Liberal accountability


Filed Under Policy on Aug 5 

In all the disputes and arguments over the economy, we never get a clear, unequivocal impression on where liberals stand–specifically–on Obama’s handling of the economy and the efficacy of his policies. It’s clear they feel that President Bush caused the problem that Obama “inherited,” but it’s not clear how they feel Obama has handled things.

What is their view of the Stimulus, and how do they explain the still-disappointing job and unemployment numbers?

What do they think of his pushing Obamacare first instead of concentrating on jobs?

What do they think Obama should do about jobs and economic growth or do they think his policies are perfectly-chosen, just give them a little more time, we’re headed in the right direction?

Most liberals (I know I’ll get in trouble for that one!), obviously don’t feel that Obama “owns” this bad economy yet; they cling to the belief that it’s all Bush’s fault and as long as it takes to turn around, it is still all Bush’s fault. But when it does turn around (assuming it ever does), they will give Obama all the credit and never say that if his policies had been different, things would’ve improved sooner, and to a greater extent.

So, a specific question, to which I’d like a specific answer: How long before the bad economy is “Obama’s”?

If it’s still bad next spring, 3 1/2 years after the 2008 election, is it Obama’s then?

If it’s still bad by Election Day in 2012, is it his then?

Or is it never Obama’s bad economy?

What in your opinion constitutes the end of the “bad economy”? What numbers: Unemployment, GDP growth, unemployment weekly claims, gas pricing, etc. We need to know your benchmarks for saying “The economy is no longer bad.” When it reaches what numbers?

So, to all the Obama-supporting Liberals out there, I’d like specific feedback on

1. His economic policies
2. What, if anything, he could have done better/differently (And no weasel answers like, “He could have had better Republican cooperation.” I mean what in your opinion are the specific policy changes he could have made to better effect, or do you think they’ve all been perfect?)
3. When he owns the bad economy, if ever.
4. What numbers are ‘bad,’ and what numbers are ‘good,’ so we’ll know what you mean and we can track it.

These are lots of specific questions. Liberals generally don’t deal in specifics. They usually turn the questions back on the questioner and then attempt to shift the basis of the discussion so that they remain unaccountable.

Surprise me. Give me the policy evaluation. Give me the numbers. Be accountable.


  • cheap north face

    This is the twice comment

  • Steve Feinstein

    While I don’t necessarily agree with everything you said, I do have great respect for your willingness to answer in accountable detail.

  • Stephen Meehan

    I’d consider myself fairly liberal, which means most people on here would say I’m socialist, communist set on destroying wealth and robbing small business owners, so I’ll take the bate.
    1. I think his policies have been OK. I think he could have focused on jobs before now — and I hated the tax cut extension during the lame duck session. I think the stimulus was too small, and he took true economic analysis that said we should have a stimulus than shrank to something he thought was politically viable and sold it as a “confidence booster” when the models he (his econ team, of course) used to determine we should have a stimulus got there by saying, “Confidence doesn’t actually work the way people pretend it does in the Macroeconomic world.” I think he absolutely had to go after Healthcare first — it was his baby and start tackling jobs immediately after the stimulus was to assume it wouldn’t help. I think it did and I do think it would have been much worse, but no one can prove that either way.
    2. I think I answered, bigger stimulus, work on jobs not tax cuts in lame duck session.
    3. At this point the economy is at least shared responsibility — but certainly we are still seeing residual effects of the recession and specifically the housing crisis that started under Bush. I hate the idea of pinning the crisis on Bush at all, because I don’t think it’s his fault and I do think it’s the government’s responsibility to address it. If it’s not showing signs of improvement by January — the solutions offered by Obama have not been adequate. However, we (most of you & I) will disagree about why that was.
    4. I think we all work off of the same numbers and they are all bad at this point. GDP growth seems pretty obvious and if the revised numbers are true (and who am I to disagree?) we could be headed for a double dip. I do think, (keep in mind I got a B and B+ in Micro- and Macroeconomics 3 years ago, so I’m about as knowledgable as Kathy Griffin on this subject) that unemployment rates, even when they begin to improve, are now going to be a higher than they used to be as a ‘normal’ rate. Certainly not 9+. I think if Unemployment is under 8 by the election (and moving somewhat steadily) we can say that Obama is OK.

  • Moncler

    Your web page is really worth beeing in the very best cause it is made up of truly incredible facts.

  • Jacosta

    Extreme-Liberal comedian Kathy Griffin was on Piers Morgan’s show and he asked her, while commenting on that while Obama inherited a recession, if his policies made things worse – and just like a liberal, she blamed Bush and then totally ignored the rest of the question and tried as much as possible to talk about sex, having sex, her mother and drinking, and then more sex. Why can’t Liberals “focus” and answer a question – Oh! That’s right….they’re sooooo in love with Obama, gay rights, anti-oil and business that they have no clue to the real world!!! She is a real hack job with no credibility, no common sense, and no logic! Just like most of Hollyweird actors!