EconomistMom.com
…because I’m an economist and a mom–that’s why!

EconomistMom.com

David Wessel: It’s Barack Obama’s Economy Now

August 27th, 2009 . by economistmom

The Wall Street Journal’s David Wessel is right. President Obama’s been blaming the “failed policies” and “irresponsible choices” of the Bush Administration for the weak economy and record deficits. But just because they were President Bush’s mistakes doesn’t mean President Obama can’t learn from them. And he can start by not repeating them, by being “strong and powerful”–not just eloquent and inspiring.  It’s Barack Obama’s economy now.

5 Responses to “David Wessel: It’s Barack Obama’s Economy Now”

  1. comment number 1 by: csning

    Awfully convenient, given that it’s likely the next couple of years are going to be rough. Are the first two years of Reagan mean to be ‘his’ economy as well then? And the fact of the matter is that much of the debt IS directly attributable to the previous administration. The deficit blowout are the results of STRUCTURAL changes made by Bush.

  2. comment number 2 by: Jeffrey

    Of course, in government, it’s never your own fault. No matter what it is, it’s always someone else’s fault.

  3. comment number 3 by: Tony

    Wessel is right… right or wrong, Obama wanted the job, and now it’s his responsibility.

    But I don’t think things are so easy. So you want Obama to raise taxes? You do realize that would create an outrage that would make the town halls look like — oh my god, I almost typed “tea parties”, lol, but you know what I mean. They would make the town halls look tame.

    Yeah it’s Obama’s fault, but it’s also our own damn fault. First of all, we elected him (not that I think McCain would have been any better). Second of all, let’s face it, the American people just don’t want to take any pain. We won’t accept entitlement cuts, we only like spending cuts in theory but not when it means we have to sacrifice. And we sure as hell won’t take tax hikes.

    What is that Benjamin Franklin said? “A republic, if you can keep it”?

  4. comment number 4 by: Mike D.

    In the question of “whose economy is this”, a literal interpretation would be to say that the Commander-in-Chief is responsible for the game. That being said, as far as the economy itself goes, the President has little more authority over it than I myself do.

    In all total honesty, Barack Obama has been in office for about 8 months. What exactly are you looking for here? When was the last time something *GOOD* happened that quickly? In the “bad things happening quickly” column we have such Bush-era gems as the USA PATRIOT Act in a little over a month, as well as his “Warren Buffett Tax Relief Program” in a little under 3 weeks, earlier in the year.

    My point is simply: wait and see, it’s too soon to try to rate Obama’s performance comprehensively.

  5. comment number 5 by: Jason Seligman

    The old joke goes “write two letters,” and yes the first one is geting long in the tooth already. As reported here and elsewhere the other day, the issue is not whether Obama got a dealt from a bad deck (he did) but rather whether he will making things better. His offensive on the Republican health care misinformation campaign a few weeks back reminds us that he does have the capacity to make things better, but as was emphasized during the Democratic Presidential Primaries a while back, it is not just whether you CAN, but whether you WILL make the necessary changes to get our economy back on track.

    In this vein, seeing the Japaneese election results this weekend was very interesting–the US Democratic Party should take note, for even as they are closer to the LDPs historic monopoly than at any time in the recent past, a failure to facilitate meaningful structural changes in public finance could bring about a rout.

    Change of value that we can afford. Can we? More to the point–will we?