At what point does President Obama become responsible for the effectiveness of his own policies?

Well, according to our good friend Perry, not yet, and probably not ever:

Pew: Republican Gains ==> Dem Challenges

Posted on July 23, 2011 by Perry

This is interesting, but not unexpected:

This result is indicative of the job creation crisis, caused by the Republican policies during the Bush years, but blamed on Obama by many of those hit hardest by the lack of jobs. Moreover, the Republicans have no plan to create jobs, only the Ryan Plan (the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan was soundly defeated in the Senate this week) of severe austerity on the American middle and poor, which is sure to yet destroy many more jobs.

So here is the campaign challenge for Obama and the Dems: to set the record straight and turn this perception more toward the facts, highlighting the fact that trickle down economics is not the solution, never has been, and that stimulus creates demand which then creates more jobs. After the GDP growth, phasing in austerity will be needed, without a doubt, but we need to get the economy growing first. Let us not be lulled into making the same mistakes that the UK is making as we speak!

There are more interesting results and charts at this link which pretty well spell out the challenges for the Dems for the 2012 general elections.

The last I had heard, the Democrats won the 2006 and 2008 elections. The Republican Party lost power in both Houses of Congress following the 2006 elections, and the Democrats took majority control. Then, in 2008, the Republicans lost even more seats in Congress, and the presidency reverted to Democratic Party control; for a time the Democrats even had a filibuster-proof majority in the eleventy-first Congress.

And what did the Democrats do? Why, they did their best to actually put their policies into government programs, and into law. Over near-unanimous Republican objections, they passed a sweeping change of our health care system into law, as they promised to do. Over near-unanimous Republican objections, they passed a huge, porcine “stimulus” plan, greatly increasing the annual federal budget deficit and the national debt in the process, claiming that passing it would hold rising unemployment to a maximum of 8%, while not doing so would allow unemployment to rise to 9%. Over near-unanimous Republican objections, they passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which even John Walsh, the Acting Comptroller of the Currency and an Obama Administration appointee recently said would cause a “tsunami” in the mortgage lending industry, with “15 to 20 new mortgage lending requirements in the regulatory pipeline.”

Yet, according to Perry, the Democrats need to keep blaming our economic problems on the Republicans, and need “to set the record straight and turn this perception more toward the facts, highlighting the fact that trickle down economics is not the solution, never has been, and that stimulus creates demand which then creates more jobs.”

Well, the Republicans have been out of power, the Democrats have managed to pass major new financial regulations, and passed a huge stimulus package, yet the “stimulus . . . demand which then creates more jobs” hasn’t created more jobs, and the economy that the Democrats said they would turn around is still anemic, saddled with the ever increasing debt burden the Democrats piled on, and which they are insisting must be increased.

Perry’s answer is that the Democrats must do a better job of selling the strange notion that, after 2½ years in office, President Obama is still responsible for nothing and that it’s all former President George Bush’s fault that things aren’t getting better. Of course, that depends on yet another strange idea: that the economy was under the control of the Republicans when the Republicans held power, and that made things bad, bad, bad, but the economy isn’t under the control of the Democrats when the Democrats hold power, so that’s why the Democrats haven’t made things good, good, good.

The distress for our good Democrat from Delaware is that the public are not buying it. Somehow, some way, they seem to have the idea — pushed by the Democrats as recently as 2008 — that the guys in office right now are the ones responsible for things right now. That’s part of the reason that the voters gave a majority of their votes to the Republicans in 2010, and that’s the reason President Obama is in significant jeopardy of losing his bid for re-election.

President Obama once said that the voters should hold him accountable for high unemployment and a slow economy. Perry seems upset at the fact that the voters have done just that, in 2010, and look like they might just do it again in 2012.

51 Comments

  1. Shame on you, Dana, for daring to ask that racist question in the title to this post. Don’t you know that Obama will never be responsible for anything negative — that it will always somehow be Bush’s fault in the eyes of Obama’s supporters, and anyone who argues differently does so only because of Barry Hussein’s race and his daddy’s foreign origin?

    On the other hand, these same folks were more than willing to make Bush 100% responsible for 9/11 after less than 8 months in office, absolving the Clinton Administration of all responsibility despite the clear connections between Clinton-era policy failures and the attacks.

  2. You know, the dog peed on his Teleprompter and shorted it out, or maybe it was the dog ate his homework. Either way, our man of Manchurian Mysteries, dubious friends, and “sought out the Marxists Professors” at schools he can’t prove he attended, is really a cyborg.

  3. Before Perry gets his fruit of looms all wrapped around his axle, here’s a cite. Read it and weep:

    “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully,” Obama wrote in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”

    Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections/476925-quotes-obamas-book-1-i-choose.html#ixzz1T4kxbV8Q

  4. Before Perry gets his fruit of looms all wrapped around his axle, here’s a cite. Read it and weep:

    “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully,” Obama wrote in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists

    Uh-huh.

    This sentence appears on page 101 of Dreams from My Father, as part of a long passage in which Barack Obama talked about his time at Occidental College in Los Angeles. It was another expression of a theme touched on in many other sections of the book — the difficulties of being expected to associate oneself with a particular racial heritage, especially for those who came from multiracial backgrounds — prompted by the example of a girl named Joyce, one of Obama’s classmates:

    She was a good-looking woman, Joyce was with her green eyes and honey skin and pouty lips. We lived in the same dorm my freshman year, and all the brothers were after her. One day I asked her if she was going to the Black Students’ Association meeting. She looked at me funny, then started shaking her head like a baby who doesn’t want what it sees on the spoon.

    “I’m not black,” Joyce said. “I’m multiracial.” Then she started telling me about her father, who happened to be Italian and was the sweetest man in the world; and her mother, who happened to be part African and part French and part Native American and part something else. “Why should I have to choose between them?” she asked me. Her voice cracked, and I thought she was going to cry. “It’s not white people who are making me choose. Maybe it used to be that way, but now they’re willing to treat me like a person. No — it’s black people who always have to make everything racial. They’re the ones making me choose. They’re the ones who are telling me that I can’t be who I am …”

    They, they, they. That was the problem with people like Joyce. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounded real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people …

    To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling conventions. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.

    But this strategy alone couldn’t provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerant. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.

    Didn’t you learn anything from your stup1dity with the birth certificate?

    Yorkie: The birth certificate shown today is the only one the State Department will accept for a Passport. If the one in 2008 was presented, the application would be returned.

    PiaToR: Either you have proof showing this to be inaccurate, or you have deliberately made a comment you know to be false.

    Yorkie: Read it and weap – When you have applied and gotten 5 passports, 3 civilian and 2 for work, you know and understand the drill [...] Beginning April 1, 2011, the U.S. Department of State will require the full names of the applicant’s parent(s) to be listed on all certified birth certificates to be considered as primary evidence of U.S. citizenship for all passport applicants, regardless of age. Certified birth certificates missing this information will not be acceptable as evidence of citizenship. This will not affect applications already in-process that have been submitted or accepted before the effective date.

    PiaToR: Uh-huh [points at certificate] Can you tell us what is written on that short-form certificate which Obama released in 2008, under “Mother’s Maiden name” and “Father’s Name”, please?

    Yorkie: I tried to send THE SHORT FORM TO THE STATE DEPT. It was rejected in 1982.

    PiaToR: Teeny tiny minor point – the State of Pennsylvania is not the State of Hawaii. I realise this seems obvious, but I think it may be worth mentioning – especially given that the documents issued by one State may not contain the same information as those issued by another State.

    You never learn, do you?

  5. Right, PiaToR, context matters, which is why my fruit of the looms tend to get wrapped around my axle when I peruse this blog! :)

    But now look at this from Greg:

    “On the other hand, these same folks were more than willing to make Bush 100% responsible for 9/11 after less than 8 months in office, absolving the Clinton Administration of all responsibility despite the clear connections between Clinton-era policy failures and the attacks.”

    Bush was warned of an imminent attack in the PDB of early August, delivered to him by then SoS Rice to Bush on vacation in Crawford. As far as we know, he did nothing. We do know that there were some important dots not connected. Moreover, exactly to what Clinton Administration failures are you referring? Assuming you might be correct, were not 8 months sufficient time to straighten them out? It didn’t take them long to drop the nuclear test ban treaty, or to refuse to participate in initiatives to combat global warming, or to remove us from the jurisdiction of the World Court, or to plan for the invasion of Iraq before 9/11, or to prepare to institute the first of the Bush tax cuts, did it Greg?

  6. Moreover, exactly to what Clinton Administration failures are you referring?

    It should be well known for someone who claims to follow various new sources that Clinton had OBL dead to rights — all he had to do was give the order. He did not.

    Further proof of your lies.

  7. It should be well known for someone who claims to follow various new sources that Clinton had OBL dead to rights — all he had to do was give the order. He did not.

    Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste … talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points …

  8. Perry wrote:

    Bush was warned of an imminent attack in the PDB of early August, delivered to him by then SoS Rice to Bush on vacation in Crawford. As far as we know, he did nothing. We do know that there were some important dots not connected. Moreover, exactly to what Clinton Administration failures are you referring? Assuming you might be correct, were not 8 months sufficient time to straighten them out? It didn’t take them long to drop the nuclear test ban treaty, or to refuse to participate in initiatives to combat global warming, or to remove us from the jurisdiction of the World Court, or to plan for the invasion of Iraq before 9/11, or to prepare to institute the first of the Bush tax cuts, did it Greg?

    Shorter Perry: Yes, George Bush was completely responsible for everything that happened when he was President, by September 11th, 2001, the 234th day of his presidency, while Barack Obama, on the 914th day of his presidency,1 is still not responsible for anything bad which happens on his watch, and can continue blame President Bush.

    Quite obviously, this sign is not on President Obama’s desk!
    ________________________

    1. Date counted from June 23rd, the day Perry published his article [back]
  9. Dana, now that I have your attention, are you going to re open the Truth thread? I know there are still people sleeping and unwilling to look at the material, but as more people wake up, hopefully those of around here will too, the assortment of material will be valuable. Also, you will have helped our country by having the information available.

    [Done. -- DRP]

  10. One of the P’s in the Pod wrote:

    It should be well known for someone who claims to follow various new sources that Clinton had OBL dead to rights — all he had to do was give the order. He did not. (Hube)

    Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste … talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points …

    From msnbc.com, not exactly a right-wing site:

    As the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp.

    The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn’t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.

    Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.

    In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.

    In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.

    Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.

    In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”

    NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

    In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

    Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

    Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

    Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

    Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

    “It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.

    The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

    “We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

    “We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

    Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

    What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

    A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

    Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

    In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

    NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview. However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority.

    “We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,” said President Clinton’s former national security adviser James Steinberg.

    One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”

    Emphases mine.

    Of course, the two P’s in a Pod have insisted that al Qaeda is a law enforcement problem, and not an enemy with whom we are at war, and the Phoenician has complained, many times, about President Obama’s order to kill Anwar al-Awlaki on sight, so it’s clear that the Phoenician would have disapproved of President Clinton ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden.

    President Clinton did order at least one missile strike targeting Mr bin Laden, in August of 1998; Mr bin Laden moved away from the targeted area a few hours before the cruise missiles struck.

    From CBS News:

    In May of 1998, after months of planning, officials called off a CIA plan to have Afghan allies capture bin Laden and send him out of Afghanistan for trial. The plan was apparently scrapped because of worries about the chance of killing bystanders, and even bin Laden himself, as well as concerns over the strength of the legal evidence against bin Laden.

    On on May 18, 1996, Sudan expelled Mr bin Laden. Supposedly, the Sudanese government offered to deliver him to American hands, but President Clinton decided not to accept because the government was unsure that we had sufficient evidence to put him on trial in federal court and win a conviction; the option of simply shooting him in the head was apparently not considered. Factcheck.org notes that:

    Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.

    It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no “credible offers” to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found “no credible evidence” that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning “The Looming Tower,” flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting. . . .

    Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:

    Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.

    Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, “The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States.” According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision “was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese.”

    Neither President Clinton nor anyone in his Administration ever guessed just how bad Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda would turn out to be; the September 11th operation was so audacious that they never even considered something like that. President Bush and his Administration had the same failing, and the Bush Administration treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem right up until September 11th. In that regard, both Administrations were short on imagination, and both Administrations failed.

  11. Blah blah blah. Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste … talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points …

    (Annoying, isn’t it?)

  12. Blah blah blah. Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste … talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points …

    (Annoying, isn’t it?)

    Page views used to stay around 24k per month and 600+ per day. And people wonder why those numbers have fallen off so precipitously in the past year and a half. The above blockquote and its author is but one very clear reason why. The Other “P in a Pod” is another very clear reason for the precipitous decline in page-views.

  13. Exactly, PiaToR, who in their right mind would tune in to the raft of vile personal attacks occurring on a daily basis on this once more civil blog? I would single out JH and Hube as the main culprits, both unwilling to follow Dana’s plea to tone it down, and then Dana’s unwillingness to follow up on his request when unmet.

    It’s one thing to have hot disputes/debates on political issues, which is to be expected; it is quite something else to have these incessant personal attacks on here, which is uncalled for. JH ought to undergo some personal introspection, and Hube ought to just plain cut it out and stop contaminating someone else’s blog with his venom!!! Both are fully capable of much better deportment.

  14. “Neither President Clinton nor anyone in his Administration ever guessed just how bad Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda would turn out to be; the September 11th operation was so audacious that they never even considered something like that. President Bush and his Administration had the same failing, and the Bush Administration treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem right up until September 11th. In that regard, both Administrations were short on imagination, and both Administrations failed.”

    ‘Tis always fashionable to play the hind-sighting game, but when we have a PDB issued directly to President Bush a month before the 9/11 attack, warning of an imminent attack, and ignored as far as we can tell by a vacationing Bush, given all the background knowledge you just reviewed, Dana, it is hard not to question the apparent lack of a prudent response.

  15. OK, Perry, given the nature of the warning received by President Bush, what, exactly, would you have done, given what we imagined might have been the attack, and the mindset of the American people and what they would be willing to tolerate for security measures prior to the attacks?

    Let’s say that we knew that the attack, whatever it was going to be, was going to be carried out by males between 20 and 45, all of Middle Eastern origin; what would your reaction have been to us specifically profiling our efforts based on that description?

  16. And Perry, given that you have just said that President Bush was wholly responsible for the attacks, 8 months into his term, why don’t you seem to hold President Obama wholly responsible for the effects of his policies 2½ years into his term?

  17. It’s one thing to have hot disputes/debates on political issues, which is to be expected; it is quite something else to have these incessant personal attacks on here, which is uncalled for. JH ought to undergo some personal introspection, and Hube ought to just plain cut it out and stop contaminating someone else’s blog with his venom!!! Both are fully capable of much better deportment.

    Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste, Copy and paste … talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points, talking points …

    Gap bridging my ass, you senile fraud.

    Sorry, but this is all your worth, fraud. When your only response to Dana’s lengthy thrashing of your outrageous hypocrisy regarding your “standards” and the Norwegian murders is “I’ll continue to speak out,” there is no greater proof that 1) your desire to “bridge gaps” is 100% phony, 2) your desire for debate and dialogue is 100% phony, 3) your desire for civility is 100% phony, and 4) you’re 100% a phony.

    So, if you continue to package and repackage your tired old talking points time and time again, I’ll continue to do the same — just not as clandestinely.

    Moron.

  18. And Perry, given that you have just said that President Bush was wholly responsible for the attacks, 8 months into his term, why don’t you seem to hold President Obama wholly responsible for the effects of his policies 2½ years into his term?

    Once again — game, set, match. The hypocrisy of Herr Censor shredded again.

  19. “And Perry, given that you have just said that President Bush was wholly responsible for the attacks, 8 months into his term, why don’t you seem to hold President Obama wholly responsible for the effects of his policies 2½ years into his term?”

    Frankly, no, I do not hold Obama “wholly” responsible for the effects of his policies.

    During his first two years, he had a Senate in which the Republican minority utilized the filibuster to thwart his agenda, a record number of times, by far.

    Now, during his next half a year, he has had an uncompromising House holding our economic recovery hostage for ideological purposes.

    In contrast, unfortunately, President Bush had a much more friendly Congress, both Senate and House. I say unfortunately, because of their willingness to fund the Cheney/Bush preemptive attack on Iraq, and with off-budget funding. Moreover, they supported the two Bush tax cuts, which, together with the Bush spending and lack of regulation and oversight, drove this country of ours into a Great Recession, of which so far only the wealthy have recovered as the middle and poor suffered.

    At least Obama and the Dems had the fortitude and foresight to tackle our growing health care provision and cost problem, but even there, the Repubs interfered with a getting a better solution, for which I fault Obama for backing off from at least the public option, or better, single payer.

    Currently, Obama has bent over backwards to attempt to solve the debt ceiling problem, much to the consternation of Independent Progressives like myself. He now finds himself up against a party which cannot say “yes” unless they get everything they want. Is this any way for a government to run, I ask?

  20. “OK, Perry, given the nature of the warning received by President Bush, what, exactly, would you have done, given what we imagined might have been the attack, and the mindset of the American people and what they would be willing to tolerate for security measures prior to the attacks?

    Let’s say that we knew that the attack, whatever it was going to be, was going to be carried out by males between 20 and 45, all of Middle Eastern origin; what would your reaction have been to us specifically profiling our efforts based on that description?”

    Bush and his administration should have listened to Dick Clark, who started screaming about the al-Qaeda threat in January 2001, well in advance of 9/11. From Wiki:

    Clarke’s role as a counter-terrorism advisor in the months and years prior to 9/11 would lead to the central role he played in deconstructing what went wrong in the years that followed. Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in Condoleezza Rice’s public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo from January 25, 2001, that Clarke had authored and sent to Rice. Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush Administration.

    In his memoir, “Against All Enemies”, Clarke wrote that when he first briefed Rice on Al-Qaeda, in a January 2001 meeting, “her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before.” He also stated that Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke’s memos go to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

    Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking ‘urgently’ for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been ‘framed’ by the Deputies.

    From the start, the Bush administration obviously did not consider al-Qaeda enough of a threat to merit any significant attention. It seems they were much more focused on the priorities of the neocons, which was to invade Iraq. As it turned out, al-Qaeda with their 9/11 attack greased the wheels for the invasion of Iraq by a country scared out of our wits, by us, enabling us to make some serious mistakes that have brought our country to its knees economically.

    Looking at where we are right now, the late Osama bin Laden could not possibly have hoped for a better outcome. We fell right into his trap, and may never recover to the point where we were economically in 1980, because you see, the combination of wealth redistribution to the wealthy, corruption by the wealthy of our government functions, and the Osama bin Laden attack, have laid us low. We have managed to self-destruct, thus we never learned the lessons enabling us to be a great nation in a sustainable manner. We killed our own democratic underpinnings.

    It is this legacy of thirty years of dysfunction that President Obama inherited! To expect a significant change from this stranglehold of the power of wealth over government in 2.5 years is expecting too much, as experience to date has shown.

    Yet it is well-meaning people like yourself, Dana, who support the continuance of this stranglehold. This is something I doubt that I will ever understand. It is like us promoting our own self-destruction. I believe the right-wing media, empowered by the wealthy corrupt, is a prominent factor in this successful propagandizing, turning Americans citizens against their own best interests, with the underlying idea that somehow God, since he favors our nation, will shepherd us through these hard times. It’s going to take more than God!

    End of rant!

  21. The title of this thread; “At what point does President Obama become responsible for the effects of his own policies” has been answered by Perry, Pho and Bluebonnet. The answer is a resounding never! As usual with nutty leftists, nothing is their fault. Obama is perfect in every way. I blame Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower and on and on. Could never be due to the policies of the leftist socialist slobs dining at the public trough. Nah, gotta be due to us rotten capitalists. Cause you see, we capitalists don’t know how to handle money. Only a true socialist like Obama can call pissing away other peoples money “investment’. Only a true socialist could call paying for votes “stimulus”. You guys are great. You even lie outright with a straight face. As Perry would say, it’s those wraskely-wepublicans causing all the evil in the world. That’s all folks.

  22. ‘….I believe the right-wing media, empowered by the wealthy corrupt,….”

    Did you actually say “the wealthy corrupt”? What’s more corrupt than 47% of working Americans not paying their “fair share” of federal taxes and expecting something (everything) from those of us who do? You Class Warriors are headed over the cliff. The reason unemployment has been over 400,000 for all these months, the reason companies and individuals are sitting on their money all these months is because Atlas has Shrugged but you’re too dumb to see it.

  23. And there you are again Perry. With:”To expect a significant change from this stranglehold of the power of wealth over government in 2.5 years is expecting too much, as experience to date has shown.”

    “Power of wealth over government”? Really? So then I assume you believe the government should have the power over our wealth. Wow, talk about Hitler. You really, really hate anyone who earns wealth, don’t you? With you it’s all about how much the government can beat down those who are successful. Tax their income, seize their assets, steal their homes. They are rotten capitalists and don’t deserve the respect that a crack-whore on welfare deserves. After all, she’s a victim.

    I love how you seem to believe government and wealth are somehow divorced. Yet your heros from Obama to Pelosi to Reid to Soros are all millionaires and billionaires. But since they’re leftists they are somehow exempt from your class warfare. I see now, they’re the good rich guys, not the bad rich guys. Just because Pelosi passes laws to enhance her canneries in American Samoa, no problem. Just cause Obama passes health care laws to ingratiate his base at my expense, no problem. They’re the good guys. It’s right wing rich guys who are the problem not those wonderful leftist millionaires. BTW, how are Pelosi’s vinyards doing?

  24. The title of this thread; “At what point does President Obama become responsible for the effects of his own policies” has been answered by Perry, Pho and Bluebonnet. The answer is a resounding never! As usual with nutty leftists, nothing is their fault. Obama is perfect in every way.

    The projection is strong in this one…

  25. “The projection is strong in this one…”

    Exactly! Moreover, I did not say “never”, nor have I seen either Blubonnet or PiaToR use that term either.

    I have been critical of Obama, e.g., his Afghanistan escalation, his refusal to promote the public option, his caving to the unreasonable demands of the radical right as they hold hostage on the debt ceiling issue, just to pick a few.

  26. For those of you Righties who never tire of trying to blame Obama for the huge deficits/debt we now have, you need to look at this chart:

    This chart was generated by the NYT from data supplied by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, therefore credible sources.

    This tells quite a different story from that which FNN and Rush & Co. would have you Righties believe; and, you always believe them without question!

    In all fairness, the Afghanistan surge by Obama, which increased the cost per month from $3.6 to 6.7 billion per month, should be charged to Obama, namely, an average of $5.3 billion from summer 2009 to summer 2011, 24 months, $127 billion. So $127 billion needs to be moved from the Bush column to the Obama column.

    This correction is barely significant, so the point stands, that the Bush deficits add up to considerably more than the Obama deficits, projected through to 2017!

  27. Just before the usual codswallop starts, Perry’s chart involves the effects of policy changes. The deficits that have shown up under Obama have been because of (i) the recession and (ii) continuing costs from the last administration, namely the tax cuts and the wars.

    Obama’s agreement to continue those policies is just plain irresponsible though.

  28. Good point on the chart relating to policy changes.

    On the policies themselves, that depends on the policy. I certainly agree about the war and tax policies, the other policies we could debate them based on the details.

    Incidentally, note how small the health reform and entitlement charges piece is. You would never know it with all the screaming we hear from the Righties on here.

  29. Perry wrote:

    “And Perry, given that you have just said that President Bush was wholly responsible for the attacks, 8 months into his term, why don’t you seem to hold President Obama wholly responsible for the effects of his policies 2½ years into his term?”

    Frankly, no, I do not hold Obama “wholly” responsible for the effects of his policies.

    During his first two years, he had a Senate in which the Republican minority utilized the filibuster to thwart his agenda, a record number of times, by far.

    Now, during his next half a year, he has had an uncompromising House holding our economic recovery hostage for ideological purposes.

    And just what of President Obama’s major initiatives did he not get passed? Health care reform? Passed! The stimulus bill? Passed! Financial institution regulations? Passed! About the only thing I can see that he didn’t get was the public option in the health care bill, and he didn’t get that because a few Democratic senators wouldn’t agree.

    President Obama has had a significant number of judicial appointments held up, but the Democrats did that to President Bush, something I know you approved at the time.

    And the Democrats passed a lot of less well known legislation. Of course, the fact remains that President Obama is having problems because of the one big thing they didn’t pass, and didn’t even try to pass, and that’s a budget. The Republicans didn’t filibuster the budget; it was never passed by the House to even get to the Senate.

    You were screaming that we should end the 2001-2003 tax cuts for the top producers, remember? Yet Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats never even tried to bring up a bill which would do that before the 2010 elections, did they? They’d probably have won on that, too, if they’d bothered to try. Instead, the Democrats did nothing, which simply made it easier for the Republicans to persuade the voters that what the Democrats really wanted to do was see taxes increased on everybody.

    Well, we knew that you’d never hold President Obama responsible for anything that hasn’t gone well — though I’m sure you’ll give him full credit for anything good that happened! — but, not to worry, the voters tend to hold the current office holders responsible when the next elections come up. We did it in 2010, and I’m guessing that we’re going to do it again in 2012. The man is simply not up to the job with which the voters entrusted him.

  30. Perry wrote:

    I have been critical of Obama, e.g., his Afghanistan escalation, his refusal to promote the public option, his caving to the unreasonable demands of the radical right as they hold hostage on the debt ceiling issue, just to pick a few.

    Oh, so you are saying that he is responsible for these policies now?

    The man has been our President for 2½ years now; in just four months, he will have served longer than John Kennedy. When will that magic day comes that you say that, yeah, the President actually is responsible for his policies? When will the line be crossed in which you say, well, sorry, but the time to blame George Bush for Barack Obama’s failures has finally passed?

    Heck, Mr Obama tried to hold John McCain responsible for President Bush’s policies! :)

  31. And just what of President Obama’s major initiatives did he not get passed? Health care reform? Passed!

    Watered down to the point where they don’t actually address the underlying problem.

    The stimulus bill? Passed!

    Watered down to the point where it serves as a stopgap but not a self-sustaining cure.

    Financial institution regulations? Passed!

    Watered down to the point where they don’t address the underlying problem.

    Obama’s sin in the history books will be that he presided rather than led, that he compromised rather than fought, and that his Presidency did nothing to stop America’s GOP-led slide into corporate feudalism.

  32. Hoagie wrote:

    The reason unemployment has been over 400,000 for all these months, the reason companies and individuals are sitting on their money all these months is because Atlas has Shrugged but you’re too dumb to see it.

    John, we all know that you are considering opening yet another small business because you just have to be busy, just have to do something, and that’s what you do. But would I be correct if I said that you would be perfectly well off, have plenty of money, probably on the order of a few million, if you don’t go ahead with this venture?

    There is more than one kind of entrepreneur. The one we like to think of is the guy with less money than John, the guy who has worked hard but still isn’t rich, the guy who wants to take an actual risk on opening a business, because he wants to be his own boss, because he wants to build something. Those are the guys for whom the obstacles thrown in John’s way by all sorts of zoning authorities and licensing bureaus could well be insurmountable, the kind of guys who would be thinking of starting a small business in which it really would be a risk, really would be one which would stretch all of their resources, and, to top it all off, our good friends on the left would want to punish them if they became successful by raising their taxes!

    And then there are the guys like John, the guys who like starting small businesses and seeing them grow, but who don’t have to do it, and who really don’t have to do anything. Some of these guys are already pretty much set for life, but like a challenge; our friends on the left would not only put obstacles in their way, but penalize them for being too successful if they do make a go of a new business.

    In both cases, on the margins, Democratic policies depress business creation. Oh, our Democratic friends can always find good reasons for the regulations they propose, for the increasing costs they want to impose on businesses, but I have to wonder: to the people without jobs, are those other reasons really good enough? For the guy with no job, does having a government mandate that he has to buy health insurance (but, being poor, the government will help him pay for it) really outweigh having potatoes and beans one night, and beans and potatoes the next, really outweigh his kids having to wear threadbare clothes and his wife constantly wondering how they are going to keep their home?

    The Phoenician would tell us that this is a demand-driven (or, I suppose, lack-of-demand-driven) economic malaise, and that’s true enough. But demand is depressed because employed people are pessimistic, pessimistic about whether they’ll keep the jobs they do have. When people like John don’t look to build, when there are fewer prospects for people without jobs to find them, even the people who do have them get worried, and cautious with their spending.

    If Atlas has Shrugged, it is because the government has made the economic world uninteresting to those who could build, who could create jobs.

  33. The Phoenician continues to make excuses:

    And just what of President Obama’s major initiatives did he not get passed? Health care reform? Passed!

    Watered down to the point where they don’t actually address the underlying problem.

    It was Democrats who killed the public option, it was Democrats who voted it into law, and it was President Obama who signed it. It’s their’s, they own it.

    The stimulus bill? Passed!

    Watered down to the point where it serves as a stopgap but not a self-sustaining cure.

    Actually, it’s slightly larger than what President Obama originally proposed, Phoe. But the Democrats voted for it, the Democrats forced it through, and President Obama signed it into law. It’s their’s, they own it.

    Financial institution regulations? Passed!

    Watered down to the point where they don’t address the underlying problem.

    Really? The Democrats saw too-risky investments in the past as the problem, and tightened up regulations. Now we have too few investments. But the Democrats voted for it, the Democrats forced it through, and President Obama signed it into law. It’s their’s, they own it.

    The Democrats had a huge majority in the House of Representatives, and even had, for a time, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, yet all y’all want to do is blame Republicans. Well, it’s not our fault that the Democrats, especially the President, are just plain inept.

  34. The title of the thread is: “At what point does President Obama become responsible for the effects of his own policies?” Based on last night’s diatribe, never. It’s our fault. He’s Blameless. But he sure loves being ridden around in AF-1

  35. In both cases, on the margins, Democratic policies depress business creation. Oh, our Democratic friends can always find good reasons for the regulations they propose, for the increasing costs they want to impose on businesses, but I have to wonder: to the people without jobs, are those other reasons really good enough? For the guy with no job, does having a government mandate that he has to buy health insurance (but, being poor, the government will help him pay for it) really outweigh having potatoes and beans one night, and beans and potatoes the next, really outweigh his kids having to wear threadbare clothes and his wife constantly wondering how they are going to keep their home?

    The Phoenician would tell us that this is a demand-driven (or, I suppose, lack-of-demand-driven) economic malaise, and that’s true enough. But demand is depressed because employed people are pessimistic, pessimistic about whether they’ll keep the jobs they do have. When people like John don’t look to build, when there are fewer prospects for people without jobs to find them, even the people who do have them get worried, and cautious with their spending.

    Teeny weeny tiny problem with your rant there:

    - American corporations are recording the highest profits they’ve had in the past 60 years:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html

    - American corporations are paying the lowest effective taxes they have in the past 60 years:
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

    You claim demand is low because employees are “depressed”; I say demand is low because employees are poorly paid and because they are struggling with debt. I say that what is happening to the US is precisely what we’ve been predicting will happen when inequality gets too high; when too much of the money is in the hands of the few and too little in the hands of the many.

    And, unlike you, I’ve cited the facts backing that opinion up.

  36. There is more than one kind of entrepreneur. The one we like to think of is the guy with less money than John, the guy who has worked hard but still isn’t rich, the guy who wants to take an actual risk on opening a business, because he wants to be his own boss, because he wants to build something. Those are the guys for whom the obstacles thrown in John’s way by all sorts of zoning authorities and licensing bureaus could well be insurmountable, the kind of guys who would be thinking of starting a small business in which it really would be a risk, really would be one which would stretch all of their resources, and, to top it all off, our good friends on the left would want to punish them if they became successful by raising their taxes!

    I hate to bring actual facts into the argument, Dana, but see page 20 here:

    http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/sbet201107.pdf

    The largest problem given by a survey of actual small business owners is… poor sales.

    Ooops, looks like you’ve been spanked again.

  37. “Ooops, looks like you’ve been spanked again.’

    What are, you a complete idiot? ” Spanked again”? Try opening your own buiness you dolt! Spanked indeed, how about you put your phuckin money in a company, a freekin “try”. You looser. Common, show me. Really Pho, show me. I’ll match you dollar for dollar on an enterprise you wish to do. Even if it’s in NZ. Got balls? I could make you rich but then you’d hate yourself. And so would Perry.

    “The largest problem given by a survey of actual small business owners is… poor sales.’

    Wow, that’s hard. What else could be the reason for “problems”? I’m surr it’s not “great sales”, ya moron. Problem is poor sales are due to idiots like you who keep threatening taking away my phuckin profits, dope. Atlas has Shrugged, and now you A-holes don’t like it. Phuck you!

  38. Dana’s really piling it on to distract from actively destructive Republicans.

    It’s curious just how evidence-free his approach is. Ultimately, we’re supposed to blame Obama for the mess he inherited, well, because it’s been a couple years, and never mind whatever Republicans have been doing the past two years, or that Dana wanted the economy to fully tank in 2008 and now he wants to tank it again, deeper.

    Dana’s approach boils down to theatrics. We can provide plenty of evidence about what’s going on and who’s to blame, but it’s presented as a given that President Obama and the Democrats must be to blame, and Republicans cannot be blamed, and any other conclusion is just Democrats unwilling to accept responsibility, to be greeted with superficial jeering. WHEN WILL HE BE RESPONSIBLE? Well, President Bush completed two terms and he’s apparently still not responsible for anything that went wrong those horrible eight years, including the terrorist attack he was clearly warned about but ignored known as 9/11.

    No matter how many Bush/GOP policies created our problems today, no matter how many measures 40 Republicans shot down his first two years (we had little more than a few months with 60 votes, and with Democrats like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman who needs Republicans?), no matter that the Tea Party House is actively tanking the economy right now, Obama has to be to blame because, um, it’s been two and half years, and well, yeah.

    I had a lot more to say here, but Dana isn’t really eager about getting in a losing argument. He and the GOP have gone off the rails, and he’s not interested in doing much more than trying to concoct little selective pictures that somehow try to shift the blame for his and his party’s destructive actions onto the Democrats for their curtailed efforts to help.

    But I do have to point this out:

    The Phoenician would tell us that this is a demand-driven (or, I suppose, lack-of-demand-driven) economic malaise, and that’s true enough. But demand is depressed because employed people are pessimistic, pessimistic about whether they’ll keep the jobs they do have. When people like John don’t look to build, when there are fewer prospects for people without jobs to find them, even the people who do have them get worried, and cautious with their spending.

    Hilarious! Even when the problem is demand, it’s still supply!

    I take a balanced approach to economics. Deficits problems are a disparity of tax and spending. Economic troubles are a disparity of supply and demand. For thirty years, Republicans have created a theology where it’s only spending that is the problem, and only supply that truly affects the economy. Now we’ve got low taxes, a massive deficit, an insanely wealthy top 1%, and a recession for everybody else.

    Is it really so hard to figure out how we got here?

    [Edited to close html tag; no changes made to content. -- DRP]

  39. The esteemed Mr Whistler wrote:

    Well, President Bush completed two terms and he’s apparently still not responsible for anything that went wrong those horrible eight years, including the terrorist attack he was clearly warned about but ignored known as 9/11.

    Who here has said that President Bush is not responsible for the effects of his policies?

    Of course, even if we said that, the American voters held President Bush responsible, in 2006, and, indirectly, held him responsible in 2008.

    Now, you’ve told us before that Barack Obama is the greatest president in your lifetime. If you believe that, you must also believe that he is responsible for the things you see as having happened that are good. Shouldn’t that also mean that you would say he is responsible for the effects of his policies that don’t seem to have been so good?

  40. “For thirty years, Republicans have created a theology where it’s only spending that is the problem, and only supply that truly affects the economy. Now we’ve got low taxes, a massive deficit, an insanely wealthy top 1%, and a recession for everybody else. “

    Precisely, Henry, and it has not worked out, as you point out. But they go on with their “theology” as we speak, in spite of the historical facts, in spite of the easy to predict further deterioration of their very own nation which they think they are trying to protect. So much for theological mythology being any more than just that, but being out of touch with the facts and reality, and bereft with meaningful logic and reasoning.

    Boehner’s subservience to the Tea Party theocrats is just one more tragic example, the outcome of which is going to be a lowering of our credit rating followed by increases in interest rates. How can this possibly be construed by the likes of Dana to be a good outcome for our nation?

  41. Perry wrote:

    Boehner’s subservience to the Tea Party theocrats voters is just one more tragic example, the outcome of which is going to be a lowering of our credit rating followed by increases in interest rates. How can this possibly be construed by the likes of Dana to be a good outcome for our nation?

    Fixed that for you!

    While a lowering of the credit rating might push up interest rates on T-Bills — that will depend on what investors actually bid on them — no, I wouldn’t see that as a bad thing at all. Maybe it would mean that we wouldn’t borrow so much fornicating money!

  42. Shouldn’t that also mean that you would say he is responsible for the effects of his policies that don’t seem to have been so good?

    Of course, but the policies you cite and the effects you imply are not in alignment. It’s not too difficult, Dana; when the stimulus, one-third of which was tax cuts, and which most of its advocates were saying was too small results in a notable but not spectacular effect, you attempt to turn that into ‘President Obama is to blame for the economy being bad.’ As I mentioned in a previous analogy, you’re suggesting if a firefighter only manages to put out part of the fire, then using water was a bad idea. And that nobody should mind the arsonist blowing up the firetruck and rendering further fire hydrants unusable.

    I know everything in you is geared to find ways those pesky Democrats are the problem, Dana, but unfortunately the Republicans have been quite active, and as we can see they have a lot of priorities on their mind above doing what’s best for the country, and it can no longer be said they’re above sabotaging the economy to gain advantage in 2012 (nor could it have been said prior to 2010, I’m afraid).

    As has also been pointed out to you, Republicans have gotten quite a bit of what they wanted, and we now have historically low taxes and a massive surplus in supply, which according to the belief system you’ve subscribed to for several decades, should mean a prosperous economy. When will you, Dana, be held accountable for the failure of supply side economics to rescue us from this recession? Will you just keep complaining that taxes and regulations still exist?

    It seems, then, you’ve got a permanent alibi. And so it goes…

    [retrieved from moderation - pH]

  43. Mr Whistler wrote:

    Shouldn’t that also mean that you would say he is responsible for the effects of his policies that don’t seem to have been so good?

    Of course, but the policies you cite and the effects you imply are not in alignment.

    Do you suppose tat maybe, just maybe, the policies and the effects are not in alignment because the policies were wrong in the first place? Is it possible, in your mind, that perhaps what President Obama said would work just simply would not?

    It’s not too difficult, Dana; when the stimulus, one-third of which was tax cuts, and which most of its advocates were saying was too small results in a notable but not spectacular effect, you attempt to turn that into ‘President Obama is to blame for the economy being bad.’

    Hey, it was President Obama weho set the measurement criteria, and who told us what the effects of his policies would be; how is it unfair to judge someone by the standards he set for himself?

    Of course, while you are saying that the stimulus plan was too small, it was actually a bit larger than what President Obama originally proposed, and he proposed the inclusion of tax cuts as part of the plan. And, in the end, the Democrats forced it through, over almost unanimous Republican opposition, and the President signed it into law. We told him it wouldn’t work, and the President insisted it would; we were right, and he was wrong.

  44. “We told him it wouldn’t work, and the President insisted it would; we were right, and he was wrong.”

    I think it is a generally accepted view that without the TARP and the stimulus, we, and the globe, would have fallen into a Great Depression II, based on the severity of the economic meltdown due to lack of regulation and oversight and due to Wall Street shenanigans, as yet unpunished. I don’t expect our Righties here to ever admit to this, you included Dana! The American people know better, as the polls indicate: They blame the Bush Republicans for this recession!

    Look here too!

  45. Housekeeping note: With Part 2 of this thread having been started, I’m closing comments here; any further discussion on this thread should be added there.

Comments are closed.