More Americans Blame Obama for Economy than Bush

[Pangloss]

A new poll from Rasmussen shows that on the economy Obama-blame has finally oustripped Bush-blame. He gets one more percentile point -- 48 vs 47. This is easily within the margin of error, but it's a notable change from a year ago when he lead the former present by almost 20 points.

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/august_2010/48_blame_obama_for_bad_economy_47_blame_bush

 

Unfortunately for the GOP, Americans want them back in power even less than they want Democrats to stay in power, according to this Washington Post poll.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/the_real_reason_dems_are_tying.html

 

What do you think should happen in November?

 

My opinion is that we're better off with a split between parties -- if one holds the White House, the other should hold Congress. I believe this is the best of a bad set of choices, mainly because it prevents wide ideological shifts, requiring those in power to work together (and since I'm a moderate this usually puts them on my turf). But I acknowledge that it's not ideal, because partisanship has made that situation result in gridlock.

[Zolar V]

Simplest solution:

1) Kill all those corrupted politicians and their backstabbing double-faced deals with large corporations and other forms of lobbyists.

 

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1861,

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

 

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stevens Smith, November 13, 1787,

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

 

We should follow the words of our forefathers, oust the corrupt, and institute the (currently) uncorrupted.

 

Now, following this has little to really do with removing the corrupted but more reforming the government to better suit our needs. There are many laws and many amendments that are out dated and we still use them.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Zolar V

[ParanoiA]

I'm with Zolar V on this one, although I'm not aware of any useless amendments. (Well, except for the "original 13th", that's pretty atrocious).

 

This climate is a good time for actual change. But I suspect the GOP will win back the Congress and Pangloss will get a moderate's favored arrangement. Business as usual, but certainly the best arrangement under this two party duopoloy.

[Zolar V]

I'm with Zolar V on this one, although I'm not aware of any useless amendments. (Well, except for the "original 13th", that's pretty atrocious).

 

This climate is a good time for actual change. But I suspect the GOP will win back the Congress and Pangloss will get a moderate's favored arrangement. Business as usual, but certainly the best arrangement under this two party duopoloy.

If you liked it you should give rep.

 

But yes, I also agree with your point. We will probably never face another revolution to change our government; the people don't have the will to proceed in doing so. It's not that surprising considering it took almost 1000 years or so to accomplish the first revolution. (Medieval era England to the renaissance and then to the revolution.)

[Mr Skeptic]

Even if the economic mess we're in is Bush's fault, it is now Obama's responsibility (as far as any presidents are concerned -- I think that too much of the blame and credit goes to presidents while others skulk in the relative shadows doing their thing). Now Obama has lately claimed to be in charge of the economy (the rose-tinted forecasts of economic recovery) and that he has not achieved his stated forecast is indeed his fault.

[pioneer]

When someone runs for president, we assume they have ideas needed to improve the state of the union. To blame the past, for the present, implies that one's ideas were never up for the task from the very beginning. This shows that one really didn't have a good handle.

 

An analogy is hiring a new CEO to turn around a company. He is hired since he claims, in his interview, he has a way to move the company forward. If his techniques are off, he can't blame the old CEO, since when he applied for the job, he knew the state of the company and was hired to overcome; no excuses.

 

Blaming Bush was a democratic decoy to take the heat off Obama. Now the CEO is taking his rightful place on the hot seat.

 

Here is how I see it. The real goal of Obama was to help push forward the democratic social policies. These would have had less impact during a strong economic cycle, since the impact of so much government debt will sputter any economy. But it was a once in a lifetime opportunity, good economy or not, so they went forward. They blame Bush for not giving them a large productive economy, so when they sputtered the economy with debt, it would still be ticking with moderate strength. Then Obama could take credit.

 

The economic problems began with the housing market. The architects of this problem were the democrats and Barney Frank, who wanted affordable housing. The free market accommodated by making credit available, even to those who would not have qualified, without the affordable housing initiative; back by Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. For a few years, the democratic ideal was met, since many people got to live in new homes, who may never have had this opportunity in normal times.

 

At the time, I lived in Florida and anyone could buy a new home with nothing down and monthly payments lower than rent. For a couple of years, almost anyone could live a lifestyle in a new home in a brand new landscaped subdivision cheaper than rent. But being a dream, one finally had to awaken, when the terms of the loans changed. The blame was place on the lenders, who deserve blame. But it was not placed on the democratic policies that open this can of worms. It was like a wet dream. It was great while it lasted, but after one awakes, one has to clean up the mess. The Democrats get credit for the wet dream while the republicans get blame for the laundry which is tangible.

 

One may wonder how many of the new democratic wet dreams will turn the same way.

[swansont]

When someone runs for president, we assume they have ideas needed to improve the state of the union. To blame the past, for the present, implies that one's ideas were never up for the task from the very beginning. This shows that one really didn't have a good handle.

 

An analogy is hiring a new CEO to turn around a company. He is hired since he claims, in his interview, he has a way to move the company forward. If his techniques are off, he can't blame the old CEO, since when he applied for the job, he knew the state of the company and was hired to overcome; no excuses.

 

Blaming Bush was a democratic decoy to take the heat off Obama. Now the CEO is taking his rightful place on the hot seat.

 

 

It seems you are advancing the notion that a candidate campaigning in January-April (or even earlier, with the campaigning that precedes primaries these days) knows what the state of the Union will be the following January, when s/he takes office. If you interview a CEO but don't actually hire him or her for a year, you should probably account for the possibility that things have changed in the interim. I find it hard to blame the incoming person for things that did not happen on their watch, nor for solutions not having an instant effect.

[ParanoiA]

It seems you are advancing the notion that a candidate campaigning in January-April (or even earlier, with the campaigning that precedes primaries these days) knows what the state of the Union will be the following January, when s/he takes office. If you interview a CEO but don't actually hire him or her for a year, you should probably account for the possibility that things have changed in the interim. I find it hard to blame the incoming person for things that did not happen on their watch, nor for solutions not having an instant effect.

 

Or maybe he's advancing the notion that said candidate, along with everyone else, knows about this curious lead time and that's it's no excuse. Further, that to make campaign promises a full year before taking office is the candidate's fault, not ours. Sure, I'll keep in mind things have changed, and I'll also keep listening to them run their pie hole right up until election day - that's a mere two months before taking office.

 

I find it extremely easy to blame the incoming serial promiser for things that they promised and failed to accomplish - instant or otherwise. I find it very easy to point a finger at political jackasses that fail as miserably as their predecessor at fixing the same problems they freakin' ran on. I find it most enjoyable to watch them lead the sheeple and deflect responsibility to the origination point while they do all of the above.

 

Let them run on that. I'd love to see that. "All of these problems are Bush's fault. I will try to fix them, but if I can't, it's not my fault, it's because he screwed it up so bad. If I can, it's because I'm so damn good."

 

Yeah run on that. That's exactly what we hear, politician after politician. And adults vote for them. Repeatedly.

[jackson33]

What do you think should happen in November? [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; I'm looking at the 2010 Elections as a prescription for what to expect in 2012. Short of anything dramatic happening (October surprise), the House will probably go Republican and Republicans will gain seats in Senate. 52D (Including 2-3 I, which will caucus with the D) and 48 Republican. I don't see any way the Republicans can actually take control of the Senate, even with a couple pivotal races, I see only a possible tie, VP Biden then being the tie breaker vote.

Unfortunately and in my opinion, things are being set up and/or will be reinforced by the 'lame duck; Congressional last 2010 session, to insure the current executive to further the already achieved agenda, including the financing with out Congress's participation.

 

My opinion is that we're better off with a split between parties -- if one holds the White House, the other should hold Congress. I believe this is the best of a bad set of choices, mainly because it prevents wide ideological shifts, requiring those in power to work together (and since I'm a moderate this usually puts them on my turf). But I acknowledge that it's not ideal, because partisanship has made that situation result in gridlock. [/Quote]

 

Under normal circumstance, most would agree, certainly traditionally that's been the rule. The gridlock, you seem to dislike actually has been the stabilization of Government. (Whether quoting Jefferson or HD Thoreau, I agree "That government is best which governs least"). The problem today, for Conservatives is that any actual changes, just to offset the changes in the last 2 years (Including Paulson's Financial bailout) will take not only holding both the Executive and Legislative Branches, but a filibuster proof Senate after 2012, or an override majority after 2010 and nobody sees either, today.

 

 

I find it hard to blame the incoming person for things that did not happen on their watch, nor for solutions not having an instant effect. [/Quote]

 

swansont, IMO; Actually Obama or the administration took control of many economic affairs from late November 2008 (Bush permitted), total control including approach, on Inauguration Day. It would be my opinion, if he or any person entering the office, then following the Paulson/Bush approach to the "so called" financial crisis, any recession could have been as limited as most previous had been, since Jimmy and his policy. In mentioning Carter, when Reagan and again emphasizing 'Administration', took charge they effectively did everything in reverse to what the current has done. I'd go so far as to suggest, if he had cut the 2009 Budget, opposed to increasing and allowing pork spending (passed Feb. 2009) and held OFF any social programming until possibly as early as 2010, certainly by 2011 the Congress would have remained under Democratic Control (turning the recession) and he could have had his way until 2012 and further.

 

It's not so much what happens on a watch, rather than the rhetoric and actions taken (the perceptions) that an economy will react to...

 

 

Even if the economic mess we're in is Bush's fault, it is now Obama's responsibility (as far as any presidents are concerned -- I think that too much of the blame and credit goes to presidents while others skulk in the relative shadows doing their thing). Now Obama has lately claimed to be in charge of the economy (the rose-tinted forecasts of economic recovery) and that he has not achieved his stated forecast is indeed his fault. [/Quote]

 

Skeptic; I don't think Obama has accepted responsibility for anything. All indications are the 2010 Elections will be run against the Bush policies, or if you prefer returning to them. That in my opinion, would be a mistake.

 

As I suggested to swansont, the US Economic Ship, is far too big to turn in any time frame, but that turning has to be started in advance, if Government has any control in the first place, establishing the policies government will provide. Since I'm told the Unemployment level, since the 30's has never stayed above 9% more for than two years and no one is even considering the Real Unemployed/under employed, which has fluctuated between 15-17% just as long, I wonder how the idea we may not go below 8% in the next couple years, explains any achievement.

[swansont]

Or maybe he's advancing the notion that said candidate, along with everyone else, knows about this curious lead time and that's it's no excuse. Further, that to make campaign promises a full year before taking office is the candidate's fault, not ours. Sure, I'll keep in mind things have changed, and I'll also keep listening to them run their pie hole right up until election day - that's a mere two months before taking office.

 

I find it extremely easy to blame the incoming serial promiser for things that they promised and failed to accomplish - instant or otherwise. I find it very easy to point a finger at political jackasses that fail as miserably as their predecessor at fixing the same problems they freakin' ran on. I find it most enjoyable to watch them lead the sheeple and deflect responsibility to the origination point while they do all of the above.

 

Let them run on that. I'd love to see that. "All of these problems are Bush's fault. I will try to fix them, but if I can't, it's not my fault, it's because he screwed it up so bad. If I can, it's because I'm so damn good."

 

Yeah run on that. That's exactly what we hear, politician after politician. And adults vote for them. Repeatedly.

 

I don't see why the new guy gets nailed with the responsibility for the problem, while the one who was in the office at the time, i.e. had the actual authority to do something about it, but didn't — gets a pass.

 

But I'm flexible. I can adjust to saying that this is Obama's problem while 9/11 gets firmly blamed on Bush, rather than being pawned off as a Clinton legacy.

[Pangloss]

Well Bush didn't "get a pass" -- he's only one percentile point behind Obama for responsibility.

 

Also I think your CEO analogy is a bit off the mark. The US economic crisis was familiar to every American from 2007 on. And I would hold the "interviewee" responsible if they were already an employee of the company and had participated in the company's response to its current economic crisis. Especially if much of their new economic advisory team was culled from the previous economic advisory team.

 

That having been said I don't entirely disagree with you, especially with your final point. The US economy is a big, lumbering beast that takes a long time to turn, and is fully capable of throwing down any number of surprises along the way. But Obama is ultimately responsible for his economic actions and their results, or lack thereof, as I'm sure you would agree.

 

 

Incidentally, we haven't had two consecutive years of >10% unemployment since the Great Depression. I'm sure this has been a factor in President Obama's desire to do more "emergency spending", creating artificial temporary government jobs in order to ensure re-election. Not that this is in any way unusual or should be seen as inappropriate or unethical. It's just how the game is played.

[swansont]

Well Bush didn't "get a pass" -- he's only one percentile point behind Obama for responsibility.

 

I was responding to a post, not the poll, and neglected to quote it. Fixed now.

 

Also I think your CEO analogy is a bit off the mark. The US economic crisis was familiar to every American from 2007 on. And I would hold the "interviewee" responsible if they were already an employee of the company and had participated in the company's response to its current economic crisis. Especially if much of their new economic advisory team was culled from the previous economic advisory team.

 

 

Why did McCain suspend his campaign in late September of 2008 if the crisis had manifested itself in 2007?

[JohnB]

From the outside it looks very different.

 

While neither Bush nor Obama "get a pass", some hundreds do.

 

Either the US is a Dictatorship and the "Word" of the President is the final and only word or you are a democracy with a Congress. Hold the Congress critters to account. Arguing about whether it's the fault of Bush or Obama just lets them off scot free. Why should Congressmen and Senators give two hoots about new policies and laws? If it goes belly up the President is going to get blamed anyway.

 

Every single bad law in the history of the USA has been voted on and passed by Congress, the President at the time did not act in a vacuum and alone. Why this concentration on the President?

 

It's not the President who fillibusters. It's not the President who attaches rediculous "riders" to sensible Bills. It's not the President who sits on the Committees that keep your prices and taxes high.

 

Start putting the blame where it belongs. While ever you are caught in the Bush/Obama debate, those who have really been screwing you for years are walking away laughing.

[ParanoiA]

I don't see why the new guy gets nailed with the responsibility for the problem, while the one who was in the office at the time, i.e. had the actual authority to do something about it, but didn't — gets a pass.

 

So the anti-Bush din we've all suffered for years now is what it sounds like when Bush gets a pass? How did you infer that from my post? And the whole point of the thread and the poll is that Bush no longer gets more blame. I'm not making the connection here.

 

But I'm flexible. I can adjust to saying that this is Obama's problem while 9/11 gets firmly blamed on Bush, rather than being pawned off as a Clinton legacy.

 

How about just seeing the problem for what it is instead of this flippity floppity Bush-Obama trading game? It's Bush's fault for the wars we're in, and the housing crisis and subsequent financial crisis, since the regulators work for the executive branch. It's Obama's problem because he ran for president on managing the economy, to put it mildly, and has been there for almost 2 years to deal with it and the results don't match his campaign smack. And people are tired of letting him off the hook for the perceptions he sold.

 

9/11 wasn't Bush's fault, but it was his problem to handle, and it isn't Clinton's fault or legacy either. Maybe popular perception is otherwise, but let's not care about that. You know what they say when everyone is thinking the same thing...

 

Either the US is a Dictatorship and the "Word" of the President is the final and only word or you are a democracy with a Congress. Hold the Congress critters to account. Arguing about whether it's the fault of Bush or Obama just lets them off scot free. Why should Congressmen and Senators give two hoots about new policies and laws? If it goes belly up the President is going to get blamed anyway.

 

Every single bad law in the history of the USA has been voted on and passed by Congress, the President at the time did not act in a vacuum and alone. Why this concentration on the President?

 

 

All of the regulating of the financial markets is done by federal agencies, which is all under the executive branch, including part of the federal reserve to affect monetary policy. While congress deserves some blame, since they do pass budget bills, most of the influence and responsibility is the president's administration.

 

But you're right about where all of this starts....

 

It's not the President who fillibusters. It's not the President who attaches rediculous "riders" to sensible Bills. It's not the President who sits on the Committees that keep your prices and taxes high.

 

Start putting the blame where it belongs. While ever you are caught in the Bush/Obama debate, those who have really been screwing you for years are walking away laughing.

 

Hear, hear!

Edited August 4, 2010 by ParanoiA

[swansont]

So the anti-Bush din we've all suffered for years now is what it sounds like when Bush gets a pass? How did you infer that from my post? And the whole point of the thread and the poll is that Bush no longer gets more blame. I'm not making the connection here.

 

I'm not talking about the public perception. I'm talking abut the local (idealized) perception, presented here by pioneer, which you appeared to attempt to defend. That Obama gets blame because he should have seen it coming when he ran for president, even though the spam really didn't hit the fan until after the conventions (which is well into the process). None of the candidates could have promised to solve a problem that hadn't yet manifested itself.

 

 

How about just seeing the problem for what it is instead of this flippity floppity Bush-Obama trading game? It's Bush's fault for the wars we're in, and the housing crisis and subsequent financial crisis, since the regulators work for the executive branch. It's Obama's problem because he ran for president on managing the economy, to put it mildly, and has been there for almost 2 years to deal with it and the results don't match his campaign smack. And people are tired of letting him off the hook for the perceptions he sold.

 

9/11 wasn't Bush's fault, but it was his problem to handle, and it isn't Clinton's fault or legacy either. Maybe popular perception is otherwise, but let's not care about that. You know what they say when everyone is thinking the same thing...

 

Yeah, I agree with much of this, other than the part about campaign promises. Politifact reflects a fairly good record on this.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/economy/

 

From the outside it looks very different.

 

While neither Bush nor Obama "get a pass", some hundreds do.

 

Either the US is a Dictatorship and the "Word" of the President is the final and only word or you are a democracy with a Congress. Hold the Congress critters to account. Arguing about whether it's the fault of Bush or Obama just lets them off scot free. Why should Congressmen and Senators give two hoots about new policies and laws? If it goes belly up the President is going to get blamed anyway.

 

Every single bad law in the history of the USA has been voted on and passed by Congress, the President at the time did not act in a vacuum and alone. Why this concentration on the President?

 

It's not the President who fillibusters. It's not the President who attaches rediculous "riders" to sensible Bills. It's not the President who sits on the Committees that keep your prices and taxes high.

 

Start putting the blame where it belongs. While ever you are caught in the Bush/Obama debate, those who have really been screwing you for years are walking away laughing.

 

I suspect a problem here is that voters only get to vote for three congress-critters; two senators for the state and one representative for their district. When they are polled about how congress is doing, they agree that congress is horrible … except for their own senators and representative, who often get much higher grades. It's the other guys (and gals) who are at fault. Much as you want to complain about Bob from the state of whatever, voting for pork for his constituents, if you don't live there, you can't do anything about him. But if you do live there, you don't mind the pork so much.

 

But everybody gets to vote for president.

[Pangloss]

That Obama gets blame because he should have seen it coming when he ran for president, even though the spam really didn't hit the fan until after the conventions (which is well into the process). None of the candidates could have promised to solve a problem that hadn't yet manifested itself.

 

Yes, as long as you're not trying to get Obama totally off the hook, I agree with your rebuttal of pioneer. When Obama made the initial decision to run for office the economy had not yet collapsed, and the TARP bailout came almost right on top of the election. You're right in challenging pioneer's assertion that blaming Bush was just a "democratic decoy". Absolutely there's politics behind that, sure, but as with most politics there's truth there as well.

 

(Mea cupla, I passed right over that phrase in pioneer's post without even blinking.)

[john5746]

I think we are in a funk right now, no one wants to jump in and spend in a big way. This has nothing to do with Bush. Obama needs to give big business as well as small business some optimism. I am guessing after the elections, he will feel pressured to give in to the tax break playbook. This would release some of the pent up money that is being stashed and get the recovery moving faster. At this point, I think psychology trumps logic - at least in the short term.

[DJBruce]

The job of the president is a very complex one, and the person who holds it is very often required to respond to numerous challenges some expected some unexpected. Regardless of whether the president has seen a particular situation coming it is his job to handle the situation in such a way preserve the United States, and help the country prosper. So although President Obama might not have know of the coming economic crisis that he would be forced to handle he should have know, simply by looking at history, that as president he would face a plethora different problems many unexpected.

 

As for placing blame for the current economic situation here's my breakdown of it (please note that they are in no particular order here):

 

-President Obama: He has made numerous different policy decisions in hopes of fixing the crisis so he is definitely at fault in part for our current situation.

 

-President Bush: The crisis began under his administration, and he made the early policy decisions that had effect on the situation.

 

-Congress: They have been making legislation that helped cause the crisis, and legislation that has tried to resolve it so where we are today is impart because of their actions.

 

-Credit/Financial Companies: They gave the loans and ran their companies in such a way that this crisis happened.

 

-The America Public: We were the ones who wished to live above our means. We were willing to take out mortgages with either not fully understanding the risk or knowing the risk and accepting it anyways. We were the ones who became unable to pay the mortgages we took out. We were the ones who as a majority elected President Bush, President Obama and Congress so part of the blame for their actions fall to use. So it appears to me that a large portion of our current economic situation can be blamed on us the American Public.

 

As for what will happen in the mid-term elections in November. The GOP will take back a lot of seats in the House and Senate. I am guessing they will take control of the House, but the margin here will be very very close (probably less than 5 seats). The senate will remain in control of the Democrats, although they will loss their super majority. The Republicans will take charge of most of the governor races. They media and Republicans will make a huge deal that this is a initiative on President Obama and the Democrats. The Democrats will buckle down and attempt to get legislation through, but will complain the Republicans are not doing anything. And the partisan bickering continues.

[swansont]

 

-President Obama: He has made numerous different policy decisions in hopes of fixing the crisis so he is definitely at fault in part for our current situation.

 

 

He is perceived to be at fault, partly because most Americans have no sense of history. In the last economic crisis of this magnitude, it took > 10 years to emerge. We're two years into this mess. Why is there the expectation that we should be all better? His biggest fault/mistake may have been in underestimating the scope of the problem, and not being willing or able to readjust perceptions. That's the problem with long experiments where the data come in slowly — you're tempted to adjust things and you have people panicking that it isn't working, before you have accumulated enough data to actually know, and be able to distinguish noise from signal.

[ParanoiA]

-The America Public: We were the ones who wished to live above our means. We were willing to take out mortgages with either not fully understanding the risk or knowing the risk and accepting it anyways. We were the ones who became unable to pay the mortgages we took out. We were the ones who as a majority elected President Bush, President Obama and Congress so part of the blame for their actions fall to use. So it appears to me that a large portion of our current economic situation can be blamed on us the American Public.

 

To me this is where most of the blame should be put. That goes for most of what happens in our country. We are the government, all hiring and firing is done by us. All demands on the president, congress and so forth, come from us. The free market responds to us. This is what we wanted, and we got it. That's how this republic works. That's how a free society works. We shouldn't get to weasel out of it now.

 

Thanks for reminding me. I think that's why all of this blame and credit with the financial crisis just rubs me the wrong way. Kind of like hearing people say "survival of the fittest" when you know there's far more to it than that, and that it's just not that accurate.

 

Like I used to say, we get the government we asked for. We got exactly what we wanted, and now we want to pretend like it has nothing to do with us. Not true. Every politician that we blame was sent there with marching orders from us. That doesn't vindicate them however, it merely indicts us with them.

 

He is perceived to be at fault, partly because most Americans have no sense of history. In the last economic crisis of this magnitude, it took > 10 years to emerge. We're two years into this mess. Why is there the expectation that we should be all better? His biggest fault/mistake may have been in underestimating the scope of the problem, and not being willing or able to readjust perceptions. That's the problem with long experiments where the data come in slowly — you're tempted to adjust things and you have people panicking that it isn't working, before you have accumulated enough data to actually know, and be able to distinguish noise from signal.

 

Personally, I've never given much credit for presidential control over the economy. They have incredible tools of influence - they could sink the ship. But they can't really control it in every way possible. They can make all the right decisions, and still not have good results, or just require more time.

 

And this is why I have little sympathy for them, generally, since they don't run on that reality. They run on fantasy land for the people to elect them, then want to appeal to reality when fantasy didn't appear to come true. Too bad. Release the Kraken.

Edited August 5, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

We're two years into this mess. Why is there the expectation that we should be all better? His biggest fault/mistake may have been in underestimating the scope of the problem, and not being willing or able to readjust perceptions. That's the problem with long experiments where the data come in slowly — you're tempted to adjust things and you have people panicking that it isn't working, before you have accumulated enough data to actually know, and be able to distinguish noise from signal.

 

Sure. Politics is a game of perception. And both sides play that game -- the administration insists that we know more than enough right now, not only to draw the conclusion that their economic actions have spared us from a far worse outcome, but to determine that further stimulus spending will drag us out of the recession faster.

 

It's notable, by the way, that many economists on both sides of the economic ideological divide also support the current drawing of conclusions. Which to me is just more evidence that economists are influenced by politics and ideology.

[swansont]

I think the one bit of data we have right now is that the situation is worse than it was diagnosed to be in January 2009.

 

Any endeavor that attempts to influence policy is going to be influenced or corrupted by politics and ideology, so no surprise there. Precisely because politics is perception; merely relying on facts isn't sufficient to sway people (for many, though not all, of the people). We have ample evidence that this is true in so many different avenues of policy.