President Obama Had To Be Dealt The Crappiest Hand In American History

[DemocratSinceBirth]

At least when Franklin Delano Roosevelt inherited the Great Depression there was no question about ownership since it started four years before his inauguration so Americans gave him a long leash to fix it. Barack Obama came into office as the current Great Recession was unwinding. This allows the Pubs to obfuscate how we got into this mess.

Call me a Cassandra but I don't see this economy ever improving and America returning to full employment. Every nation that has suffered a financial crisis has never returned to pre-crisis employment levels.

In fact what I see is a succession of Republican and Democratic governments replacing one another as the problems are intractable. That's what is happening in Japan as neither the Democratic Party or the Liberal Democratic party are unable to correct their nation's economic problems.

[Cleita]

1. Things can change for the better, but not with the

present corrupt regime in Washington. That has to change and how we, the people, do it is what needs to be worked on. First we have to fix how we do elections before any other reforms can be done and that's going to take close to a civil war to get done. The hogs that have been feeding at the Treasury trough aren't going to let go that easily.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I Think We Are In An Irreversible Decline

Folks were using the equity in their homes as piggy banks and now their homes have lost half their value. In fact, home prices have dropped more in this recession than they did in The Great Depression.

[DURHAM D]

4. and still dropping

Our biggest problem - we don't make anything in the U.S. That is why Obama doesn't talk about jobs programs.

I don't see a way out.

[frazzled]

3. Unemployment was still at 19% in 1938

Six years into Roosevelt's administration. That's not a criticism of Roosevelt or his policies, just a historical fact and an acknowledgment of how stubborn the unemployment rate can be. It is widely acknowledged that the economy only started to really turn around with the war expansion.

[DURHAM D]

5. and we don't have another "war to start" as far as I know...

[bhikkhu]

34. Or the resources to wage one, that were available at the time

Back then we had vast untapped hydro-electric capacity, the world's largest known oil reserves, abundant clean water, healthy forests, etc...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. WW ll Proved The Efficacy Of Deficit Spending

I am not sanguine about 012 but I think we will make up our 012 losses in 014 because the Pubs can't fix things either.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. It dropped by 40% from 1933–1937

Then FDR decided to become a deficit hawk, which briefly caused trouble until he abandoned that bad policy.

[frazzled]

37. But it was still at 14.6% in 1940

In 1932 (when Roosevelt took office) the unemployment rate was a horrendous 23.6%. By 1934, it was 21.7%, and by 1936 16.9% -- a substantial reduction indubitably brought on by the New Deal policies. But 16.9% is still intolerably high. By 1938, for the reasons you mention, it rose again to 19%, then fell again in 1940 to 14.6%. It's not until WWII that it decreases to a phenomenal 4.7%. (Statistics from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html)

My point stands: Roosevelt's policies ameliorated but did not solve the unemployment aspect of the Great Depression immediately: it took a decade and a world war to stem the cycle. As I said in my original post, I was not criticizing New Deal policy at all, merely pointing out the obstinacy of depression/recession induced unemployment problems.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. Under Obama, unemployment real unemployment keeps increasing

Real unemployment has done nothing but go up, and it will keep going up now that Obama has fully embraced FDR's 1937 belt-tightening folly.

Unless Obama and Congress square with history and adopt policies that are known to have worked, they will keep failing.

[CanonRay]

7. Second crappiest anyway.

What about Lincoln? And don't forget Roosevelt's first term, but Roosevelt wasn't fighting two wars at the start.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Addressed Roosevelt

He was given a lot of time to fix the problem because folks knew he didn't cause it.

Lincoln had a chance to be great because the results of a war between the agrarian south and the industrialized north was never in doubt.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. The result of any war is always in doubt.

Never has a commander existed who felt free to act due to a major war being a foregone conclusion. That is not only revisionism, it is absurd and outside the realm of reason. You seriously think Lincoln and other Union leaders thought the Civil War as 'in the bag' as it were? Based on what? A dream you had?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. My Turn, Sans Ad Hominem Attacks

Yes, the outcome of any event isn't over until it's over but WW ll was pretty well decided when HST assumed the presidency. Truman became president after Yalta. You know the lil conference where Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt met to discuss how to divide the post WW ll spoils or the contours of a post WW ll world depending on your perspective. It would be akin to a relief pitcher being brought into the bottom of the ninth inning to protect a seven run lead. Sure he can blow it. Leads like that are blown. But it's highly unlikely.

As to the Civil War, historian, Ken Burns, opined "that the Union fought the Civil War with one hand tied behind its back."

The advantages the north had was:

A larger population base
Infinitely larger manufacturing bases which allowed them to build their own weapons
Naval power
Agricultural capacity- the north made most of the nation's food. The South made cotton and tobacco. Tough to eat...
Better infrastructure
The North had political stability. The South had, well a confederacy.
The North had much more money.
The war was fought on the enemy's land.

Once again, nothing is over until it's over but if this was a fight the Union went into it as Muhammad Ali and the Confederacy went into it as some top fifty contender.

If you still think the outcomes of WW ll was in doubt on April 12, 1945 and the outcome of the Civil War wasn't preordained there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

As you noticed I addressed your points without sarcasm, invective, or ad hominem attacks.

[Kaleva]

45. You could make the same arguement for the Vietnam War

On paper, the US should have won.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. That's The Exception That Proves The Rule

And the stakes weren't as high . We could afford to lose that one. WW ll and the Civil War, not so much...

[Kaleva]

48. Another exception is the American Revolutionary War.

On paper, Great Britain should have won and might have had it not be for the intervention of France.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. I Think You Also Have To Look At The Motivation Of The Combatant And The Stakes

I am sure if the Continental Army tried to invade the British mainland they would have been summarily repelled.

All in all, I still would much rather have had Lincoln's hand in 61 than Jeff Davis' hand.

[sharp_stick]

8. I'm glad it's him

the guy isn't perfect by any stretch but I'm really happy that we have a decent, very smart and strong person running the executive branch when things are this bad.

Imagine how fast McOld and Caribou Barbie would have signed a Bohner and teabagger crafted budget? That's of course assuming that the deficit would still be an issue, history has shown that the fucking pukes only give a shit about the budget when there's a Dem in the White House.

[MrMickeysMom]

10. So, why is he getting knee pads over the party that served it up?

Don't worry.... I don't expect any real answer to that question.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I Don't Think There Are Any Good Options

He actually might be served best by the chaos that would ensue if the debt limit isn't raised. The econmomy would literally collapse and the Republicans would own the collapse for enabling the Tea Party.

The horrible thing is America is already on its death bed. Failing to lift the debt limit would be like smothering her last breaths with a pillow.

That's why the Pubs will pass something. They don't want to own this mess of an economy.

[pnorman]

22. "getting kneepads" is YOUR characterization.

Only those who accept your characterization need respond.

[MrMickeysMom]

47. You did

How accepting you are, indeed!

[woolldog]

11. Agreed. BUT

he's made the situation worse by accepting republican framing eg with the current fight on debt and deficits, cutting spending when the economy is still lagging.

In other words he's played his bad hand poorly. You can still win with a bad hand but not when you play it poorly.

[boxman15]

14. It's right up there.

I think FDR, like you said, had an even worse hand, and Lincoln was literally faced with a completely divided country. But, Obama was handed an absolutely terrible hand.

Deep recessions take time to recover from. Like someone else pointed out, FDR was facing unemployment as high as 19% as late as 1938. Unemployment is extremely stubborn. One thing FDR had that Obama doesn't is a Congress that was elected on his platform and went along with his programs. FDR always had huge majorities of New Deal Democrats, elected to help FDR implement his ideas. Obama has had to deal with Blue Dogs and Tea Partiers. That's why 2012 is so important in my opinion. If we can fill Congress with liberals, we can still find a way out of this mess.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. If you discount Lincoln and Truman and FDR

maybe. He's on the list. But when you say "Every nation that has suffered a financial crisis has never returned to pre-crisis employment levels." You are clearly forgetting the Great Depression and all that followed. We did return to pre-crisis levels, and even better.
Can not agree with much you are saying, due to the actual history.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Truman, Actually Got A Very Good Hand

He inherited a nation about to win a war that would confirm superpower status on it and was realtively intact as much as Europe and Asia were ravaged by war.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Sure, right. 'About to win a war' means he had to be the one

human to drop The Bomb on other humans. You call that a 'very good hand'. I do not agree.

[inchhigh]

18. He was "delt" a few Aces

The country was ready for a new direction and he made NO effort to improve his hand by arguing for a progressive agenda.

We were ready for a stimulus that moved us toward energy independence and instead he made us the worlds second largest SUV manufacturer. We were ready for Healthcare reform and instead he further entrenched a flawed and corrupt system. We were ready to rebuild the middle class and instead he sold us down the river ton the big banks. We are STILL ready to increase taxes and he had put no effort toward that solution.

It was his lack a leadership against the radical right that gave them the 2010 election in such large numbers.

It just looks like a bad hand because he played it so poorly.

He was delt four Aces and decided to discard them and go for the inside straight.

[Enrique]

21. he dropped EFCA right away

the fight hadn't even started, he just quietly took it off the table for no apparent reason, after having campaigned and won on it.

He also dropped the idea of ending the Bush tax cuts right away. Pelosi wanted to end them immediately, Obama said no, let's let them expire. Why? That was also something he campaigned on and won.

[Sherman A1]

27. Precisely

He did indeed toss away the good parts of his hand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. He Came In As The Greatest Liquidity Crisis In Eighty Years Was/Is Unwinding

He came is as home prices are/were dropping at a greater pace than the Great Depression.

He came is as the federal deficit was exploding from tepid economic growth and financing two wars.

It's more of an explanation, imho, for impending Democratic/Obama losses in 012 than an excuse to exonerate him of some perceived malfeasance.

It's a tragedy. There are no good choices.

But, alas, the Repubs can't "fix" it either. They and their president will be in the same position in 014/015...

[bowens43]

19. and then he played that hand

like a rank amateur....

[mzteris]

20. Stage 6

6. Decay

Once it becomes clear that the bulk of a civilization's wealth has been used up, the decline is usually mercifully swift. "Mercifully," because this is a period of great distress.

During this time, as recognition of the civilization's poverty spreads, the standard of living falls quickly. Law and order break down. Civil unrest sparks protests, some of which turn violent. Taxes cannot be collected, and other forms of public service such as military service (and military actions themselves) are resisted. Property cannot be protected except (if at all) by force. Personal violence becomes a daily occurrence. Trade fails, as fraud can no longer be punished. Town life fails; basic survival needs force people into the country where they can grow food, and the "middle class" disappears. Religious revivals sweep the land. The medical technology that sustains life becomes difficult or impossible to obtain, resulting in high rates of infant mortality and shortened lifespans. Finally, literacy itself fails.

(the end of Stage 5: ". . .later regarded as a time of peace and prosperity. There is peace because there are no more political opponents. And there is prosperity derived from relaxing internal trade barriers, instituting common systems of measurement and coinage, and increasing domestic government spending to maintain what is felt should be the proper appearance of a universal empire. But these things prove illusory. The peace is the calm of exhaustion, and the prosperity is the burning of internal resources to maintain a standard of living that cannot long be supported. Without an instrument of expansion, there is little if any innovation to replace the wealth being spent on unproductive consumption and gigantic monuments )


Quigley's Seven Stages of Civilization:

1. Mixture
2. Gestation
3. Expansion
4. Age of Conflict
5. Universal Empire
6. Decay
7. Invasion

http://www.draftymanor.com/bart/h_quigl3.htm

[Loge23]

23. This is true, but he hasn't handled it well.

Clearly, he had an almost impossible job but he has not helped his own cause.
Baring some miraculous turn around at this point, many of us who traditionally vote Dem are now consigned to flicking the lever of the lesser of two evils.
The Puke party has reinvented itself into bat-shit crazy right-wing kooks: a scenario virtually unheard of through the darkest days of Nixon. GWB changed everything. We knew he was reckless, but his recklessness has broken everything in the proverbial political shop. Pukes have been exposed for what they really are - and that is apparently accepted by the USA public.
So where does that leave us? Our brightest hope, Obama, has revealed himself as right-leaning centrist. The aforementioned USA public idiots scream "Socialist" at him! (apparently the n-word, their preferred epithet, is too much for even their public consumption). If nothing else, their constant, unwavering opposition to Obama has left the President as a straw man.
But again, where does this leave us?
We need a new leader.

[ruggerson]

25. Yeah, that Lincoln had a smooth ride, didn't he?

n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. I Wasn't A Big Obama Fan During The Primaries But I See Some Folks Won't Let Bygones Be Bygones

Yeah, Lincoln had a crappy hand, for different reasons.

But Obama is being pilloried and will most likely lose reelection for being unable to fix a problem that he didn't cause and imho is intractable.

This economy would still suck if Hillary Clinton or John McCain was president. This economy is broken.

[ruggerson]

33. I was disagreeing with the premise of your OP

not expressing disapproval of Obama in general. He's done things I agree with and he's also greatly disappointed me at times. I've praised him when I agree with him and criticized him when I've disagreed.

The title of your OP is a bit of a stretch, imho. Lincoln had to wage a civil war to keep our nation intact. Obama has had to deal with intractable economic probles, but not even remotely comparable to what Lincoln went through.

Rehashing the primary, as you do in the title line of your response to me is both intellectually lazy and wholly inaccurate. My life and my identity do not revolve around whom I supported in a presidential primary season in 2008. I supported Teddy Kennedy over Jimmy Carter. I supported Dean in 2004. I supported Hart in 1984. They were choices I made at that time for reasons germaine to that season. I'm not a "Hillary" Democrat, anymore than I'm a "Gary Hart" Democrat. She's someone I supported in one primary season given the choices we had. She wasn't even my first choice: Biden was. But I don't regret my support of her, given that I liked her extreme partisanship and she was more closely aligned with my historical view of what makes a President successsful.

But I'm not wedded to her. Never was. I've backed candidates who've lost before and some who have won, and her loss was nothing personal to me. I think she's a gifted person, but if she runs again, I would have to weigh her against whomever else was in the field.

I've always supported the eventual Democratic nominee. I plan to vote for Obama in 2012, regardless of any disagreements I have with both his substance and style as President. I've hardly been a doctrinaire Obama detractor. I've praised him when others to the left of me have been disgruntled (FISA and the bank bailouts spring to mind.)

We're all complex individuals, yet you try to put me (and others) in a little box labelled "disgruntled 2008 Clinton supporter" rather than deal with the more complicated reality.

The world didn't begin and end with the 2008 Democratic primary season.

It's a naive approach to what motivates many of your fellow Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. That Was A Thoughtful Response And I Apologize

Though if you had elaborated as you did I would have had a different response.


I supported HRC in the primaries but I'm glad she lost. Because imho the economy would still suck, she would get blamed, and the Clinton brand name would have been tarnished. I fear that the 1990s will be seen as America's last golden era of relative peace and prosperity.

[ruggerson]

36. No problem

I realize my original response to your OP was a bit snarky.

[Sherman A1]

26. Very possibly you are correct, however let us remember

He did ask for the job and was elected to do it.

I for one will not feel terribly sorry for him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I Feel As Sorry For Him As I Do Jimmy Carter

~

[marlakay]

41. Nice guys are eaten up by republicans

my husband was saying yesterday that is the main difference between republicans and democrats is that the democrats are decent people (most of the time) they are open minded and willing to compromise for the good of the people.

Republicans just want to win no matter if the country goes down...

[rms013]

28. In my dreams

In my dreams the first term Obama is playing rope a dope. He is open to compromise, willing to give at every turn. Then comes his re-election in 2012. As he is not beholden to anyone anymore he utilizes the supreme presidency approach (made popular by GWB) to fulfill the promises of democracy to the common man, re-invigorate the economy, shut down the costly occupations of two countries, enact by edict a National Healthcare system, stop the drug war, reduce the military budget etc. He becomes an American people's hero in the likes of FDR.
Of course it is just a dream.

[Autumn]

38. You get dealt a crappy hand, throw out the bad cards

and fucking play to win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. If It Was Five Card Poker He Was Dealt A 3, 5, 9, A Jack ,And A Ace

Nothing to work with.

It would like expecting a doctor to heal a cadaver.

If he could rescue this economy it would be the biggest feat since Jesus resurreced his buddy Lazarus who had been dead for three days...

[Igel]

42. Don't make excuses when none are needed.

Obama came in with a bad hand. He's not judged on winning the game. He's judged on how he plays his hand.

He's played his hand badly. I could list instances when he essentially tossed in his hand and say, "Screw me," but that would look negative. People would complain that in trying to show he played his hand badly I didn't show how wonderful he was. Kul't lichnosti, inache gorovya.


Plus, on one point you're really obviously wrong:

"Every nation that has suffered a financial crisis has never returned to pre-crisis employment levels." Employment in 1998 was pretty much at record lows, and unemployment wasn't to be sneezed at times in the '50s, either. Yet in 1929 we suffered a pretty bad financial crisis. In fact, before the financial crisis unemployment was pretty low. Yet wasn't in a few decades before we had suffered a financial crisis?

A valid point is that it takes a long time to recover from a financial crisis.

The response is that TARP and the stimulus were intended to mitigate the effects of the financial crisis. Obama's called them a success, repeatedly. If they're a success how is it they didn't mitigate the effects of the financial crisis? (Response: It would have been horrendous without them. Something that is ultimately unprovable. I continue to say that since 2008 every single projection, every single model that produced a number that could be compared actual measurements has flopped; but we firmly believe that every model that couldn't be compared actual actual measurements must be right. I think that's a fallacy: They have to show that their models are correct by making verifiable predictions. Instead we're expected to be constantly shocked that their models fail. And, in this, Obama plays one of his cards badly: He's the one insisting on interpreting the models this way, because he needs to cover his butt.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Maybe I Should Have Refined My Point

If the recovery from The Great Depression is the benchmark we still have another twenty or so years to wait for relief. And an intervening world war.

[otohara]

44. No Doubt About It

but I'm losing faith in him.
and I'm not alone.

[Proles]

49. I don't think it's entirely Obama's fault.

Perhaps, even if he did push through a very liberal, progressive agenda no matter what, we'd still be doomed.

The extent of Bush's damage is severe... possibly so severe, that nothing can be done to fix it. Perhaps at best, it can be slowed down.

Honestly, I'm starting to believe a change in our political structure is needed. Who could have envisioned the world turning into what it is today? 24/7 news media, constant communication via cell phones, and the internet. The increased complexities of the world, including terrorism, the drug war, out of control capitalism (where corporations and individuals can accumulate more wealth than single governments), and the decline of education and intellecutalism, giving rise to ignorant masses who know nothing of politics and the economy.

I think a real change is needed. The world is way more complicated than ever, and I think as a result, we need 21st solutions, not 18th century ones.

[andym]

51. He had a bad hand, not the worst

Lincoln and FDR come to mind. The wars are not equivalent to the World Wars or the Civil War. The economy is not quite as bad as the Great Depression. However, his hand was bad, no doubt.

He made several strategic mistakes. Keeping Bernanke, and not using the Bully Pulpit to pin the economy on GOP policy and corporate excess to the extent necessary. Not pursuing a bigger stimulus, perhaps with a stronger component to stimulate small business. Pursuing health care reform was a gamble that used too much of the "good will" he earned with the American public to allow him to do much else, although if he had been able to extend Medicare at all (to 55 as proposed) it may have been worth it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

52. I wholeheartedly agree with the title of your OP but not its contents in general

I think (hope) things will get better but it will involve a.)getting rid of the Teaheads in Congress and challenging the movement in general and b.)electing more, better Dems and/or left-wing independents to Congress and government in general.

Also, just generally speaking, getting people in government whom actually believe in government and good governance would help things a lot too.
:shrug: