Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo
and involuntary_serf replied:
A second's consideration of the last two centuries of history will, of course, tell us that the president is, indeed, responsible for the country. This is why we have elections.
It is a fact that the crisis started during Bush's administration.
President Obama was not in office when the economic crisis began. The crisis, however, would be affecting the American job market whoever had been elected. Six months since the election is too soon to either reverse the crisis or significantly exacerbate it.
To pretend otherwise is a lame attempt to pass the responsibility for the crisis on to the man who inherited it.
First, I was simply using the reasoning offered by jimmac.
Second, Obama people themselves estimated/predicted (hoped?) that unemployment would at least stall (possibly go down) with this stimulus. Not long
term, but almost immediately. Yet it is going sharply in the other direction. That was the reason for the urgent nature to cut a check for $800 billion. Of course now we're hearing that everyone guessed wrong on this (nope). And also the unprovable assertion that, well, thing would have been even worse if the stimulus in place and that, well, we have "saved" X number of jobs. Uh huh. OK. Right.
Contrary to popular (and even mainstream economic) thinking, the government didn't have
to "do something", and there are reasonable arguments (though dismissed or ignored) that doing nothing (i.e., no bailouts, no "stimulus", no nationalization of companies) would have actually been better.
But alas, this is the when is the "When is the GOP going to recover??" thread so, based on what Obama and the Democrats are doing, my guess is 2010 and 2012. Hopefully though they bring something to the table to actually fix (i.e., reverse) the "Obama doctrine". On that I'm far more skeptical. Regaining power and winning elections because the other guys screwed up doesn't mean you know how to fix it. People should keep this in mind with Obama and the Democrats right now, because that (and the sway of "history" and "personality" and eloquent speech giving) is what got them where they are now. Assuming it is because they are right on policy or that Americans agree with their policies across the board could be a profound tactical error.