From Monty Pelerin www.economicnoise.com
From my post on American Thinker.
For the past couple of months I have worried regarding the risks of a Failed Presidency. No one should want this, regardless of party affiliation. It is harmful and dangerous to our economy and country. However, it appears obvious to me that the royalty regime known as Obama has ended.
Seth Leibsohn summarized it this way: "This is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter years — the last time the U.S. was seen as weak — unable to move and coax other countries, unable to reassure dependent allies, unable to have the respect of the world and, of course, unable to move the mullocracy of Iran."
Even the liberal media are beginning to question the effectiveness of the President. The media, in full Camelot mode, are slow to react and often lag what the populace started to recognize months ago. Quotes like these, however, suggest they are not far behind.
The New York Times reports: "China held firm against most American demands. With China’s micro-management of Mr. Obama’s appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China’s ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama’s agenda, analysts said."
The Washington Post: "If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States' newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone. . . . Obama's trip stood in stark contrast to visits by his predecessors."
The New York Times stated that Obama was given "less respect than was given presidents Bush or Clinton."
All of the above quotes can be found in this recommended post by Seth Leibsohn. He concluded his piece: "Not a very good first year for America, or the world, under a new leadership that promised a new respect, a new start, and a new way of doing business. It's new alright — it just isn't any good."
We have a Failed Presidency that cannot be retrieved. The dream cannot be rebuilt because there was never a foundation to begin with. It was all show and no substance. Yes, it created much excitement and (false) hope. But so did Elmer Gantry and James Jones. However, the image was akin to an old Hollywood set, all facade and no depth. Now the winds of reality are slowly and inexorably tearing the facade away.
The politicians in Congress see these same signs and read the polls. At this point they are trying to decide what is least dangerous for their individual careers. For the Republicans that probably means pouring gasoline on ship Obama. For the Democrats, it is a more difficult problem. Ultimately, I believe they will abandon the rotting ship. Politicians of both parties are like rats; they are survivors. All politicians will take that course which they believe gives them the best chance for individual survival. Loyalty be damned.
Hang on, this will be a rough period ahead.
Have we ever had a successful one?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
The guy who died a month after becoming president.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
The problem is not Obama personally. He knows how to be strong. But how strong can you be when the other guy has you by the balls?
The good ole USA as a whole is broke, has no way to make more money [given the way the govt and its laws operate], and owes the Chinese something like a trillion dollars [literally!]. And the whole wide world knows all this.
As the Bible says, a beggar has no choice but to beg, and only rich people can talk tough.
Of course politicians may be shocked at seeing this reality thrown in their face by the Chinese, and resent Obama for being on the scene when the USA's disgrace was made public. And so they may indeed kill the messenger, as you point out.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
there's a President?
Monty Pelerin:For the past couple of months I have worried regarding the risks of a Failed Presidency.
Really? A good portion of the country has spent that time worrying that Obama might actually succeed: succeed in further cartelizing the medicial industry, succeed in voiding debts, succeed in capping production in the name of the enviroment, succeed in promoting unions through further government violence, succeed in paying off those who supported his campaign, succeed in crushing the people of Afghanistan, etc.
Peace
wilderness: there's a President?
Damn, I should have said that!
So Obama is weak because he doesn`t bully Iran enough? Because you have to be a real macho man to get on the case of a country you outspend on the military by a factor of 100? Run along, chickenhawk.
It's not so much Obama, it's just that America is not as strong as it used to be. The past decade has bled us white. The upcoming world will be multipolar, with China, the EU (which is quickly becoming one state, effectively), India, and possibly Brazil/Union of South American Nations and Russia, acting as regional powers.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Wanderer: It's not so much Obama, it's just that America is not as strong as it used to be. The past decade has bled us white. The upcoming world will be multipolar, with China, the EU (which is quickly becoming one state, effectively), India, and possibly Brazil/Union of South American Nations and Russia, acting as regional powers.
Can somone explain to me how the European Union has been so effective economically with all of the intervention going on over there? Also I'm not sure that the world will recover from all of this if "the final bubble" eventually breaks and global economies shatter. I can't see Russia becoming much of a power, just a sullen mlitary danger as it has been for the last 2 decades
The Late Andrew Ryan:Can somone explain to me how the European Union has been so effective economically with all of the intervention going on over there?
It hasn't. Europe's getting crushed by this recession, their natural rates of unemployment are through the roof, nations like Hungary frequently black-mail the EU. So I don't know what you're talking about.
Smiling Dave:The problem is not Obama personally.
The problem is not Obama personally.
Oi?
I disagree. I think there is a great problem, a dangerous one, even, when a man believes he has the authority to act violently against non-violent behavior, as I am certain Mr. Barack does.
Esuric: The Late Andrew Ryan:Can somone explain to me how the European Union has been so effective economically with all of the intervention going on over there? It hasn't. Europe's getting crushed by this recession, their natural rates of unemployment are through the roof, nations like Hungary frequently black-mail the EU. So I don't know what you're talking about.
Basically, yeah. Europe is getting pummeled. The only way it's surviving is because the Euro is phasing out the dollar as the international currency of choice and they get their defense paid for by America.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Wanderer: It's not so much Obama, it's just that America is not as strong as it used to be. The past decade has bled us white. The upcoming world will be multipolar, with China, the EU (which is quickly becoming one state, effectively), India, and possibly Brazil/Union of South American Nations and Russia, acting as regional powers. Can somone explain to me how the European Union has been so effective economically with all of the intervention going on over there? Also I'm not sure that the world will recover from all of this if "the final bubble" eventually breaks and global economies shatter. I can't see Russia becoming much of a power, just a sullen mlitary danger as it has been for the last 2 decades
Not sure I agree with you on Russia. It has the demographic and economic capabilities to maintain superpower status. It has a little less than 150 million people, compared to Brazil's 190 million. It's GDP is almost identical to Brazil's as well.
Another possibility is Japan, if it would get its economy in order and remilitarize. Not saying that militarism is a good thing by any means, just saying.
Daniel Waite: Smiling Dave: The problem is not Obama personally. Oi? I disagree. You are entitled to your opinion , of course I think there is a great problem, a dangerous one, even, when a man believes he has the authority to act violently against non-violent behavior, I agree as I am certain Mr. Barack does. Ah! here is where we diverge, and for two reasons. Firstly, your certainty is admirable, but on what evidence is it based? In other words, you may be certain, but i would like to know WHY. Intuition? Gut feeling? Tea leaves readings? Secondly, why do you think another person elected Pres would be any different? Reading any candidate's or president's speeches in the last 250 years, do they sound any different on that topic? We have not had any Ghandi's or Jesus's running for president lately. One other detail. My original post was about why Obama is kissing a ss to the Chinese, and I was saying that anyone else would have to do the same thing, given the mess we are in. You are talking about the other side of the coin, why Obama is personally more violent than someone else. Which may be true, but beside the point being discussed.
Smiling Dave: The problem is not Obama personally.
I disagree.
You are entitled to your opinion , of course
I think there is a great problem, a dangerous one, even, when a man believes he has the authority to act violently against non-violent behavior,
I agree
as I am certain Mr. Barack does.
Ah! here is where we diverge, and for two reasons.
Firstly, your certainty is admirable, but on what evidence is it based? In other words, you may be certain, but i would like to know WHY. Intuition? Gut feeling? Tea leaves readings?
Secondly, why do you think another person elected Pres would be any different? Reading any candidate's or president's speeches in the last 250 years, do they sound any different on that topic? We have not had any Ghandi's or Jesus's running for president lately.
One other detail. My original post was about why Obama is kissing a ss to the Chinese, and I was saying that anyone else would have to do the same thing, given the mess we are in. You are talking about the other side of the coin, why Obama is personally more violent than someone else. Which may be true, but beside the point being discussed.