Four More Years of This Exhausted Nonsense?

Here is your president's closing pitch. Feel the enthusiasm:

What are your favorite laugh lines?

1) "The trillion in spending we've already cut"

2) "nation-building right here at home"

3) "it's time for a new economic patriotism"

4) every sentence involving a precise number of future whatzits his administration will deliver

The consolation prize of a prospective second Obama administration is that he will likely be as impotent and reviled as the 2005-08 George W. Bush. Given the president's relentlessly disappointing economic policies, that's a good thing. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    He's going to have a hell of time when he gets to the Whitehouse. His predecessor has left an awful mess of endless wars, shitty economy, angry arabs, hyper-inflation and bad movie remakes.

    I blame Obama #1.
    Only Obama #2 can save this nation.

  • Jordan||

    Bravo.

  • PapayaSF||

    As this graphic puts it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "it's time for a new economic patriotism"

    Gimme.

    GIMMEGIMMEGIMMEGIMME

  • JWatts||

    Gimme more of your money and you should feel good about me taking it.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Gimme gimme gimme, gimme some more!

    Gimme gimme gimme, don't ask what for!

  • ||

    To the tune of the 'Louie' theme song.

  • ||

    Worst. President. Ever.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Worst. President. Ever.

    Worse than Wilson?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Let me know when he lies Congress into a trillion dollar ground war, capsizes the financial system then writes a $700 billion check to them, and turns a budget surplus into trillion dollar deficits.

  • JWatts||

    Ok, second worst President, ever. Do you feel better now?

  • Randian||

    He violated the War Powers Act on Libya.

    Bush didn't "capsize" the financial system. That is a lie.

    There never was a budget surplus. That is also a lie.

    He did write an 800 billion dollar check to the public-sector unions, oops, I mean "stimulus", which was supposed to be a one-time shot in the arm but got baked into the baseline.

    Any more lies this morning?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bush did everything he could to blow the housing bubble up from giving away $10,000 down payments to poor homebuyers to killing legislation that would have cut capital to the GSE's. Then he eliminated capital standards at investment banks.

  • Jordan||

    Puh-lease. The housing bubble was decades in the making. Does Bush share part of the blame? Yep. The majority of the blame? Not even close.

  • Restoras||

    And what about all the 'red-lining' bullshit that the Clinton administration was screaming about? That had nothing to do with the housing bubble?

    I know its hard for a one dimensional thinker like yourself to comprehend complicated issues, but the actual fact is there is plenty of blame to go around on the housing bubble, from Republican to Democrat, from Executive to Legislature, and self-serving Bureaucrats as well. Get over yourself and your faux hand wringing.

  • Rasilio||

    http://www.investorsinsight.co.....aster.aspx

    ...

    "The question is, why were no actions taken against Fannie prior to late 2006? In September 2003, the Bush administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would have been created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie and Freddie. The new agency – not Congress – would have had the authority to set capital-reserve requirements for the companies and to determine whether they were adequately managing the risks of their ballooning mortgage portfolios.

    Not surprisingly, the Democrats unanimously opposed the plan to create this new oversight agency for Fannie and Freddie."

    You wanna run that again?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    HR 1461 (GSE Reform Act) passed with 330 votes in the House - then Bush killed it.

    Mike Oxford(R) sponsored the bill.

    Your link has no specifics. It merely is heresay from right-wing radio.

  • mr simple||

    The President controls the Senate now?

    I don't know what all is in that bill, but Bush opposed the bill because he thought it didn't go too far enough. You're like the people who say we oppose education when we don't support a wasteful bill that is supposed to give money to educators.

  • mr simple||

    SLD: This is not a defense of bush but a refutation of shreek's argument. The proper thing to do would be to eliminate all of these GSEs and subsidies and let people buy their housing on the free market.

  • Rasilio||

    Your evidence that Bush killed it? What I have seen is that it failed in the Senate because of a threat of a Democrat Fillibuster and the Republicans could not get a single Democrat to break ranks. See here...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....age_crisis

    " In April 2005, Secretary of the Treasury John Snow repeated call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." Then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid rejected legislation saying " we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." [75] A 2005 Republican effort for comprehensive GSE reform was threatened with filibuster by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)."

    Yes, I do know that Bush, and several other Republicans opposed the bill (for very good reasons in my opinion) but it was the Democrat fillibuster threat that killed it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Bush did everything he could to blow the housing bubble up from giving away $10,000 down payments to poor homebuyers to killing legislation that would have cut capital to the GSE's. Then he eliminated capital standards at investment banks.

    Yeah, dipshit, and Obama's attempting the same with those stupid homebuyer tax credits and allowing the Fed to buy up the trash MBSs instead of forcing the banks to mark their assets to market.

    So spare us the bloo-blooing on how great Obama is on the financial sector.

  • Calidissident||

    And of course the elephant in the room in this discussion is the Federal Reserve and their ridiculously expansionary monetary policy

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And I know conservatives hate fact checkers but:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/.....r-clinton/

    There sure as hell was a surplus.

  • Randian||

    I'm not a conservative you screaming dipshit. I just value the truth over partisan lies.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    What do you know of the truth? You can't defend your own lies.

  • Randian||

    Bullshit. As has been pointed out, there was a projected surplus, not an actual surplus.

    If there was a surplus, shrike, why did the federal debt never go down?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Because FICA surpluses must be invested in US Treasuries.

  • R C Dean||

    So, FICA collected more than it needed, sent the cash over to be spent, and got Treasuries in return.

    I'm not seeing how that increase in debt, which was issued in exchange for cash that was spent, doesn't count somehow.

  • Restoras||

    It jut doesn't RC! Public debt is necessary for the proper function of capital markets!

  • Restoras||

    why did the federal debt never go down

    Yeah, I always wondered about that too.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Shenanigans permitted to the government but denied to the private sector.

  • Restoras||

    No shit ProL. If the government had to abide by the accounting rules the private sector is required to I can't imagine the shock-and-aweful looks that would be sitting on Dipshit's face right now.

  • robc||

    GAAP accounting has the debt and deficit WAY above the published numbers.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    There sure as hell was a surplus.

    Is that why the public debt increased by 1.3 trillion while Clinton was in office?

    Interesting math you do, shriek. Very interesting.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The first six years of Clinton we ran deficits and only the last two were there smaller surpluses.

    The math is simple.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    The first six years of Clinton we ran deficits and only the last two were there smaller surpluses.

    But the debt increased every year he was in office. That is according to the US Treasury. Article The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes it did.

    As I have pointed out FICA surpluses must be used to purchase Treasuries (debt).

    There is a concept called "double entry accounting. The FICA cash went into the general fund. A net wash while the US debt went up (offset by cash in the general fund).

  • Randian||

    Please don't use terms you do not understand.

    Double-entry accounting has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with this.

  • R C Dean||

    A net wash while the US debt went up (offset by cash in the general fund).

    All debt is sold for cash. By this logic, no sale of debt causes an increase in debt.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.

    The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

    From the article.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That is consistent with my claims. I never said debt was paid down. I said the opposite.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    That is consistent with my claims. I never said debt was paid down. I said the opposite.

    You said the gov had a surplus, it did not. If it had a surplus, it would not have had to borrow money to fund its operations. It could have paid down the debt; it did not. What it did do was borrow money from SS instead of from the public. But is still had an operating deficit.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    is = it

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    As I have pointed out FICA surpluses must be used to purchase Treasuries (debt).

    In other words, the money was spent and a deficit was created.

    Never mind, in addition, that the "Treasuries" are in bills that only the Treasury can buy back, and that the Treasury must buy back through the sale of T-bills (debt).

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blog.....01-11.html

  • Proprietist||

    Shrike, the President does not really control the budget beyond veto power. The last two years were a Republican Congress. The last two years of the Bush Administration were a Democratic Congress. I don't like playing team politics, but it's simply silly to praise or blame a President when Congress had a lot more control over the situation than the President did.

  • PapayaSF||

    The first six years of Clinton we ran deficits and only the last two were there smaller surpluses.

    After four years of the GOP controlling the House. Interesting, that.

  • BoxyBoxyBoxyBoxy||

    And you think Clinton had anything to do with the surplus? Not the internet?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I know he did. Spending cuts and tax hikes did it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I know he did. Spending cuts and tax hikes did it

    Spending went up every year of Clinton's term.

    1993: $1.41 trillion
    1994: $1.46 trillion
    1995: $1.52 trillion
    1996: $1.56 trillion
    1997: $1.60 trillion
    1998: $1.65 trillion
    1999: $1.70 trillion
    2000: $1.79 trillion

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    About the rate of retirees joining SS/Medicare and medical costs.

    One may cut xxx amount out of a program and automatic entitlements outpace those cuts.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    About the rate of retirees joining SS/Medicare and medical costs.

    One may cut xxx amount out of a program and automatic entitlements outpace those cuts.

    Your argument is irrelevant when the government is required to cover that spending regardless. Spending growth is spending growth--and although it was not as marked in pension and healthcare liabilities, growth between 1993 and 2001 went from 51 billion to 63 billion in education, 343 billion to 366 billion in defense, 149 billion to 188 billion in welfare, and 198 billion to 206 billion in interest. So I'm having a difficult time seeing where there were any "cuts" going on.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    There sure as hell was a surplus.

    I know you hate facts, but no, there wasn't:

    09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
    09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
    09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
    09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
    09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
    09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
    09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....stdebt.htm

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    For a single year, idiot. You're only looking at cumulative debt.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    That's Historical Debt Outstanding, moron. If your debt went up during the year, you spent more than you took in. That's the opposite of a surplus.

    I can STEVE SMITH you on this all day long, you Team Blue glory hole.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Not true.

    I could borrow $1 million at 2% and invest it at 3%.

    My debt is $1 million before interest yet
    I am in surplus immediately upon an interest payment.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I could borrow $1 million at 2% and invest it at 3%.

    My debt is $1 million before interest yet
    I am in surplus immediately upon an interest payment.

    That's not how the system works and you know it. The SS surplus is sunk into special notes that only the Treasury can buy back. When they ARE bought, the Treasury has to sell another bond to pay for it. Those notes aren't just given back to the Treasury like money in a savings account. The Treasury actually issues more debt to buy back the notes in order to meet the spending obligations.

    So you not only squandered the surplus you had on paying someone to hold your "assets", you then took out a cash advance on your credit card to buy back the asset--which increases your debt both at the point of purchase and over the long term when the bond is cashed in.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, the surplus in the general fund was likely squandered by 2002-03 and only the debt is left.

    I know that.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Yes, the surplus in the general fund was likely squandered by 2002-03 and only the debt is left.

    It wasn't just squandered by 2002-03, it was squandered the minute the surplus went into the special bonds.

    The money was immediately spent--hence, the growth of the national debt every year. There's no such thing as a fucking "surplus" when you spend more than you take in, whether it's traditional revenue/expenditures or sinking money into a "trust fund" where you're going to go further into debt just to get that money back.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    There sure as hell was a surplus.


    Using accounting sleigh of hand (that would land any regular Joe in JAIL) to proclaim "surpluses" does not mean there were "surpluses," you nitwit.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    OM,

    They borrowed money from a "sinking fund" to cover operating expenses. Worldcom did something similar by capitalizing operating expenses. What happened to the CEO again?

  • Dev||

    Take W out of the equation for a second and listen to what he is proposing in the future. You support what he's saying?

  • tarran||

    Shrike is a Rockefeller Republican (based on the list of policies he claims to support). As such, he adores corporatism.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Let me know when he lies Congress into a trillion dollar ground war

    He just initiates wars and fails to even notify Congress he has done so.

    capsizes the financial system then writes a $700 billion check to them

    How big is that GM stock hole getting again? How big of a dowry did Fiat receive for its shotgun wedding to Chrysler? How much did Solyndra, Ener-One, and Beacon Power piss down the solar panel hole?

    turns a budget surplus into trillion dollar deficits.

    Projected budget surplus is projected.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    There were actual surpluses in 1999 and 2000.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/.....r-clinton/

    GM cost us about $30 billion - far less than AIG alone in comparison.

    Libya was justified by the NATO treaty.

  • R C Dean||

    Libya was justified by the NATO treaty.

    (1) No, it wasn't. Libya wasn't attacking a NATO ally.

    (2) Even if it was, the NATO treaty does not negate the Constitutional requirement for a declaration of war.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    There were actual surpluses in 1999 and 2000.

    Maybe you should read the source material. Public debt was 3.6 trillion 1999 and 3.4 in 2000. And, according to the Treasury department, the total national debt (public debt + intragovernmental holdings) increased in 1999 and 2000. Try harder.

    GM cost us about $30 billion - far less than AIG alone in comparison.

    You're leaving out the $45 billion in taxes carried forward that GM ISN'T paying. Since Barry has such a hard on for "paying your fair share", I wouldn't think he would exempt GM from paying its fair share. So that's at least $75 billion were out. Want to keep adding?

    Libya was justified by the NATO treaty.

    Wrong, dumbass. Libya is not in Europe or North America. No NATO signatory was attacked by Libya. Barry's Libya adventure was a naked violation of the War Powers Act.

  • R C Dean||

    Barry's Libya adventure was a naked violation of the War Powers Act Constitution.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Not even as bad as the 1983 invasion of Grenada.

  • R C Dean||

    Irrelevant.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    Not even as bad as the 1983 invasion of Grenada.


    Oh, it was bad, shriek. At least in the case of Grenada, the president could make the case that American lives were at risk. Lybia was NOT at war with anybody, nor were any American lives at risk. Barry Soetoro simply bombed the shit out of that country with no justification.

    The guy is a war criminal, shriek. Just like the previous war criminal.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Not even as bad as the 1983 invasion of Grenada.

    When Zombie-Reagan runs for office, you might actually have a valid point.

  • Jordan||

    And Future-President GIMMEDAT voted for that $700 billion check.

  • Mike M.||

    Harry Truman: "The buck stops here."

    Obama and his dick-suckers like Shrieking Idiot: "The buck stopped with Bush."

  • Calidissident||

    Didn't Obama vote for TARP as a senator?

  • ||

    Still not worse than W.

  • Pro Libertate||

    How not? He's virtually everything bad about Bush, plus all new badness.

  • ||

    Grading on a curve. Bush took office the deficient was at historic lows. Freedom to Farm had finally loosened up Ag policy, the rest of the world was begging us to clean up the mess in Bosnia. On 9/12 2001 we had the sympathies of the entire world, we could have lead the world into a new era of peace and freedom. Instead W chose to wave his dick around and piss off everybody. And bankrupt us while he was at it.

    Obama is just more of the same, but at least he doesn't talk like the Jr. High detention class.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Obama is just more of the same, but at least he doesn't talk like the Jr. High detention class.

    So you don't mind be fucked in the ass, you just want to be sweet-talked before it happens?

  • Proprietist||

    It's that Obama has the courtesy to give us a reacharound.

  • robc||

    the deficient was at historic lows

    Eisenhower, Andy Jackson and a few other presidents would like to know why they have been struck from history.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Obama is just more of the same, but at least he doesn't talk like the Jr. High detention class.

    True--normally he speaks like a high school student with a thesaurus. That is, unless his audience is a bunch of idiot college students, whose intellectual growth stunted in Jr high.

  • tarran||

    I think we only have a few more months.

    Once reelected, the Narcissist In Chief will no longer have any need to beg the proles to like him.

    It's actually going to be epic watching him go nuts if he gets a second term.

  • Loki||

    It's going to be epic watching him go nuts in his last 2 months in office if he doesn't get a 2nd term. He's just the kind of narcissistic vindictive asshole to do something to take it out on someone. That someone would be all of us. You think his previous executive orders have sucked? Just wait.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    Please explain how adults are sucked into believing this gas-bag
    (and the other gas-bag)?

  • Jordan||

    "New economic patriotism"? What. The. Fuck. I guess that's the new code phrase for "GIMMEDAT!"

  • tarran||

    Economists hava a term for what Obama proposes: fascism (aka corporatism).

  • ||

    So now we have 'economic patriotism' in addition to 'economic justice?'

    When do we get 'economic freedom?'

  • Rich||

    Well said.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    A meaningless campaign platitude.

  • Drake||

    Since the Feds are inflating us to prosperity - I'm being patriotic every time I buy $4 gas or spend an extra $50 a week on groceries.

  • Loki||

    It's your patriotic duty to pay as much in taxes as possible. In fact anyone who has disposable income or *gasp* a savings account is not doing their patriotic duty. You see, the government can spend your money far better than you can. Tony and Shrieking Moron told me so.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Mr. President, you had me at create one million new manufacturing jobs. I don't need to hear more. (Admittedly as I continued to listen I actually didn't hear more.)

  • Drake||

    That's were I stopped. He just moved on with no details at all. How? Everything thing he has done to the oil and coal industry is the exact opposite.

    "First we colonize Europa" is an equally realistic statement.

  • mr simple||

    I liked the part at the beginning where he pointed out that we were losing jobs and mired in Iraq when he came into office and then didn't say anything else about it, not how he changed things or even where we are today.

  • Dev||

    This is beyond horrible. God help us if he has convinced the electorate that more government is good.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    When he finally gets to be President, things will be AWESOME.

    You'll see.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    All hopey and changey and shit... AWESOME

  • R C Dean||

    Remember, folks, your main goal at this point should be to figure out how to make money off this debacle.

    We already know some things:

    Interest rates will be suppressed through 2014 at least.

    Deficits will continue at an extraordinarily high level, regardless of the outcome of the fiscal cliff.

    The Treasury will continue to monetize the vast majority of the deficit. Cental banks everywhere are committed to more market manipulation/intervention/easing/monetization.

    Europe is locked into a fiscal crisis that shows no signs of resolving.

    To the extent we know anything about China, it has a huge excess capacity problem.

  • Spoonman.||

    And your recommendations?

  • Randian||

    Take on debt and buy metals.

  • Art Vandelay||

    This might be a really stupid question, but what is the best way to buy metals? I'm honestly asking, because I don't know.

  • R C Dean||

    First, I would shop for price, because there are some brutal markups being put on PMs by retail dealers. Rule of thumb: if they advertise, they mark up.

    Then, I would look for references to confirm reliability/reputation. You're going to be sending them a shitload of cash; unless you find a good price locally, you will be relying on them to ship you the goods.

    Personally, I've used Tulving and had no problems. But ask around and do your research.

  • robc||

    So you are buying physical metals as opposed to metal funds?

  • R C Dean||

    I've got some of each.

    Funds are for speculating on short-term price moves, IMO.

    If you're hedging against serious/catastrophic events, rather than speculating, physical is what you need. What I have in actual metal is what I think of as my deep savings, the last thing I will liquidate for food, shelter and the like.

  • R C Dean||

    I'm honestly at a loss, to tell you the truth.

    The big unknown squatting in the middle of this mess is the completely unprecedented intervention/manipulation of markets by central banks (who are now coordinating with each other; QEternity was one of a number of similar programs announced within a week or so).

    Massive debasement of currency like this will produce bubbles/crashes, which can be very lucrative if you get the timing right. I'm not confident I can.

    On a longer horizon, it seems pretty safe to say that hard assets (PMs, productive land, etc.) should do well, but on the other hand there is still the deflation of the debt overhand and the contraction of global surplus capacity, which pushes the other way.

  • robc||

    Im investing heavily in an industry that has had 10+% growth the last 6 or so years.

  • robc||

    Actually, in volume, only 4 of the last 6:

    2006 +13%
    2007 +12%
    2008 +6%
    2009 +7%
    2010 +12%
    2011 +13%

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The Treasury will continue to monetize the vast majority of the deficit.

    They've only begun to monetize the debt.

    Mark my words, a future round of QE (maybe QE-IV, maybe QE-VIII) will have the FED buying the bonds held by the SS trust fund.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Mark my words, a future round of QE (maybe QE-IV, maybe QE-VIII) will have the FED buying the bonds held by the SS trust fund.

    They won't have any other choice in the end. Those bonds have to be bought via the sale of regular Treasuries, which will further add to the debt, both short and long-term. The only reason the interest on the debt hasn't skyrocketed is because of the Fed doing back-door purchases via the primary dealers, since Bernanke can't do it directly. Expect a similar tactic as SS increasingly goes tits-up.

  • R C Dean||

    They're buying around 75% of newly issued debt now, so if they are going to go much bigger, it will have to be SS trust fund bonds.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Bush did everything he could to blow the housing bubble up from giving away $10,000 down payments to poor homebuyers to killing legislation that would have cut capital to the GSE's. Then he eliminated capital standards at investment banks.

    The weird part of all this is that, despite his vast dictatorial powers, Boooosh meekly cleaned out his desk and trudged off into the sunset in 2009. You'd think a guy who singlehandedly controlled every single economic and political decision in a nation as vast and powerful as this could just have said, "Fuck youse guys, I ain't goin' nowheres."

  • Killazontherun||

    Obama will go through the stages of grief and though it might get ugly, he'll walk out of those doors. They'll need to unhinge them and widen the space to get Mooch out though.

  • ||

    The consolation prize of a prospective second Obama administration is that he will likely be as impotent and reviled as the 2005-08 George W. Bush. Given the president's relentlessly disappointing economic policies, that's a good thing.

    In what manner did W's "impotency" manifest itself. As I recall, He doubled down on foreign policy - Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, tortue - the Patriot Act was renewed, Tarp was passed, and W even exceeded his authority by redirecting it to bail out GM. The whole way Congress was rubber stamping his every disastrous move.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    Congress was rubber stamping his every disastrous move - and a Democrat congress at that from 07-09.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Because there were repeated "national emergencies" during Bush's entire presidency.

    Some, like Katrina, he merely floundered around in and didn't deserve. Others, like 9/11 he went berserk with government overreach.

  • Restoras||

    he went berserk with government overreach

    Thankfully he wasn't a dictator and had the full approval of congress, including the vast majority of Democrats.

  • ||

    This is what I'm sayin'

  • R C Dean||

    he will likely be as impotent and reviled as the 2005-08 George W. Bush.

    Reviled? Perhaps.

    Impotent? Not until Congress and the Courts stop his illegal executive actions.

  • Drake||

    In 2005, Bush kicked off his second term with a proposed Social Security overhaul. Democrats attacked and Republicans ran. Bush vetoed 11 bills in his second term - 4 were overridden and 2 were reworked then signed.

    That is impotent.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    When do we get 'economic freedom?'

    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

  • Rich||

    What are your favorite laugh lines?

    Well, I liked "Doubling the fuel efficiency" and "Cutting tuition in half", but my favorite is "Decide for yourself".

  • Drake||

    You mis-heard. He promises to "cut the GROWTH in tuition in half". Tuition won't go down, it will just go up slower.

    That has to be the worst campaign promise I've ever heard.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And it's a stupid promise--how the fuck is he going to cut the growth of tuition in half, by handing out even more student loans? Yeah, I'm sure colleges will be tripping over themselves to cut tuition in half with access to even more federal money.

    The quickest way to get tuition to go down would be to make colleges part of the liability equation for student loan defaults. Fuck 'em--if they want to charge obscene rates of tuition while lowering their standards to let in as many undereducated goons as possible to learn political grievance studies, their endowment should get raped right along with the banks and the taxpayers.

  • Drake||

    I bet his plan involves tossing federal money at colleges.

  • Rich||

    You mis-heard. He promises to "cut the GROWTH in tuition in half".

    Thanks for correcting me.

    Now, *that* is my favorite laugh line.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    4 trillion over the next decade.

    Not very fucking helpful when you consistently increase the public debt by at least 1 trillion each year.

    Band-aids on bullet wounds.

  • Drake||

    All we have to do is turn a $1.4 trillion deficit into a $400 billion surplus instantly. So those wealthy folks will have to kick in a an extra $1.8 trillion a year.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Whoa there bud. Don't be so callous. You forgot that extra spending we need to do to make sure old people don't eat cat food and fire fighters can afford hardhats. The rich will have to kick in an extra %2.8 trillion a year.

  • Rasilio||

    Just one little problem with that, the top 2% only earn about $2 trillion a year combined.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    They've got money in their bank accounts from previous years too!

  • Drake||

    So we take all of it, cut the difference out of military spending and we're done.

    Who said budgeting is hard?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    A meaningless campaign platitude.

    No shit.

    It's meaningless campaign platitudes all the way down.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    de Tocqueville still rules.

  • R C Dean||

    If only we were ruled by de Tocqueville. . . .

  • The Late P Brooks||

    de Tocqueville still rules.

    I was thinking more along the lines of P T Barnum.

    Mencken is appropriate, too.

    "Nobody ever went broke lost an election underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

  • OldMexican||

    3) "it's time for a new economic patriotism"

    Let's bring back Smoot-Hawley!!!!

    We're number 1! We're number 1! We're number 1!

  • cthorm||

    American Energy, with no mention of nuclear power. What a joke.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    "Economic patriotism"--the latest cute euphemism for believing that everything I own, including my body and my soul, are the property of the Glorious Collective and thus God-King Barack may dispense with them as He pleases.

  • Corporate Drone||

    "it's time for a new economic patriotism"

    See, folks, my current economic policies aren't patriotic enough, nor are they economic enough. If we just spend money FASTER, all of us, TOGETHER -- but especially the rich -- we can fill that money hole ONCE AND FOR ALL.

    p.s. we need $16 trillion just to be broke.

  • Restoras||

    Actually, more than that. $16T is just the federal portion. State and Muni debt is another $4-$6T. Pile onto that all the other debt (mortgage, credit card, student), all of which has to be repaid from the same GDP, and we are so fucked it's a joke.

    Any speculation on what the Second American Rpeublic will look like, when it will begin, and if we have an interregnum first?

  • R C Dean||

    Any speculation on what the Second American Rpeublic will look like,

    Probably a lot like this one, only poorer and more overtly corrupt and authoritarian.

  • Numeromancer||

    “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

    -- Samual Johnson

  • Killazontherun||

    Given the president's relentlessly disappointing economic policies, that's a good thing.

    Sorry Matt, but it want be nearly universal as it should be. His true bleefers are convinced those are necessary sacrifices made to please their god.

  • Killazontherun||

    Sorry Matt, but it wantwont be nearly universal as it should be.

  • Gladstone||

    The consolation prize of a prospective second Obama administration is that he will likely be as impotent and reviled as the 2005-08 George W. Bush

    Considering there are libertarians gushing about Carter and Clinton I think not. I wasn't around when Carter was Prez but everything good about Clinton occured in spite of him. Certainly the Clinton of today isn't espousing a return to those policies that libertarians credit him for. Certainly the current Democratic Party isn't as it seems their post 9-11 Bush Derangement Syndrome and then the recession have caused them to lose whatever remained of their sanity.

  • Virginian||

    It's very important for Reason to praise Democrats for things that were done in spite of their best efforts to stop them from happening, because it maintains their Beltway cred. Cocktail parties don't you know? COSMOTARIAN!!!!!

    Or, you know, you should be happy when bad people do decent things even if they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it. There's no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit for it.

  • Gladstone||

    Or, you know, you should be happy when bad people do decent things even if they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it. There's no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit for it.

    Well I'm saying we should refrain from "Clinton come back!" since Clinton of today isn't espousing what he did in the 90s because what he did then was in spite of himself.

    Also I recall predictions that Obama would be more responsible than Bush because of Clinton. Since circumstances are different why would they expect this?

    Also contemporary libertarians bashed Carter and Clinton as much as they could, like with Obama. So are they going to nice towards Obama when he leaves office?

  • Gladstone||

    There is also the fact that Obama is a Dem while Bush wasn't so I don't think Obama's second term will construed as a failure. I mean Newsweek is proclaiming his the 10th Best president of the Century!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement