No, not the USMC disciplinary code. Rather, a somewhat dim economic outlook from Spengler and friends.
In the absence of a clear policy alternative (or even a muddy alternative) to Obama, conservatives have taken to their rocking chairs, waiting for Obama to fail so that a repentant populace will come back to them.
Not so, these folks think.
Citing another blogpost, Spengler concurs in the opinion that there will be no recovery.
Demographics are going to hurt (the aging of the US population, particularly the nuke-bomb effect of Baby Boomer retirements) and:
..the number one reason that America won’t recover is that Obama has no incentive to foster a real recovery.
Well, that's a "yes-and-no" kinda thought. According to most conventional-wisdom economists, and a large number of reliable indicators, there will be a recovery.
The more important question for Obama (and everyone else, for that matter) is whether that recovery will be "jobless."
And there is no consensus about that at all.
Nonetheless,
Obama knows that if the economy crumbles and he’s the only one left with a checkbook, then everyone has to come to him. Where is the independent base of entrepreneurial business to which the Republicans might to to raise money against Obama? The banks, the hedge funds, the manufacturers, the municipalities, in fact everyone who is left standing in the economy is beholden to Obama. This is Chicago city politics writ large. Leave aside all of the individual things that Obama is doing that harm economic growth: Obama is the first American president (with the possible exception of FDR) to actually benefit from economic weakness.
True, dat.
Come 2010, from whom are Republicans going to raise funds? There aren’t any entrepreneurs out there. They are lying face up on the beaches with swollen bellies and vacant eyes. There aren’t any independent financial institutions. There’s only a long line of prospective monopolists looking for a handout from the federal government. And the worse the economy gets, the longer the line gets. That’s the way banana republics work.
I suppose that Spengler is a pessimist, contrasting my mild optimism.
Regardless, his call-to-arms of the Republican/Conservatives is not without reason. Compelling reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"The more important question for Obama (and everyone else, for that matter) is whether that recovery will be 'jobless.'"
If recent history holds true (and it will), this will be the worst "jobless" recovery we've ever experienced.
....And since we've managed to pass a stimulus package too small to facilitate anything close to a return to full employment, Obama could be blamed for the near double digit unemployment rates nearing the next Presidential election and it could cost him his job regardless of the alternative.
Thereafter, my greatest fear is that liquidationists such as yourself take the helm and we end up with a catastrophy in the name of the same unhindered free market capitalism that got us into this mess in the first place.
Of course, the "wild card" is global demand. If global demand manages to somehow offset our permanent decline in consumption, then we might see a better scenario down the road and employment might modestly rebound over the coming years. Time will tell.
Sure, Josh.
It's FAR better to bury ourselves, our children, and THEIR children going several generations forward, in debt, than to unburden the taxpayer from Government at all levels.
Especially when that tax burden is incurred specifically in support ONLY of other, subordinate, Gummints.
Find a better one-note symphony to play, please.
"It's FAR better to bury ourselves, our children, and THEIR children going several generations forward, in debt, than to unburden the taxpayer from Government at all levels."
No it's not. That's why rising health care costs need to be contained. The status quo in health care costs will achieve what you are worried about. Spending on government stimulus over the next couple years is no big deal in the long run.
I'll say it again: spending on stimulus over the next couple years is no big deal in the long run.
If you really want to see healthcare costs "contained," then drop ALL healthcare insurances except for catastrophic coverage (say >$10K/year/family.)
Adding 30 million ++ to the "free food here!!" list is not going to reduce expenses.
Never. No how, no way.
Post a Comment