Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The “New Normal”

14 Comments

Jimmie Pethokoukis isn’t buying it:

…the president’s a recent convert to this religion of low expectations. He certainly didn’t buy it when he took office. Back then, he predicted a quick and powerful economic rebound — if only lawmakers implemented his policies, such as the $800 billion stimulus. Which Congress, then with strong Democratic majorities, quickly did.

In 2009, for instance, the White House said the economy would be growing at a brisk 4.3 percent annual clip this year, with unemployment down to 5.6 percent. Indeed, Obama’s top economists predicted we’d be smack in the middle of a fat streak of high-growth years: 4.3 percent in 2011, followed by 4.3 percent growth in 2012 and 2013, too. And 2014? 4 percent growth.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton would have nothing on Obama, these predictions suggested. Back then, Team Obama scoffed at the dismal New Normal faith.

Yet we’re still waiting on the boom that they promised. Now they’re evangelizing for “the New Normal” — and hoping enough voters buy the excuse.

It’s almost as though they don’t know WTF they’re doing.

14 thoughts on “The “New Normal””

  1. Well, I do remember a commencement speech he gave early in his term where he told kids to aim low and look for crappy jobs.

  2. It’s almost as though they don’t know WTF they’re doing.

    On that subject, here’s a synopsis of an e-book on conflicts inside the campaign.

    Obama really doesn’t like, admire or even grudgingly respect Romney. It’s a level of contempt, say aides, he doesn’t even feel for the conservative, combative House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the Hill Republican he disliked the most. “There was a baseline of respect for John McCain. The president always thought he was an honorable man and a war hero,” a longtime Obama adviser said. “That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no goddamned war hero.”

    Hope Mitt can use that, maybe in the debates.

    [Romney]”I promise you in my first 100 days as president, I will undue the devestating cuts, demoralizing decisions and overall disrespect this presidency has shown our nations military.”

    [Obama] [head explodes]

    1. Or, “I promise that in my first week, I’ll systematically review and cancel the overwhelming majority of executive orders issued by the current administration. I’ll also start a process to freeze new government regulations written by the bureaucracies and roll back as many of those issued in the past 4 years as possible. In addition, I’ll also ensure that all references to Obama are purged from WhiteHouse.gov and State Department websites. The current display of monumental narcissism is both nauseating and a disgrace.”

      1. I really hope someone from the Romney team reads this blog post. These are both great suggestions for the debate. After all, Obama doesn’t seem to possess the Debbie Wasserman Schultz robot mode which goes on and on repeating discredited talking points, even when challenged. Instead, he is more likely to go off script and say dangerously stupid or at least unwittingly revealing things.

    2. undue the devestating cuts

      What cuts? The defense budget has increased every year Obama’s been in office.

      And since when does the president get to set the defense budget?

      1. What budget? Has the Democrat controlled Congress passed a budget during the Obama presidency? I’m thinking the President has a lot of control over the money in the face of the Congressional collapse……

        1. I’m thinking the President has a lot of control over the money in the face of the Congressional collapse

          And Romney’s going to get to specify the defense budget in his first 100 days? That isn’t how it works.

          1. If we get rid of Democrat control of the Senate, then maybe they’ll actually do their jobs and pass a budget. Under Reid, there hasn’t been a budget passed for over 3 years, an almost criminal irresponsibility.

          2. an almost criminal irresponsibility

            If they’d passed a budget it would have been DOA in the House, just as the House budget was DOA in the Senate. What’s so critically important about going through the motions of passing something that’s never going to result in a budget that can be sent to the White House?

            The voters gave us a deadlocked Congress. If they don’t like it, they can fix it.

          3. Why not? It might not be “legal” but that’s not spelled out. That Congress has to pass a budget every year is spelled out, but the illegality of that hasn’t slowed them down. Or perhaps you are pushing the same old double standard, where Democrats can break the law with impunity, and Republicans fry for following the Law, like poor Senator Stevens…..

          4. If they’d passed a budget it would have been DOA in the House, just as the House budget was DOA in the Senate.

            The Democrats in the Senate made no attempt to compromise. It was their way or the highway. That’s failure on a massive scale to do their jobs. Harry Reid wouldn’t even let the House budget get a vote, so he’s not only a miserable excuse for a human being (re: his Romney tax lies), but he’s a failure as Senate leader.

            That you excuse this from Democrats is disgusting.

          5. If they’d passed a budget it would have been DOA in the House, just as the House budget was DOA in the Senate. What’s so critically important about going through the motions of passing something that’s never going to result in a budget that can be sent to the White House?

            Jim, here’s a basic civics lesson, which you seem to need, having apparently been deprived of a basic education.

            Budget bills are passed in the House. Then another one is passed in the Senate. They meet in a conference committee, in which they come up with a compromise budget that is then voted on by both houses, which is then signed by the president.

            That’s how the Constitution lays out the procedure. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Senate can not produce a budget because it thinks that it will not result in an eventual bill. If it fails to do so, and particularly if it fails to do so on years on end, even when its own party controls the other chamber, it is failing in its Constitutional responsibility.

            Is this really so hard?

            Or is it the case only if one is a Democrat, with his nose, or entire head, up Harry Reid’s ass?

          6. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Senate can not produce a budget

            What an odd phrasing. You seem to be saying that the Constitution requires the Senate to produce a budget. It does not.

            The House and Senate are free to pass budgets, or not. If they don’t, and the public doesn’t mind the results, what’s the harm? If the public does mind the results, they can elect a new Congress.

            It isn’t as if we don’t have a de-facto budget; money is still appropriated and spent. And Congress has passed budgetary measures all through this period. The fixation on a DOA Senate-passed budget bill has nothing to do with governance or policy; it’s just sour grapes on the part of the GOP that they don’t have more fodder for political ads.

Comments are closed.