Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    02 Sep '11 17:21
    This Real Clear Politics article draws attention to the similarity between Obama's current predicament with the economy and George H.W. Bush's predicament in 1991-92. Bush senior also telegraphed a big speech on fixing the economy and it didn't work out so well.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/23/obama_repeating_bush_41s_mistake.html
    Obama, faced with more-severe economic problems than the elder Bush, now says he will outline new economic solutions in a televised speech to the nation after Labor Day, still more than two weeks away. Meanwhile, he is on vacation.

    On the surface, it might appear to be a good political strategy: gear up the public for a big announcement down the road and maximize attention to it. But in practice, the strategy is fraught with dangers, as the elder Bush found to his regret.

    In the period between when Bush said he would unveil a plan and the actual rollout, public expectations for a magic solution skyrocketed to heights that no plan could have reached. After all, if there was some sure-fire cure for the nation’s economic ills, wouldn’t it have been tried by then?

    Nonetheless, White House aides and strategists hyped the speech. They leaked hints of what might be coming and floated trial balloons in the news media to see how they might be received. Bush’s Democratic opponents gained tons of media attention criticizing the mythical plan from every angle, even though nothing had been officially proposed.

    Inevitably, Bush lost control of the narrative to his critics. So when the much-ballyhooed speech was finally delivered, it crashed of its own weight. Obama could be facing a similar fate.

    Here is what James Gerstenzang wrote in the Los Angeles Times on the eve of the 1992 Bush speech. Substitute Obama’s name for Bush’s and you have a textbook case of history repeating itself.

    [quote]“Facing a pivotal moment in his presidency, George Bush will deliver a State of the Union address tonight that will seek both to help restore his political stature and to convince an increasingly skeptical nation that he has a plan to end its economic trauma.

    "Advisers inside and outside the White House say that the President's job, beginning with tonight's nationally televised address to Congress is to demonstrate that he comprehends the pain of the recession and has a growth package to overcome it. . . . The future of his presidency and his prospects for reelection could hang in the balance. . . . The President himself has raised expectations for the speech to unusual levels, fending off questions since December about his economic recovery plan by saying that his answers would be contained in this address to the nation.”

    What did Bush propose to lift the country out of recession?

    * A moratorium on new government regulations on business.
    * A cut in the capital gains tax.
    * A tax credit for first-time home buyers. Elimination of many federal spending programs.
    * A health-insurance tax credit for poor families.

    Newspaper editorials, columnists and Bush critics largely deemed them too little, too late. The Washington Post panned it as “A Lollipop Budget.”

    And as we know, Bush lost his bid for a second term.

    Fast-forward 19 years to Obama. His proposals are likely to be different from Bush’s. But will they be convincing enough to pass Congress and lift a depressed and skeptical American public?

    Statistically, Obama’s uphill climb is steeper than Bush’s.

    Unemployment in January 1992 was 7.3 percent and inching downward. Unemployment is currently 9.1 percent, up 0.1 percent from a month ago. Bush’s recession was only about a year old. Obama’s has been around for nearly three years. Bush, going into his speech, had a job approval rating of 46 percent in the Gallup Poll; Obama is at 40 percent.

    Three weeks after the speech, Bush’s job approval hit a new personal low of 39 percent. If Obama is expecting a boost from his speech, history is not on his side. The only thing he has going for him right now is time. The election is still 14 months away.[/quote]So what do you think folks? What can Obama propose to avoid Bush senior's fate?
  2. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    02 Sep '11 17:26
    We are not currently in a recession. Just so you know.
  3. 02 Sep '11 17:29
    Read my lips... More taxes.
  4. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    02 Sep '11 18:23
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    We are not currently in a recession. Just so you know.
    We won't know if we are currently in a recession for a while still.
  5. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    02 Sep '11 18:23
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Read my lips... More taxes.
    I really hope Obama leads with that line.
  6. 02 Sep '11 18:35 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    This Real Clear Politics article draws attention to the similarity between Obama's current predicament with the economy and George H.W. Bush's predicament in 1991-92. Bush senior also telegraphed a big speech on fixing the economy and it didn't work out so well.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/23/obama_repeating_bush_41s_mistake.html
    .[/quote]So what do you think folks? What can Obama propose to avoid Bush senior's fate?
    PROGRESSIVE ALERT: We need to immediatly make comaparisons of Obama to Reagan, a popular president, and avoid connections to "W" who has become the most toxic President of the modern era.
  7. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    02 Sep '11 18:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    This Real Clear Politics article draws attention to the similarity between Obama's current predicament with the economy and George H.W. Bush's predicament in 1991-92. Bush senior also telegraphed a big speech on fixing the economy and it didn't work out so well.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/23/obama_repeating_bush_41s_mistake.html
    .[/quote]So what do you think folks? What can Obama propose to avoid Bush senior's fate?
    I'll just say this: Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, and those who think history must repeat itself are likewise doomed to repeat it.

    There are so many variables involved in a political experiment that to identify any small number of them as having values comparable to a previous experiment has virtually no predictive value whatsoever. Obama's position may be judged "difficult" insofar as the following are true:

    1) Unemployment is high, and that historically is perceived as being largely the fault of the sitting President, no matter the complicity of a recalcitrant band of saboteurs residing in Congress who may simply fold their arms and say no to any proposed action by the President to address the problem.

    2) The art of compromise has at long last been utterly lost, at least for now. Compromise is the grease that makes the gears of government function (in contrast with corporations, which are totalitarian in nature), and when you have one side (yes, the Republican side) absolutely and fanatically opposed to giving an inch of ground even when a proposed piece of legislation is universally recognized in the world of sane men as being sage and beneficial, then the sitting President has a problem. What can one make of congressmen who oppose even the very ideas that they once espoused simply on the grounds that the president of the opposing party has endorsed the selfsame ideas? Yet this is what has been happening since almost the day Obama was sworn into office.

    Bush 41's mistake was to break his "no new taxes" pledge, I think.
  8. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    02 Sep '11 18:50
    Originally posted by whodey
    PROGRESSIVE ALERT: We need to immediatly make comaparisons of Obama to Reagan, a popular president, and avoid connections to "W" who has become the most toxic President of the modern era.
    As a vacuum of ideas, I abhor you.
  9. 02 Sep '11 19:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    We won't know if we are currently in a recession for a while still.
    Actually, yes we do know.

    A recession is a contraction of GDP for two or more quarters. Our GDP has been growing, albeit very slowly, for quite some time now.
  10. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    02 Sep '11 19:42
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Actually, yes we do know.

    A recession is a contraction of GDP for two or more quarters. Our GDP has been growing, albeit very slowly, for quite some time now.
    Well, this is splitting hairs but, the 1st quarter was revised from 1.3 to .4 GDP growth. The 2nd quarter has yet to be revised from 1.0, and we are currently in the 3rd quarter. If the 2nd quarter gets revised to below zero, the 3rd quarter could follow suit, meaning we could currently be in a recession.
  11. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    02 Sep '11 19:56
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Well, this is splitting hairs but, the 1st quarter was revised from 1.3 to .4 GDP growth. The 2nd quarter has yet to be revised from 1.0, and we are currently in the 3rd quarter. If the 2nd quarter gets revised to below zero, the 3rd quarter could follow suit, meaning we could currently be in a recession.
    Yeah, I know definitions are inconvenient for your purposes of wielding the word "recession" against Obama as a pejorative.
  12. 02 Sep '11 19:59
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    We are not currently in a recession. Just so you know.
    Close enough to it to be within the "margin of error". The unemployment data went from 93,000 new jobs to zero in less than overnight.
  13. 02 Sep '11 20:01
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Actually, yes we do know.

    A recession is a contraction of GDP for two or more quarters. Our GDP has been growing, albeit very slowly, for quite some time now.
    Those numbers never seem to hold up.
  14. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    02 Sep '11 20:05
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Close enough to it to be within the "margin of error". The unemployment data went from 93,000 new jobs to zero in less than overnight.
    Unemployment is not predictive of a recession. The former is a consequence of the latter, but the presence of the former does not imply the latter.

    Unemployment is high. It excites you, I know, because you see it as an opportunity to put someone else in the Oval Office; but in the meantime it's just plain unfortunate and the Republicans in Congress have evidenced absolutely no interest whatsoever in doing anything about it.
  15. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    02 Sep '11 22:52
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    Yeah, I know definitions are inconvenient for your purposes of wielding the word "recession" against Obama as a pejorative.
    Actually whether or not we are technically in a recession is rather off the point of my OP. The situation is similar to 1991 either way - a struggling economy, high unemployment, and a much ballyhooed upcoming speech before a joint session of Congress. The question I asked, recession or not, was: "What can Obama propose to avoid Bush senior's fate?"

    Go.