Political Animal
Blog
On Wall Street, there are all kinds of firms providing economic modeling and forecasting, and as a rule, they tend to be pretty good at it. Their jobs depend on it.
So, it’s always interesting to see what the firms project when it comes to American economic growth. Macroeconomic Advisers, for example, offers frequently-updated analysis of upcoming quarterly GDP reports. After a rough first quarter of 2011, everyone is hoping to see far more robust growth in the second quarter, covering April, May, and June.
As of a few weeks ago, things looked quite good. Macroeconomic Advisers projected that the U.S. economy was on track to show 3.7% growth in the second quarter, which would be very encouraging.
Soon after, Macroeconomic Advisers lowered that projection to 3.5%, Then 3.2%. As of this morning, it’s down to 2.8%.
Another shoe drops: Worse-than-expected durable-goods orders in April pushed Macroeconomic Advisers to cut their forecast for second-quarter GDP growth to 2.8% from 3.2%.
Macro Advisers was one of the first outfits to recognize that first-quarter growth would be much worse than the street expected. Now they’ve joined J.P. Morgan in forecasting roughly below-trend economic growth for the second straight quarter.
Most everybody else seems to be sticking with their forecasts of growth of 3% or more in the quarter. Goldman has already cut its forecast and may not feel too comfy cutting it twice in the same day. But these forecasts are getting shakier by the day, as the slowdown case gathers steam.
I realize it’s fallen out of fashion to talk about things such as economic growth and job creation, but I’m curious: does anyone still give a damn about the economy? Anyone at all?
The recovery is fragile and weak — and apparently getting weaker. The European debt crisis is once again growing more serious. The U.S. unemployment rate is 9%. Under sane circumstances, one would expect American policymakers to respond to developments like these with a renewed focus on improving the economy, giving it a much-needed boost.
But thanks to the 2010 midterms, a dysfunctional political system, and a stunted discourse, the current circumstances are anything but sane.
Republicans have responded to the weak economy by declaring, “Austerity for everyone!” The GOP is convinced we’ll all be better off after they’ve taken money out of the economy, made unemployment worse, and pursued a monetary policy that makes it harder for the world to buy American products. Democrats would like to respond to the weak economy with an ambitious economic agenda, but they don’t bother because they know it wouldn’t pass.
The best — the very best — we can hope for is a president who’ll stop Republicans from making matters much worse, and maybe a reluctant Federal Reserve that might choose to play a more constructive role. But really, that’s it. The White House can’t act without Congress, and Congress doesn’t want to act at all. We’re left to simply hope the economy continues to improve on its own.
And it’s not improving on its own.
In the meantime, countries like England are shrinking their economies to focus on the debt, which in turn, is making the debt worse.
The American media, meanwhile, is focused almost exclusively on the deficit, thanks to a “Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop” that has drowned out any talk of what really matters.
It doesn’t have to be this way, and we know what we should do. The country needs the wisdom and courage to do the right thing, but as of today, with the recovery faltering, the right thing isn’t even on the negotiating table.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on May 25, 2011 1:13 PM:
Gee, I'd really like to help get the economy going by purchasing some things.
BUT I STILL DON'T HAVE A F*CKING FOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
foosion on May 25, 2011 1:22 PM:
Other than politicians, the media, our corporate masters and much of the Republican party, just about everyone is focussed on jobs and the economy.
When Obama adopted the "govt must tighten its belt" framing, and the Democrats decided not to push back on the "deficits will kill us all" rhetoric, any chance of doing something useful was lost.
AngryOldVet on May 25, 2011 1:28 PM:
I wish to thank Obama and the dumbocrap politicians for showing their courage in continuously talking about the economy and jobs!
not...
Sparko on May 25, 2011 1:39 PM:
How we allowed the right wing to hijack our vital information exchange will be the key element on our societal autopsy--hastened with each week of deficit deflection discourse. And maddeningly, the cure for deficits is actually an easy discussion. But the real answers are never accepted as reasonable. Keep pushing back Steve.
rob on May 25, 2011 1:42 PM:
"AOV" proves the truism that the Rethugs make the mess and the Democrats get blamed for not preventing it or cleaning it up fast enough while the rethugs continue to stand in the way.
But hey AOV, maybe one reason President Obama has not been able to fix everything the Rethugs broke( e.g., the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, and protection of the environment) is because he was busy tracking, finding and eliminating OBL, which 'little boots' could not get done in 7 years.
zeitgeist on May 25, 2011 1:43 PM:
Democrats would like to respond to the weak economy with an ambitious economic agenda, but they don’t bother because they know it wouldn’t pass.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Halfway sentient politics would suggest the Dems hold a vote on a jobs and "recovery protection" bill every week. First, we really don't know if it would pass until we try. Second, the odds of it passing get no better after the 2012 elections unless we win, which would be aided by being able to say we tried, and the other side blocked it.
Poll after poll show that the number 1 concern among Americans is jobs. Far ahead of debt. Far ahead of social issue nonsense. Yet Dems wont take up the jobs fight. Consider it yet another opportunity squandered on Democratic timidity.
Danny on May 25, 2011 1:45 PM:
foosion:
When Obama adopted the "govt must tighten its belt" framing, and the Democrats decided not to push back on the "deficits will kill us all" rhetoric, any chance of doing something useful was lost.
Steve is perfectly right. The ones you should blame are the ones that stayed home in 2010. Yeah, the famous "enthusiasm gap". 70+ house and 7+ senate republicans running on austerity is gonna put austerity on the frontburner whether you like it or not.
The best — the very best — we can hope for is a president who’ll stop Republicans from making matters much worse, and maybe a reluctant Federal Reserve that might choose to play a more constructive role. But really, that’s it. The White House can’t act without Congress, and Congress doesn’t want to act at all.
Thats right on the money. There is no great use in talking about stimulation of the economy, because:
1) It won't get through congress anyway (70+!!)
2) It costs money, and voters are concerned about the deficits as well. Almost 50% of all voter groups across the board rank themselves as "very concerned" with the deficits.
Before the midterms and in the lame duck period congress and Obama pretty much only focused on job creation and stimulation. Then we lost the midterms and now the country is sc-wed.
If you want to help your country - focus on winning elections.
SteveT on May 25, 2011 1:46 PM:
Democrats would like to respond to the weak economy with an ambitious economic agenda, but they don't bother because they know it wouldn't pass.
So by saying little or nothing about jobs, Democrats are committing political malpractice and giving the Republicans political cover on the issue. What Democrats should be doing is acknowledging the lack of job growth and proposing bills to help -- because even if they know the bills won't pass they're showing the voters that they care and that they're trying to do something. Then, when Republicans block the bills the Democrats can excoriate them for their lack of compassion and economic ignorance.
The best thing that the Democrats can do for the economy is discredit the Republicans and their moronic policies.
I'll repeat what I have said previously --
The success of my business, and every other business up and down my street, has nothing to do with the federal deficit, tax rates of the wealthy or business "insecurity". What will make our businesses successful is if thousands of middle-class workers have a little money left over at the end of the month to spend at our businesses.
When our small businesses sell more we will hire more people and order more stuff from the factories, who will have to hire more people to fill the increased orders. That's how the economy will grow.
People aren't buying durable goods or anything else other than bare necessities because they're not sure they'll have a job next month. And the people who have jobs aren't buying anything because 30 years of Republican economics have caused their wages to stagnate while their costs for things like healthcare, tuition and gasoline have all gone up until they can barely pay their mortgages. That's the "insecurity" the people in Washington need to be focused on.
Midland on May 25, 2011 1:48 PM:
It is important to remember about media inhabitants of the Beltway that they are all extremely rich, by current standards, that they all have jobs, and all their jobs have great health benefits.
Even if they were the sort of people who would care about us paper-shufflers and burger-flippers--remember, they grew up in a saturated media market that taught them we were all pimply faced, clueless losers--talking about us would endanger their jobs and their place in the social hierarchy. They keep their six and seven-figure incomes flowing by going with the flow and not angering corporate management or generating clouds of angry emails and calls from conservatives who think that talking "liberal" is partisan lies, if not treasonous.
Danny on May 25, 2011 1:56 PM:
zeitgeist:
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Halfway sentient politics would suggest the Dems hold a vote on a jobs and "recovery protection" bill every week. First, we really don't know if it would pass until we try. Second, the odds of it passing get no better after the 2012 elections unless we win, which would be aided by being able to say we tried, and the other side blocked it.
No it doesn't. As stated, the last congress where democrats had a chance to get legislation passed passed job creation bills all the way into the lame duck sessions. That stopped when 70 / 7 loony teaparty freshmen took their seats. Just apply your Occam's and your set.
Furthermore, it's a myth that we progressives peddle at our own peril that voters don't care about the deficits. As stated close to 50% are "very concerned" pretty much across the board. We're confusing wise policy (address the deficit when recovery is solid) with voter sentiment. Those two are NOT the same.
Pushing for job bills means having them scored by the CBO. That will show democrats wanting to add hundreds of billions to the deficit. And republicans will attack. There will be no jobs to show because the bills wont get passed. Republicans will use the now more credible "big spending liberals" as leverage to hurt entitlements and force through bigger cuts.
That's the reason democrats are playing the rope-a-dope and defense in depth strategy; it would be stupid to do anything else.
Mnemosyne on May 25, 2011 1:59 PM:
The GOP is convinced their big donors will be better off after they've taken money out of the economy, made unemployment worse, and pursued a monetary policy that makes it harder for the world to buy American products.
Just had to fix that for you. Republicans couldn't care less about "all" of us. They care about themselves and their big donors, and if the entire economy has to be destroyed so rich people's tax rates can stay low, well, so be it.
T2 on May 25, 2011 2:24 PM:
once again, it's important to understand that the Republican Party has bet the farm on a crappy economy derailing Obama in 2012. It's obvious they don't have candidates that can do that. They have stonewalled, filibustered and killed most of the attempts by Democrats to strentghen the recovery and come up with a Jobs bill. Blue dogs weren't any help either.
So, in a nutshell (GOP pun) it is the Republican Party keeping the economy weak....and of course they are the Party responsible for weakening it.....nice package, huh.
Hoyer has a great chart on that....see Josh Marshall's site.
bdop4 on May 25, 2011 2:25 PM:
"Democrats would like to respond to the weak economy with an ambitious economic agenda, but they don’t bother because they know it wouldn’t pass.
The best — the very best — we can hope for is a president who’ll stop Republicans from making matters much worse, and maybe a reluctant Federal Reserve that might choose to play a more constructive role. But really, that’s it."
A classic example of political pragmatism on display. I mean, really, why even bother to assert your position if you're not going to win? If you don't win, you're a LOSER, and everyone hates a LOSER. So the best action to take is to do nothing.
If my party isn't going to advocate my views, then why vote at all?
Or maybe, MAYBE, if you draw a stark contrast to your opponent, reject their premises AND GIVE THE VOTERS A CHOICE, you might be surprised at what you can accomplish.
Kathy Hochul did just that.
Danny on May 25, 2011 2:31 PM:
@bdop4
Once again:
1) Voters care about the deficit. See my previous posts.
2) Jobs bills cost big money. Pushing them is a political risk that could backlash into leverage for Republicans getting bigger and more dangerous cuts.
3) The jobs bills wont get passed anyway so there will be no jobs to show for it, only potential downside.
4) Republicans won the last election big on austerity. That means that the media will buy their narrative because they think that's what the voters want.
MCD on May 25, 2011 2:33 PM:
This site constantly reports the dumb things that Congressional Republicans are voting on in the House instead of focusing on the economy.
Guess what? The Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and really nothing at all to do with their time since they can't approve judges, and won't approve anything sent over from the House.
Why aren't they constantly bringing up legislation that would boost the economy, or increase the debt ceiling, or, I don't know, anything! that would signify what Democrats are for and who they want to help? Newspapers publish stories about the House's bills that will never become law. I'm sure that, eventually, there will be a slow-enough news day that there is room for stories about Senate bills that will never become law, but would be really helpful to ordinary people if they did.
Start showing America what your vision of the future is, and maybe they'll elect enough of you to implement it. It's really not that hard.
bdop4 on May 25, 2011 2:38 PM:
"As stated close to 50% are "very concerned" pretty much across the board. We're confusing wise policy (address the deficit when recovery is solid) with voter sentiment. Those two are NOT the same.
Pushing for job bills means having them scored by the CBO. That will show democrats wanting to add hundreds of billions to the deficit. And republicans will attack." - Danny
And of course, there's absolutely NO POSSIBLE WAY voter sentiment could ever be changed on this issue. It's a fait accompli. The GOP message is just too strong. Let's just GIVE UP.
There's no way Dems are EVER going to beat the republican by ceding the field of battle. If you don't believe that you can convince people that investing in infrastructure and the American people is the quickest way to eliminate the deficit, then you might as well go into your bedroom and curl into the fetal position.
Inherent in your "pragmatic" argument is a premmptive surrender to GOP messaging. That's a guaranteed loser.
zeitgeist on May 25, 2011 2:45 PM:
Danny -
that 50% are "concerned" about the deficit is not as important as rank-order polls. when pressed to prioritize, polls consistently show the deficit is a lower concern than jobs or growing the economy.
if neither party will talk about jobs (Republicans because they really don't care and Democrats because they are scared to lead on the issue) it will depress turnout among those for whom jobs are the key issue -- they aren't going to just magically know that they'd be better off with the Dems. Which is to say turnout will be depressed among people most likely to vote Democratic. (and low-turnout elections tend to help Republicans in any event.)
finally, there are ways to structure jobs programs that do fine with the CBO. remember, Republicans just swore that the ACA, which on its face created new structures and spend billions, would get a fatal CBO score. it didn't - the CBO said that long term it would reduce the deficit. because employment grows the economy, a well structured jobs bill would likely see the same surprisingly positive score.
MCD on May 25, 2011 2:48 PM:
@Danny
1) Voters care about the deficit. See my previous posts.
Voters care about the deficit because Republicans want them to, and Democrats don't push back. Give them a choice between deficit spending and slashing Social Security or Medicare, and we'll see just how concerned they are about deficits.
2) Jobs bills cost big money. Pushing them is a political risk that could backlash into leverage for Republicans getting bigger and more dangerous cuts.
Going to college costs a lot of money. In the long run, it is a no-brainer to spend that money, though. The payoff is completely worth the short-term cost. People understand the micro case. They'll understand the macro case too, if only someone would explain it to them over and over again.
3) The jobs bills wont get passed anyway so there will be no jobs to show for it, only potential downside.
Jobs bills that would result in long-term gain (see #2 above) would have positive CBO scores. Educate the voters, and the people standing in the way of the bills would face punishment, not the bills' proponents.
4) Republicans won the last election big on austerity. That means that the media will buy their narrative because they think that's what the voters want.
No they didn't. They won the last election by constantly asking "Where are the jobs?" They didn't care about austerity until right after they extended the Bush tax cuts. The media buys their narrative because its the only narrative out there. Democrats went into a shell after the election and let the Republicans set the agenda, and this is the mess it caused.
exlibra on May 25, 2011 2:50 PM:
Democrats would like to respond to the weak economy with an ambitious economic agenda, but they don’t bother because they know it wouldn’t pass. -- Steve Benen
So it's better not to do anything at all? Where do you think Hochul would have been today, if she had accepted that defeatist posture, which all the "pundits" were peddling a month ago?
Back in the mid 60ties Poland, there was a philosopher (Leszek Kolakowski), who wrote a little book of... well.. hard to define... ""morality tales", maybe? It was called "Klucz niebieski" (The Heavenly Key/The Key to Heaven) and each chapter was a highly irreverent (reason why it got panned in US), simplified rewrite/summary of a Biblical tale, with a "moral" (lesson) appended. The "moral" for the story of Joshua and Jericho was "blow, blow (your trumpets) and maybe a miracle will happen".
It applies here too; if you put your trumpets away in their boxes to await better weather or whatever, the only thing you can be sure of is that a miracle will *not* happen.
Danny on May 25, 2011 3:08 PM:
bdop4:
There's no way Dems are EVER going to beat the republican by ceding the field of battle. If you don't believe that you can convince people that investing in infrastructure and the American people is the quickest way to eliminate the deficit, then you might as well go into your bedroom and curl into the fetal position.
Obama's been floating trial balloon's on that - aka W.T.F - but it's not floating. There's something to be said for choosing your battles. Deciding that this is the hill to die on when we can in fact not get anything passed is stupid. It's the same kind of New Left/netroot stupid that lost us elections many times before. If there was just one little chance to get anything through the house I would agree with you - but there isn't. That's why there's only political downside to the wager.
zeitgeist:
that 50% are "concerned" about the deficit is not as important as rank-order polls. when pressed to prioritize, polls consistently show the deficit is a lower concern than jobs or growing the economy.
That looks so neat on paper but in the real world no jobs bill is going to get passed. Americans wont see one single job created. All they'll hear is that democrats wanted to add 200B$ dollars to the deficit and that that proves that the deficits are the liberals fault and they're not serious about austerity.
Furthermore you're assuming that republicans won't say: We have to cut spending - that is what's going to create jobs. They will. You think that's ludicrous because hanging out at lefty blogs you know that that's a lie. But people in general don't know that. They'll by in enough numbers to make the wager a very risky one. Furthermore, dems still hold the white house and senate and had 2 years with the full congress, and they pushed a lot of stimulative measures. There are good arguments to be made that a too conservative congress obstructed passage of big enough stimulation to get economy up to speed quick but that's not an easy case to make to low energy voters. Furthermore republicans has been hammering in small government, low spending, taxcuts = jobs for forty years now. Sorry if your b-lls are getting hurt here but it's magical thinking to believe that dems can reverse that hard message works in a couple of weeks in what's probably the worst strategic moment they could choose to do so.
If the economy recovers enough and when Obama campaigns to get reelected, then we should make the case that the recovery measures worked. Thats how we establish our own narrative.
if neither party will talk about jobs (Republicans because they really don't care and Democrats because they are scared to lead on the issue) it will depress turnout among those for whom jobs are the key issue -- they aren't going to just magically know that they'd be better off with the Dems. Which is to say turnout will be depressed among people most likely to vote Democratic. (and low-turnout elections tend to help Republicans in any event.)
Hopefully we'll be able to talk about jobs one year from now. There's no certain doom and gloom yet - even if progressives are blessed with precious small b-lls. At this point, after losing big in 2010 all we can do is keep cool, obstruct republicans best efforts to wreck the recovery and hope for the best. There's not much we can do about job growth, we'll have to put our faith in god or the FSM.
finally, there are ways to structure jobs programs that do fine with the CBO.
Describe one way.
Danny on May 25, 2011 3:23 PM:
MCD:
Voters care about the deficit because Republicans want them to, and Democrats don't push back.
This is stupid. Voters care about deficits because deficits are a real long term issue that needs to be dealt with. Perhaps you recall that democrats ran on Bush era deficits not long ago, and they were much smaller.
You're taking a sentiment that's true - deficits are a long term issue, jobs and the economy are more important short term - and bastardizing it into something that wont float.
Give them a choice between deficit spending and slashing Social Security or Medicare, and we'll see just how concerned they are about deficits.
Yes absolutely true, and that's exactly what we should be - and are - doing. Let the republicans fall on the sword on cutting entitlements. Not pushing for show jobs bills that will only muddle the message and lend credence to their entitlement cutting agenda.
Going to college costs a lot of money. In the long run, it is a no-brainer to spend that money, though. The payoff is completely worth the short-term cost. People understand the micro case. They'll understand the macro case too, if only someone would explain it to them over and over again.
Yes, if we had the message machine that republicans have - FoxNews, talk radio and village clout - and yes, if we'd spent the last 40 years pushing this message like the republicans have. Then you're right we SHOULD do that because we'd have a good shot at success.
But we havent got any of those things so the right thing to do is getting them. But that takes time. Your wounded b-lls wont heal magically overnight just because you wish they would. This is the wrong hill to die on.
Jobs bills that would result in long-term gain (see #2 above) would have positive CBO scores. Educate the voters, and the people standing in the way of the bills would face punishment, not the bills' proponents.
Compare to stupid repubs who think they'll get voters to love the Ryan plan if they hone their message a bit more. Same fallacy, it takes time and resources and choosing the right battle - it's not just a case of "talking to people". And we don't have repubs messaging infrastructure. Get used to being the underdog or start working on fixing that long term.
And why don't you try this: seek out ten independent voters that are fairly austerity hawkish. There's a lot of them around. Try to sell your pitch to them. See how long it took you to convince them and then ponder the fact that there was no equivalent to FoxNews trying to shout you down.
They won the last election by constantly asking "Where are the jobs?" They didn't care about austerity until right after they extended the Bush tax cuts.
That aint true. What I said was also overly simplistic, but the Tea Parties were all about austerity and the narrative of the election that mainstream media took home was that the Tea Party movement won the election for the repubs. Fair or not that's what happened. Winners get to write history, get used to it. That's a good case for winning by any means necessary, right there.
Crissa on May 25, 2011 3:42 PM:
I have a very good economic indicator in my neighborhood: All my neighbors are contractors of some sort or another. Mostly in the construction industry, but not all.
All of them spent last week home.
Crissa on May 25, 2011 4:16 PM:
Crissa on May 25, 2011 4:18 PM:
Stupid commenting software. Blockquote doesn't work. Bah.
Danny on May 25, 2011 5:36 PM:
Crissa:
What are you implying? That congressional dems spend their days parsing Obamas every word for secret messages, because they cant schedule a joint strategy meeting?
emjayay on May 25, 2011 5:41 PM:
Besides his well known habit for buying the opposition framing, starting to negotiate with his end point goal, oh, and having a bunch of establishment Wall Streeters around, I think Obama's main failure is in not using dumbed down and daily repeated characterisations and explanations of what's going on with the economy and budget. Like calling it the Reagan/Bush deficit. Like explaining that were supposed to have a surplus to blow on fixing a crash, not a huge deficit going in. Like blaming Republican policies of weakening regulation and not enforcing what there was. Maybe pointing out that with a lot of too big and too many houses out there, it's going to be a while - as in a decade - to get through the inventory.
But that would be blaming. Can't do that. Can't prosecute anyone in the financial sector for crashing the world economy. Just look to the future.
Oh, and do you think double fuel prices, taking all the discretionary spending money anyone who has a job away, particularly since they all commute from their far away McMansion in a two ton SUV with one person in it, is having an effect on consumer demand and the economy?
Danny on May 25, 2011 6:12 PM:
Is this place full of:
A) Sockpuppets
B) Concern trolls
C) The minions of FDL
?
It's definetely something going on here... Obama is wildly popular with liberal dems at the moment but here everyone is b-tching and moaning. E.g. he's at 90% approval with Lib-dems in the latest full week crosstabs from Gallup. Liberal dems is the group where his approval is highest. Moderate dems: 79% Conservative dems 70%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
Doug on May 25, 2011 8:36 PM:
I'm with Danny on this on; shocking surprise, I know.
First off, where did the stupid idea come from that all Democrats need to do is just keep hammering away on their message and all will be just hunky-dory? Sure has worked well for the Republicans, hasn't it? After all, they've been pushing the same message for forty-plus years and are now in complete control of EVERY political office in the country, right? Oh, wait...
It's obvious that to many posters here and elsewhere, what's wanted from the Democrats isn't necessarily what's best for either the Democratic Party OR the country, but what makes the poster feel better. Sorry, but the stakes are too high to have to worry about massaging YOUR ego.
Danny is correct, continual attempts to place some sort of jobs legislation on the House agenda will only lead to vicious attack ads in 2012 WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SHOW FOR THE EFFORT! To add insult to injury, there'll actually be a modicum of truth to the ads, as almost any jobs legislation, no matter how well constructed, will have to increase the current deficit, even if it does have the potential to decrease the deficit down the road. Good luck trying to explain THAT in a 30-second political ad!
Right now, the best political move for the Democrats is to keep Rep. Ryan's "budget" in the public eye and remain firm on refusing to make any changes in SS age requirements or benefit levels. The Republicans control the House and the House is required to originate a budget, but that budget also has to pass the Senate. It's the Republicans' problem, let them deal with it without us muddying the waters and giving Republicans something to use to divert attention away from what THEY want to do - end Medicare, decrease taxes for the rich and increase them on everyone else.
President Obama, as well as members of his administration, have continually urged various "jobs" programs on Congress; many have to do with renewable energy production, energy conservation and such. Since he can't ORDER the House Republicans to produce legislation embodying his suggestions, AT THIS TIME there isn't anything else to be done other than continue to urge the Speaker to act on those suggestions.
Remember though, those "suggestions" were made in speeches. Televised and recorded speeches. With dates and even, I suppose, times included as part of the recording. So when, during the next election campaign, someone asks the President what he's done to improve the economy and produce jobs, HE'LL have an answer.
The Republicans? Not so much...
Danny on May 26, 2011 5:53 AM:
Thanks Doug, that was what I was trying to get across - but with added eloquence. There's a lot that's right about the instinct of many netroots - e.g. the will to take the fight to the repubs - but we got to choose the RIGHT fight to kick them in the b-lls, not mindlessly go charging into the wrong battle just to massage our egos.
neil b on May 26, 2011 7:46 AM:
What the debtiots don't realize is, the debt can't be well paid off anyway unless the economy is doing better, so pumping up the economy needs to come *first*.
That Simpson, (about as adept as Homer), Obama shouldn't have given in to the villagesque impulse to give him a soapbox.