From the poll you linked:
"Americans' confidence in Obama on the economy is roughly similar to the confidence rating the public gave to President George W. Bush in April 2001, then in his initial quarter of governing, as is the case now for Obama. Obama gets slightly higher "a great deal of confidence" ratings than did Bush, while Bush received a slightly higher "fair amount" rating. In 2002 and 2003, Bush's ratings were similar to Obama's now."
The honeymoon is not yet over. Let's see how the numbers look in a year or two.
Yes, if only we could reinstall Bush, he could bring back the salad days!
Posted by TIKI AL at April 13, 2009 09:42 AMDeacon, please tell me../instead of Geithner and Summers...who would you have selected and what policies would they have had Obama pursue? Just curious.
Posted by T2 at April 13, 2009 01:52 PMAnd again, how does "a harder line" translate to less "squandered political capital?"
Posted by wilson rivers at April 13, 2009 02:13 PMThe whole point is, by buying into the golden slacks" line that "nobody coulda predicted" despite the fact that Dean Baker, Krugman and other non Wall Street economists prediced precisely what an unregulated arket would lead to, Obama is making the same mistake that Clinton made on NAFTA. Granted, the GOP is more inept now than it was in 1993-94, but if the Democratic base is continually forsaken for they myth of centrism, eventually it will lead to alienation.
It would be nice if newly elected Democratic presidents could understand the concept that they were elected because people are tired of failed Republican policies.
How about Stiglitz and Volcker T2? Seems like a few people are forgetting about Roubini. Krugman seems to get it most of the time. did you see Newt and Krugman agreeing on George's show Sunday morning?
Posted by peter at April 13, 2009 03:03 PMI dunno petertroll....why didn't Bush hire those guys? He had eight years to get the right guys. Krugman?? Sure, he'd have helped alot during the last eight years, but your boys didn't consider hiring him, did they?
Posted by T2 at April 13, 2009 03:10 PMVolcker was prominent on that stage back in November when the president elect rolled out his econ team. Shame he hasn't use him much.
I don't think a President Bush could have gotten either to work for him. Volcker maybe, but not Stiglitz.
Posted by peter at April 13, 2009 03:36 PMAnd the base deserves more attention that the center because....?
Posted by wilson rivers at April 13, 2009 04:41 PM71% Favorability after having made the most difficult fiscal and monetary policy initiatives in 70 years and with all the ankle biting about hiring guys with theoretical expertise and no pracical experience (read Krugman) I'd say this guy is doin' alright y'all; the country would be toilet bowl swirl had McOld won....good work Obabma!!
Posted by Goyo at April 13, 2009 04:48 PMThe real problem is not that what they are doing is unpopular. It is that what they are doing is wrong. They are repeating on a spectacular scale the policy of the past 30 years, which is to heap all the costs of the economy on ordinary people and keep all the benefits for a small crew of insiders.
This might, as people like Krugman say, just produce a new crisis a few years down the road. But Obama was the golden opportunity top break out of using every development as an excuse to boost profits at the expense of wages.
I went to a dinner at an investment bank aimed at people who run hedge funds early last year. When the US election came up, I was amazed at how an overwhelmingly right wing table was full of people backing Obama. They knew what they were doing. He is their man.
In pre-revolutionary Russia, peasants would often say "If only the Tsar knew what his officials are doing, he would protect us."
It's the same now. Don't blame Summers or Geithner and don't ask why Obama "wastes" popularity defending Goldman Sachs. It is because he's on their side.
I think the problem is that Obama knows he really can't break up Citi and Goldman.
Look what happened. The bankers said, okay, Bear Stearns is going down, you better bail them out in terms favorable to us. Chase picks them up for $2 bucks a share.
You don't believe us, DC? Okay, we've decided that Lehman can go down. See the precipice? Fuck with us? We'll fuck you like you've never been fucked before. Oh sure, we'll go down the tubes too, but we'll take you down with us, and we've got more money stashed to come back stinkin like roses. You don't.
Hence the bailout. They have the power over DC, like it or not. Not over US, but over DC. So if we want something done about it, it's got to come from the ground floor, not the penthouses.
Posted by Duckman GR at April 13, 2009 11:07 PM