was, he wanted those jobs to be temporary.
If he was alive today, Keynes would tell you to open the spigots and start rebuilding the infrastructure: roads, bridges, water systems, sewer systems, power grid, trains, airports, mass transit, etc, etc…
Had he been alive ten years ago, he would have told Bush to take his surplus and bank it, because he was going to need it at some point in the future.
Cheney is the guy that said deficits don’t matter, don’t confuse the two of them, one is English, a great writer and a genius, the other is a American Right Wing Hack.
The “agreement” did in fact take place in the midst of a hostage situation so more decisive and passionate leadership would have been nice, but someone had to take on the role of adult and it sure as hell wasn’t going to be the GOTP. Beyond that, Tullis is right.
@QF
I know that you’re right about Cheney (whom I despise for several reasons) and probably about Keynes.
Since we formally abandoned the gold standard in the 70s (Nixon) and took neo/paleo/pseudo-Keynesianism to its limits (spend wildly when in a recession — and when not), we’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that artificially low rates coupled with growing borrowing and spending, aided by a de-coupling of power and accountability (i.e. Fannie/Freddie, bailouts, liability limits), leads to massive bubbles and market instability beyond what new spending can cover up.
What would Keynes say when pushing depression economics is what got us into this depression?
Since World War II, the “Keynesianism” that liberalism in its ascendence practiced through Dem politicians and GOP hangers-on was nothing of the kind. When the slump began in 2008, there was a renewal of interest in Keynes and his economic theory(ies), much of it just stupid Herd behavior wanting justification for what they had wanted (massive new spending). Even now when we have wishes of many on the Left and a few on the Right for more spending (and borrowing) and many on the Left for certain new (odd) taxes at the same time, it’s not Keynesianism.
(I’ve also posted in late 2008-early 2009-onward links to Roger Bootle’s later book on the economy, that describes Keynesianism in terms of looking at the “macro” versus the “micro” [individual] economic situation, as well as other things in that book such as his critique of unregulated capitalism and how well it did under regulation in the past.)
Doesn’t anyone remember?
I “remembered” recently in case others have forgotten:
(one example)
As I’ve elaborated, the idea is to induce or “incentivize” economic activity during busts or downturns by having increased government spending, and deficits, and lower taxes, to retard the downturn and reverse it, hopefully, while during booms, or “up-times,” to curb the excess and retard the upturn, and hopefully to tame it (it’s too scary to some to say “reverse it,” i.e., the excess).
Ideally, the surpluses run from artificially high taxes during the boom times will go into a reserve fund (or “cushion,” obviously) to pay for the excess government spending (i.e., the deficits) during the bust times. (Preferably it’s “any deficits,” not “the deficits.”)
Note that we’re trying to arrest and reverse (and hope at least to retard) deflation during the busts and to arrest and reverse (and hope at least to retard) inflation during the booms.
(I’ve deliberately mentioned busts and fighting deflation first, and booms and fighting inflation second, because people typically are preoccupied with the down side and want no spoiling the party on the up side.)
(As I’ve also written, note the Keynesian aspect to income withholding during World War II, when inflation rather than deflation was a problem. It wasn’t just to guarantee the federal government the assurance of the gargantuan, far-larger amount of taxes it needed than before, that which is “normal” nowadays. It also was Keynesianism — reducing income reduces demand.)
[...] Quote of the Day: What Barack Obama Forgot About Change (themoderatevoice.com) [...]