The economic stimulus bill, if passed, will doom Dems/Obama politically - thoughts?

[Leaper]

This is a point I brought up in another thread that I’m starting to think (since no one in that thread addressed it) deserves its own, since the point seems to be fairly different. I’m not sure what I think of my own argument, so bear with me. I’ve decided to look at things in the worst possible light, and weave the following scenario:

If the stimulus bill currently in Congress passes, there’s a not insignificant chance it has guaranteed that Democrats will lose seats in Congress, and Obama will lose reelection.

Why? Because Republicans in the House were totally united against it. Not even all Democrats were for it. If the same is true in the Senate (and why wouldn’t it be, considering all the wrangling that had to happen in the larger House), then the Republicans have a perfect opportunity. If there’s ANY waste that happens as a result of the bill, if all its effects don’t go off immediately, perfectly, and 100% positively, they will be able to paint the (inevitable, IMO, no matter how carefully wrought and planned) negative effects, no matter how large or small, as all Obama’s and the Democrats’ fault. Their hands will be completely clean. And that’s if the bill has ANY positive effects in two/four years at all, which isn’t guaranteed (these things take time to take effect even if its effects are good), AND if it can’t be reasonably argued that it hasn’t made the overall economic situation significantly worse. No matter what you believe economically, you can be sure there are such things as chance and unintended consequences.

And before you say “two/four years is a long time politically,” I reply, “not where the economy is concerned,” especially when it’s bad. People may not remember a verbal gaffe from four years ago, but they’ll certainly remember “the year I lost my job,” or “the year we lost half our 401(k) value,” or “the year we couldn’t afford to send my son to college,” especially if the political opposition is there to remind them.

So, if this argument holds, we’ve seen something kind of unique: an action a President has taken in the first WEEK of his Presidency that not only has harmed his party, but has made it IMPOSSIBLE for him to win another term.

Anyone care to argue I’m wrong?

[mswas]

Yes, and Obama is already making waves with our biggest trading partners. It doesn’t bode well.

[Ravenman]

@Leaper

Anyone care to argue I’m wrong?

Do you remember how many Republicans voted for Bill Clinton’s stimulus bill in 1993?

On edit: I meant to say the deficit reduction bill.

[furt]

On the whole, I think you’ve got a point, but:

1. Historically speaking, it’s very likely the dems will lose seats in 2010 anyway; the president’s party nearly always loses ground in off-year elections.

2. This suggests perhaps the dems would be politically wise to write the bill so that most of the spending doesn’t take place until 2010 or later anyway, so that if the recovery is slow in coming, during the midterms they can say that their programs are just now coming on-line.

[mswas]

@furt

On the whole, I think you’ve got a point, but:

1. Historically speaking, it’s very likely the dems will lose seats in 2010 anyway; the president’s party nearly always loses ground in off-year elections.

2. This suggests perhaps the dems would be politically wise to write the bill so that most of the spending doesn’t take place until 2010 or later anyway, so that if the recovery is slow in coming, during the midterms they can say that their programs are just now coming on-line.

Yes, because people love living two years in a recession while things go to shit so that your programs can come online for blantant electoral pandering.

That shit goes over REAL well.

[Ravenman]

@mswas

Yes, because people love living two years in a recession while things go to shit so that your programs can come online for blantant electoral pandering.

That shit goes over REAL well.

Yeah! That’s the second-leading reason why FDR was only re-elected three times!

[furt]

@mswas

Yes, because people love living two years in a recession while things go to shit so that your programs can come online for blantant electoral pandering.

That shit goes over REAL well.

Well, of course they wouldn’t SAY that’s what they’re doing. And I’m not saying that IS what they’re doing: speculating on people’s motives is usually a bad idea.

But the facts are this:

1. the proposal the dems have put forth is chock-full of things that don’t happen for a year or two down the road.

2. the 2010 election season is only 18 months away. If the economy is still slow on summer/fall 2010, the dems can believably argue that this massive stimulus bill hasn’t had time to succeed.

3. if the economy picks up by 2012, which it is almost certain to do, they can believably argue that the stimulus bill should get the credit.
   How much this kind of thinking is going into the bill, I obviously have no idea. But you don’t get to high elected office without knowing how to get credit for success and avoid blame for failure.

[Duckster]

@Leaper

And before you say “two/four years is a long time politically,” I reply, “not where the economy is concerned,” especially when it’s bad. People may not remember a verbal gaffe from four years ago, but they’ll certainly remember “the year I lost my job,” or “the year we lost half our 401(k) value,” or “the year we couldn’t afford to send my son to college,” especially if the political opposition is there to remind them.

Fair comment. At the same time Americans have become incredibly selfish. How many will really make an honest attempt (and stick with it) to give up on things and change attitudes for the greater good and long haul to get through this morass? I venture to guess very few. Government cannot do it all.

For example, it was announced that Wall Street gave out $18 billion in bonuses for last year, the sixth largest on record. Was the stock market the sixth best ever last year? And that came after Wall Street was given billions in TARP tax dollars. Obama was right to be angry today. Nothing will come of this.

Of the course the TARP money didn’t have a clause about bonuses and other perks. I bet the stimulus bill has substantial pork and a lot will be wasted, with no repercussions. Individual Congress critters are not into the long haul and greater good. It’s all about payback and votes back home. It’s not about actually fixing the problems we are facing.

Yeah, I’m pessimistic. We haven’t hit bottom yet, and I believe it’s a long way down to it.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@mswas

Yes, and Obama is already making waves with our biggest trading partners. It doesn’t bode well.

My God! Is there panic in the streets yet?

No.

Not according to Stephen M. Ross School of Business Professor Kenneth Lieberthal.

The U.S. and China have forged solid ties over the years and Obama is “very much in the mainstream” in his approach to China. “Neither side is seeking fundamental change in the way we deal with each other,” Lieberthal noted.

He also delivered the shocking news that:

On the economic front, China has a major stake in a U.S. recovery,

and

“Building trust across the U.S.-China relationship will be important, but also potentially difficult,” Lieberthal said.

MY GOD! Potentially difficult! Run for the hills!

Should listed to our esteemed colleague mswas, or some wonky professor egghead?

eta: Oh, and the biggest trading partner of the US? Canada. Where Obama is making his first foreign visit. Where his popularity is huge.

[Sam_Stone]

His popularity in Canada is about to take a dive if he supports the Democrat’s plan to cut off Canadian steel and iron imports for infrastructure building.

[Sevastopol]

@Leaper

…
So, if this argument holds, we’ve seen something kind of unique: an action a President has taken in the first WEEK of his Presidency that not only has harmed his party, but has made it IMPOSSIBLE for him to win another term.

Anyone care to argue I’m wrong?

Machiavelli’s classic advice to princes is to execute your unpleasant duties, all at once early in your reign. So that in time they are forgotten as later deeds are overlain.

Secondly, if the bill achieves an adequate stimulus effect. Or rather, an economic stimulus occurs, the persuadable voters are likely to attribute that to the most obvious candidate.

[mswas]

Euphonious Polemic US-EU Trade War Looms

It’s not like I’m making this shit up.

[Voyager]

Leaper, could you tell me the name of a politician who lost an election because too much money from earmarks came into his district? Stevens almost won despite being a convicted felon. McCain’s viewing earmarks with alarm didn’t go over all that well, did it?

The unemployed who get some healthcare and teachers who keep their jobs (and their students) are going to be pretty happy. Whether of not it fixes the recession, it will provide directly visible benefits. That’s why people loved FDR. Plus, the polls show that people don’t expect Obama to make things better before two years.

In any case, the Republican “plan” was more tax cuts. I don’t think they get that they are getting to be a joke.

[mswas]

Voyager: The fear isn’t that Obama will be another FDR, the fear is that he’ll be another Hoover.

[Der_Trihs]

@mswas

Voyager: The fear isn’t that Obama will be another FDR, the fear is that he’ll be another Hoover.

Um. Hoover was known for refusing to do a thing to help; not for passing stimulus packages.

[jayjay]

@mswas

Voyager: The fear isn’t that Obama will be another FDR, the fear is that he’ll be another Hoover.

Our Hoover left the building on 1/20.

[Discordia]

@mswas

Voyager: The fear isn’t that Obama will be another FDR, the fear is that he’ll be another Hoover.

Didn’t Hoover ask for the opposite of Smoot-Hawley? I’d be quite happy if Obama promotes free trade, personally.

The worry is/should be idiot Democrats in congress trying to get tariffs passed.

[Ocean_Annie]

The only House Republicans left in Washington are extreme right ideologues who will not compromise and represent extremely conservative districts. It shouldn’t be surprising that they didn’t vote for the bill. These are people who oppose earned income credit because it’s wealth redistribution, a hand out to people who don’t pay income tax. This is an extremely austere position on a tax credit that lifts the working poor barley above the official poverty line. I seriously doubt House Republicans will ever support the President. The Senate Republicans want permanent tax cuts, but I don’t know if it is the Bush tax cuts, tax cuts already in the stimulus, or new tax cuts.

All the criticism is being fueled by the network of conservative policy marketing firms heavily funded by corporations.

I think caving to the Republicans on the same Bush policies is a much bigger political risk for Democrats.

[Jophiel]

@Leaper

Because Republicans in the House were totally united against it. Not even all Democrats were for it. If the same is true in the Senate (and why wouldn’t it be, considering all the wrangling that had to happen in the larger House), then the Republicans have a perfect opportunity.

Senators have much more visibility than Representatives. A couple Democratic-oriented groups are running state-wide advertisements saying “Is Senator So-and-So willing to help the economy?” and stuff which you can’t really do with Reps. I’d be very surprised if the Senate GOP managed to get everyone in line on this issue.

If there’s ANY waste that happens as a result of the bill, if all its effects don’t go off immediately, perfectly, and 100% positively, they will be able to paint the (inevitable, IMO, no matter how carefully wrought and planned) negative effects, no matter how large or small, as all Obama’s and the Democrats’ fault.

Conversely, if the economy is better in 2010, the Democrats can say “Good thing you had a strong Democratic majority to pass this bill which saved the economy while the Republicans were too busy staking out political ground to care about the working man. Maybe we should have an even stronger majority…”

In fact, I’d suggest that the Democrats have a stronger position here than the Republicans. For one thing, it’s likely that the recession will soften on its own by 2010 (to hear some people talk about it). For another, “better” can mean anything from massive job creation and streets paved with gold to simply stemming the rate of job loss and raising some consumer confidence. Anything, so long as the average voter feels better in 2010 than they do now. The GOP needs for things to seriously suck in 2010 to be able to make their point. There was a recent CBS/NYT poll suggesting that most people expect things to get better under the new administration but also don’t expect to see significant results for 1-2 years. If the GOP is hoping to fly the “How come it’s not all fixed?” flag in October, I think they’re miscalculating the results. If they’re waiting until 2010, things may likely be better with or without them.

[mswas]

Jophiel You hit the nail on the head, the recession will clear itself up UNLESS there are back and forth trade disputes.