Will the economy become Obama’s Iraq? There are early indications that the same impatience that frustrated war policy, will be a factor in economic policy.
Although it garnered congressional support, the decision of former President George W. Bush to act militarily in Iraq was controversial from the start. Initially popular, support for the war collapsed when the going got tough. For years now the debate has been about getting out, not getting outcomes. Lost patience impacted war policy.
It does seem as though that pattern is about to repeat itself.
Overcoming controversy, Congress gave support to the decision of President Barack Obama to ramp up federal spending as a means of stimulating the economy.
While Americans seem initially supportive of the president’s actions, one wonders how patient they will be to see results. If the stock market continues it’s retreat, if the unemployment rate continues to rise, if credit remains frozen, if more Americans fall into foreclosure, if deflation appears to make a bad situation worse, how patient will Americans be to see improvement?
It’s fair to say that, after the passage of the president’s $787 billion stimulus package, and the release of the second $350 billion to stabilize banks, the economy is now Obama’s. He owns it. His policy is now on the clock. That leaves one last lingering question.
What happens if it doesn’t work? The nation’s patience for a government that borrows trillions to finance more government-led programs that haven’t noticeably improved people’s lives may exhaust itself, and that has consequences for future economic policy.
Obama may find himself as frustrated on the issue that, more than any other, will define his presidency as his predecessor did.
There are several key differences between the war in Iraq and the
current economic problems.
1. The (then) President chose to go to war in Iraq. That decision is now seen as a mistake based on faulty premises.
2. The overall execution of the war in Iraq is now seen as having been incompetently handled.
3. The economy tanked while under Republican leadership. It is now seen that many of the excesses that brought the economy down were due to lax supervision of the last administration.
4. Poor economic planning, over the top spending, and tax cuts that substantially benefitted the rich over the middle class are now seen to not only have contributed to the crisis, but also left us in a weaker position from which to deal with the current crisis. Again, this happened during the last administration.
With the staggering dissimilarities between the war in Iraq and the current economic disaster, I believe that sensible Americans will continue to support the President even if the economy does get worse. He’s (rightfully) pointed out, that all of us are at fault in varying degrees…we’ve been living on borrowed money…and apparently borrowed time for quite a while. Time to bite the bullet, and make some painful transitions. In the long run, I think it will make this country stronger, and perhaps, even happier.
Some things I would like to see is the Republicans who brought us this mess give up on the “ideas” that were appropriate for the late 70s, early 80s…come to the table with valid ideas that would help ease the pain that all Americans are feeling (not just the privileged few). I’m afraid they will continue to support people like the bellicose Rush Limbaugh who wants the President to fail because he does not want to see his policies succeed, but apparently doesn’t realize that would most likely doom this country as well. Extraordinary times require extraordinary ideas…how about a few new ones?
By: Michael Upright on March 4, 2009
at 10:34 am
Recognizing the dissimilarities between Iraq and the economy, the only comparison I made between the two was based on public opinion. Mine was not a statement, therefore, directed to the merit of either administration’s policies. In fact, I tried to avoid such a discussion.
For these purposes I don’t see how points 1-3 are helpful. All they do is illustrate the controversial nature of the Iraq War policy that I already acknowledged in the post.
Point 4, in my opinion, is patently false. This was first a housing crisis. Subprime mortgages put many people into homes they could not afford, lenders consolidated and sold this bad debt to other banks, which then created new risky investment instruments (mortgage-backed securities) they sold to others. All of this was bad business, but none of it was illegal. What precipitated the current economic crisis was the dramatic spike in gas prices in late 2007 and early 2008. Rising energy costs pushed homeowners already living on the economic edge over it, and stalled economic growth. Even while gas prices fell throughout 2008 the ripples of the earlier spike continued to roil the economic pond. Citing government planning, or spending or tax policy is apportioning too much of the blame in the wrong place.
Your belief that “sensible Americans will continue to support the President even if the economy does get worse” is, I fear, a misplaced one. A volunteer army allowed most Americans some distance from the consequences of war, and yet American patience with it eroded. There is no distance from the economy for anyone when you’re losing a job or a home or you know someone who is. That’s why I think that patience for this administration’s policies will similarly erode unless they are seen to have positive effect in short order.
Again, without discussing the merits of past or present policy, I meant only to address the public’s attitude toward those policies, and the timetables on which they will expect to see results.
By: Netizen on March 4, 2009
at 12:40 pm