My opinion - give him time, for heaven's sake! The man has been president for 59 days. Let me repeat that - 59 days. How could anyone reasonably expect such severe financial problems decades in the making to be fixed so quickly?
This March 21, 2009 editorial from the NJ Star-Ledger says it better than I can:
"Patience is not an American virtue. Quite the opposite: Impatience is counted a strength, something that pushes us to demand that even the most pressing problem be solved immediately, if not sooner.
"What's taking so long?" might serve as a national mantra.
Nowhere is this demand for an answer yesterday to today's problems more starkly evident than in complaints that President Obama still hasn't cured the worst economic collapse in almost 70 years -- and him in the White House for two whole months already.
"What's taking so long?"
Much of the griping comes from Republicans, which is as understandable as it is predictable. It's their proper role as the loyal (now and then) opposition. But much also comes from elements in business, academia and the press who've spent the past 30 years demanding the federal government keep its hands off the economy.
No longer. They want action. When do they want it? Now! The free-market fundamentalists at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page even have decided that responsibility for the economic plunge lies not at all with the Bush administration but with -- you guessed it -- Obama. And he hasn't cured it yet.
"What's taking so long?"
In truth, the impatience stems as much from the changing nature of how news is reported and received as it does from any political or ideological bias. The 24/7 drumbeat of news and opinion on cable television promotes impatience about the crisis and the need for a cure, with always the same bottom line question:
"What's taking so long?"
Seems only yesterday the president's critics were hard-wired to a see a different kind of failing -- that Obama was rushing the country into a massive, no-strings-attached bank bailout. (Actually, that began on George W. Bush's watch, but who's keeping score?)
This tendency to rush to judgment is nothing new in our politics. At the end of the 1970s, the country suffered from runaway inflation and economic stagnation, Iranian revolutionaries took our embassy employees hostage and the Soviet Union was on the march in Afghanistan. National confidence was in the pits.
Actually, the stage was set for one of the great recoveries in the country's history but, in our impatience, we never noticed.
Within a few years, the economy soared and ignited a two-decade boom; the internet era was at hand; globalism was launched, the Soviet Union collapsed and capitalism came to China.
No one would sanely predict a similarly swift rebound from our current economic misery. But there are some signs of modest improvement. Banks are lending, though cautiously. Housing construction saw a bit of an uptick last month. Even the sickly stock market has stabilized, at least for the moment.
The delay in unraveling the bank mess is a special sore spot for Obama's critics. But it took years to erect the rotting edifice of securitized subprime mortgages and exotic, little-understood derivatives (e.g. credit default swaps) that brought the banks to grief. And it will take time to calculate their value -- or lack thereof -- and the degree of help the banks will finally need.
If there's no measurable improvement in the economy by, say, the fall, it will, indeed, be Obama's economy and critics then can justifiably ask, "What's taking so long?"
Until then, however, "What's the rush?" seems more appropriate."
Thoughts? Let the opinions flow!
This March 21, 2009 editorial from the NJ Star-Ledger says it better than I can:
"Patience is not an American virtue. Quite the opposite: Impatience is counted a strength, something that pushes us to demand that even the most pressing problem be solved immediately, if not sooner.
"What's taking so long?" might serve as a national mantra.
Nowhere is this demand for an answer yesterday to today's problems more starkly evident than in complaints that President Obama still hasn't cured the worst economic collapse in almost 70 years -- and him in the White House for two whole months already.
"What's taking so long?"
Much of the griping comes from Republicans, which is as understandable as it is predictable. It's their proper role as the loyal (now and then) opposition. But much also comes from elements in business, academia and the press who've spent the past 30 years demanding the federal government keep its hands off the economy.
No longer. They want action. When do they want it? Now! The free-market fundamentalists at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page even have decided that responsibility for the economic plunge lies not at all with the Bush administration but with -- you guessed it -- Obama. And he hasn't cured it yet.
"What's taking so long?"
In truth, the impatience stems as much from the changing nature of how news is reported and received as it does from any political or ideological bias. The 24/7 drumbeat of news and opinion on cable television promotes impatience about the crisis and the need for a cure, with always the same bottom line question:
"What's taking so long?"
Seems only yesterday the president's critics were hard-wired to a see a different kind of failing -- that Obama was rushing the country into a massive, no-strings-attached bank bailout. (Actually, that began on George W. Bush's watch, but who's keeping score?)
This tendency to rush to judgment is nothing new in our politics. At the end of the 1970s, the country suffered from runaway inflation and economic stagnation, Iranian revolutionaries took our embassy employees hostage and the Soviet Union was on the march in Afghanistan. National confidence was in the pits.
Actually, the stage was set for one of the great recoveries in the country's history but, in our impatience, we never noticed.
Within a few years, the economy soared and ignited a two-decade boom; the internet era was at hand; globalism was launched, the Soviet Union collapsed and capitalism came to China.
No one would sanely predict a similarly swift rebound from our current economic misery. But there are some signs of modest improvement. Banks are lending, though cautiously. Housing construction saw a bit of an uptick last month. Even the sickly stock market has stabilized, at least for the moment.
The delay in unraveling the bank mess is a special sore spot for Obama's critics. But it took years to erect the rotting edifice of securitized subprime mortgages and exotic, little-understood derivatives (e.g. credit default swaps) that brought the banks to grief. And it will take time to calculate their value -- or lack thereof -- and the degree of help the banks will finally need.
If there's no measurable improvement in the economy by, say, the fall, it will, indeed, be Obama's economy and critics then can justifiably ask, "What's taking so long?"
Until then, however, "What's the rush?" seems more appropriate."
Thoughts? Let the opinions flow!
Bankruptcy Wizard
Comment