According to our resident dittohead midnoon, Barack Obama polarizes the country. Never mind that the Wall Street Journal yesterday reported,
President Barack Obama enjoys widespread backing from a frightened American public for his ambitious, front-loaded agenda, a new poll indicates.
He is more popular than ever, Americans are hopeful about his leadership, and opposition Republicans are getting drubbed in public opinion, the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests. …
Nate Silver, looking into the new poll, found a question about whom voters blame for this economy. Another alas for midnoon: while 84% say Obama inherited the disaster, only 8% say he caused it (another 6% blame him in part).
Honeymoons don’t last forever, though, and at some point Obama will own the economy in voters’ eyes. So Nate looked for when that might be. Combining the self-reporting voters’ patience
with their predictions of when the crisis will pass, Nate made this graph:
As you see, NBC/WSJ’s responders give Obama an 18-month grace period (IF their patience actually lasts as long as they predict it will) to produce some results. They expect things to improve by September 2010 — the thick of the Congressional campaign — which also happens to be when WSJ’s (historically somewhat-bullish) panel of economist-forecasters expect the recession to end. As Nate presents that comparison:
“So this seems like pretty good news for Obama,” Nate thinks.
The public has very low expectations for the economy — the average voter is more pessimistic about the economy than all but the most pessimistic economists. And it will be quite some time yet before the public pins most of the blame for the economy on Obama. …
The question is whether [the] public will in fact be as judicious as it expects itself to be after some number of additional months of dire economic headlines. On that front, I’m a bit skeptical, and I’d expect Obama’s approval rating to lose a couple of points each month until the recession ends. This is why it makes a lot of sense for Obama to be pursuing a very ambitious agenda right now. If the economy recovers within the next year or so — beating voters’ expectations — then Obama’s approval ratings will probably wind up being quite high. But until that recovery occurs, Obama’s approval ratings are likely to get worse before they get better.
For another perspective on where we sit, Kevin Drum supplies this daunting image:
Clicking to enlarge it, note that we’re just under 17 months into the current bear market, though the other three lasted anywhere from 20.7 months to 34.2 months; while the Great Bush Bear’s worst-to-date is -55.5%, the ‘29 Crash produced a -89.2% low. In other words, if we actually do give Team Obama 18 more months to get ‘er done, watch for much worse before they can (with O’s JAR continually repainted in accordance).
Now, neither Nate Silver’s, Kevin Drum’s, nor anyone else’s prediction is better than stab-in-the-dark. Still, mine is that – whatever happens — only midnoon’s diminishing cohort of nonsense-addicts will ever call Barack Obama a polarizer.
*Notice* The following is an ill-informed citizen writing about very complex issues he does not understand; therefore, this is a botched summary of the best explanation he has read to date (at least according to his ill-informed mind).
You can not reason with idealogues (of any political stripe, and that ain’t opinion); however, the issue with the current plunge (since the President took office) is that President Obama’s administration refuses to bite the bullet and forcibly restructure the firms that “we” now own. As long as the same bad assets are stuck in the system the plunge will continue, and the market will eventually remove them when these firms go under. we will all pay a high price for allowing the market to a job the government could possibly make less brutal.
Voters may give President Obama 4 years before they attach blame to him, but such fantasy will only be derived from political ideology-not fact. Refusal to accept that this administration’s inaction has caused a portion of the current mess is a luxury afforded only to those who will never believe that any of it could be attached to President Obama.
I am off to court, and you can disregard all that as hogwash if you like.
Shoot, MrS, when you get back, tell us where to find that best-explanation you’re summarizing, willya? We have inquiring minds.
After reading Black, Nocera, Krugman and others, I’m pretty worried that Geithner and Summers are leading Obama down a bad trail on the banks too.
Few minutes till court.
Lotus, it is really more of a synthesis of what I have gleaned from interviews with Roubini and market-ticker.denninger.net/ discussing the bezzle (that is market ticker discussing the bezzle and Roubini on how more firms are destined to fall this year). And everyone is entitled to throw tomatoes or say that some of that has an ideological bent, but I think it is hard to find someone who is not pushing something these days.
As for myself, I don’t lay blame completely with anyone here. We have a systemic problem that we as a whole caused through excessive living and ridiculous expectations of comfort (and credit)-but that is enough bloviating from me.
Again, dismiss at your pleasure as hogwash.
Thanks, MrS. Horrifying enough to read Roubini one and two years ago — but now that we see how right he was back then, jeez, even scarier.
That third graf is a goodie … looks like a “happiness” trend line of my starter marriage.
Who is Chaz Freeman, Jr.?
SD, he’s the guy DNI Dennis Blair picked to head the Nat’l Intell Council, and I see now that an Inspector General will look into his biz dealings with Saudi and China.
“…Inspector General will look into his biz dealings with Saudi and China.”
Sheessh, let’s not get the cart ahead of the horse with this vetting thing.
Note that Dennis Blair named him, not the WH, which didn’t get to vet him before that announcement. Betcha Mr. Blair may be learning a lesson right about now.
Wheel’s on the bus go bump bump bump…
According to our resident dittohead midnoon, Barack Obama polarizes the country.
Whenever anyone talked about how polarizing Hillary Clinton was during the Presidential primary, my response, assuming I could get one in edgewise, was that if you just wait a few months, Barack Obama (or any other Democrat) would be just as polarizing.
No!, I was inevitably told, Obama represents a new kind of politics.
I rest my case.
What relationship the stock markets, the Dow in particular, has to the economy the rest of us live in I’m not sure. I haven’t noticed as many layoffs lately. Hopefully, that’s starting to bottom out. Until it does, this thing isn’t going to get better in any real way.
Right now, I’d go with the voters, rather than the economists. The economists tend to be a cheery lot, at least the ones the WSJ likes to talk to do.
In response to the original question, I think Obama will “own the economy” perhaps much sooner than the experts and graphs in this comment project. Why? The speed at which he is adopting radical changes: huge increases in spending with the “stimulus plan” and the new “budget” (which may be toned down a notch or two it appears); health care reform that will add massive future costs; economic policies (eg cap and trade, increased taxes on energy, etc.) that will increase the costs of living and doing business in the US; and massive tax increases on income (repeal of Bush tax cuts, new tax increases, etc.). These are just a few examples of significant changes that are already passed or soon on the way. All will have consequences on the economy. While I hope that the consequences will be positive, I fear that they will not.
For instance, I just cannot see how doubling the capital gains taxes (through repeal of the Bush tax cuts) is going to do anything but cause more sell offs of stock and real estate before the new tax rates take effect. This likely selling off of stock will continue the downward spiral of the Dow, and the real estate selling will only further deflate property values (which for buyers is not a bad thing, but for those with home mortgages, it is not a good thing). And since the real estate/mortgage markets are what propelled us into this recession in the first place, such tax increases would seem to be just the opposite of what should be done. Add to this the recently proposed elimination of the home mortgage interest tax deduction for many taxpayers, and it projects to compound the problems even more.
It is still way too early to make any certain assessments of anything. The stimulus plan has not been passed long enough to even start having any significant effect (good or bad), and most everything else I mentioned above has either not yet passed Congress and been signed into law or are still in the developmental stages. There is a strong likilihood that Obama’s attempts to move so far so fast will start meeting resistance, even from the democrats in Congress (it is beginning to happen already with the budget). By the end of this year, we should know more about how long Obama’s honeymoon will last, and the timing of the economy being “owned” by Obama.
While hoping for the best, I am preparing for the worst. My gut instincts tell me that record spending and higher taxes are not going to improve our economy. It appears that we shall find out soon enough.
Certainly, from a personal level, there does not appear to be anything being done or proposed by the Obama administration that will improve my life and help me or my wife economically. If anything, it appears that higher taxes on everything will lower our disposible income, which in turn will decrease our standard of living and mean even less spending on our part to help the economy. But, I realize it is not all about me, and what is in it for me. I really don’t ask the government for much of anything from an economic standpoint, other than a fair opportunity in the pursuit of happiness . All I expect the federal government to do are to defend our country and our constitution (including our freedoms, our constitutional rights and our liberty) and to not tax me out of a chance to earn a good living. My “hope” depends not on more government in my life, but less government getting in my way.
All this bawling and wailing over a 39.6% top rate? In Reagan’s first term, it was 50%. Under Nixon, 70%. Back in FDR’s day, around 80%.
My heart just bleeds for you, afotl.
Oh, and of course that 39.6% applies only to income BEYOND $250K a year — as opposed to what some idiot reporter on ABC was trying to make people think the other day.
re: Lotus @ 15 – But if any of you want to lower your income to below $250K so you can save money, I can recommend an accountant who can git ‘er done.
Lotus, its not just the income taxes that will increase, it is all the other taxes that will increase as well.
And even if the income tax increases do not directly affect me, you or others here, it will directly affect the main folks who run small and large businesses and hire people to work — you know, those things called “jobs” that we so desparately need.
Social security taxes are going to increase. They will raise the cap on the income that is subject to the tax, and likely the rate itself in the event of any new social security plan.
Medicare taxes will increase in the event any new universal health plan is passed.
Gasoline taxes, as well as other energy taxes, are going to be increased as part of Obama’s environmental program plans. I don’t know about others, but I still need gasoline to get to work, survive and thrive. And I still need carbon based energy for my home.
Employer taxes (I am an employer) will increase — federal and state unemployment taxes, as well as Social Security and Medicare.
Corporate taxes will be increased (most who own businesses are incorporated, including many small businesses).
Capital gains taxes are scheduled to double. So, if you have to sell your home, stock holding, or other capital assets, you will pay a much larger tax on any gains.
To the extent that mortgage loan interest is no longer deductible, that change, in and of itself, will significantly raise the total taxes to be paid by many, even if no changes to the tax rates increase.
The higher and more broad the federal taxes go, the higher the overall percentage of one’s earnings goes toward the payment of total taxes (federal and state). That percentage for many is already well over 50%. At some point, this is not sustainable.
Heehee, Cuje.
You’re still breaking my heart, afotl.
OF course, I may have a solution to much of these new taxes. I may just stop voluntarily paying them. IF called out on it by the IRS, I will just claim the Timothy Geithner/Tom Daschle/Charlie Rangel “innocent mistake” exception to avoid having to pay any interest and penalties. IF it works for the head dog, it should work for little ol me. And if that fails, I will hire one of these tax firms I see advertising on tv (like Taxmasters) to settle my tax liability for pennies on the dollar. (don’t these ads make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside after you have paid all of your taxes —out the wazooo?).
Questions from the new Fox News poll:
“What do you think the nation’s economy needs more of right now — the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or the economic policies of Barack Obama?”
Answer: Obama 49%, Reagan 40%.
“Do you think asking the wealthiest Americans to pay more in taxes is a good idea because it levels the economic and social playing field, or a bad idea because it punishes hard work and success?”
Answer: Good idea 55%, Bad idea 39% — with 29% support from Republicans.
More here.
AFOTL, I’m afraid that many of those taxes that you listed do not affect the idle rich around here. Living off of a nest egg means never having to pay MCARE or SSI taxes. Dividend checks are taxed at a low 15% rate (even though most widows and orphans don’t understand that it is twice taxed money). After the Obama market crash when they have to go out to Wally World and get a job handing out carts or operating the highlighter at Sam’s Club then and only then will it begin to affect them.
One tax increase that you left out is the 6% (soon to be 11.5%) increase on the money that I give to charity. Not really sure of the rational for that one (other than “because I can”). Perhaps it was that study that showed the dems donating less than their fair share to charitable causes.
Bottom line, everyone should have a skin in the game and everyone should have to pay taxes, even if it is only a token amount. If you want to subsidise someone’s life then do it through a direct rout. Cut them a check. At least that way they know from whence it came. They can then turn around and pay taxes on that. If you allow the mind set that taxes are only for the rich then those not paying any taxes lose any sense of context of or ownership in their government as anything other than a nanny.
AFOTL @ 17 Gasoline taxes, as well as other energy taxes, are going to be increased as part of Obama’s environmental program plans.
If you’re referring to this recommendation that will cost me a dollar a tank, which adds up to maybe $50 a year. Wahhh.
Medicare taxes will increase in the event any new universal health plan is passed.
Medicare taxes are going up anyway. The people who have benefited the most from the last thirty years of tax breaks, not to mention all the other changes that have tipped the balance in favor of employers in that time, can just start paying a little more.
Ditto SSI. There’s nothing wrong with SSI, actually, but everyone seems determined to fix it, so let them pay for it.
Corporate taxes will be increased
As long as corporations are treated like people, with the additional right of not having to pay for wrongdoing, they can pay at least as much as the rest of us.
Capital gains taxes are scheduled to double.
Well, according to Silence DoGood, we’re all idle rich around here, and no one’s complaining. Most folks don’t have much in the way of stocks and bonds anyway. I was used to paying the same rate as on all my other income, and that’s what it’s going to be again. So it’s not going to bother me.
To the extent that mortgage loan interest is no longer deductible
I believe it will no longer be deductible to the same extent that a high speed train is being built between a Las Vegas brothel and Disneyland, but perhaps you have some better information?
The long and the short of all this is that the changes that you’re talking about mostly roll back all the damage, er, changes, done by the Bush Administration. All those changes brought us was a few years of tepid growth, no net growth in employment, and increased income disparity. I’ve had enough of that, thanks.
AFOTL, I’m with you, but as long as the polls’ questions consist of “would you like someone else to pay your fair share of your taxes” the answer is always going to be a resounding “Yes!” I voted for him, I knew where he was headed, but taken too far, I believe it will be a disaster in the long term for the very reasons you state.
Here ya go Cujo: http://lexingtonluxurybuilders.com/lexingtonblog/archives/165
This is just one of many articles that reference the proposed reduction and/or elimination of the home mortgage interest tax deduction as part of the new budget bill to be submitted by the Obama administration (not the current budget bill under scrutiny that Obama says he will sign but won’t accept any accountability for).
Isn’t it interesting that the party the wants to increase everyone elase’s taxes is the same party that seems to have problems following the tax laws and paying their own taxes.
AFOTL @ 25: Thanks for the link. Now that I know what to look for, here’s a quote from the WaPoo:
Charitable contributions were already pretty limited, it’s hard to think that could be much worse. The mortgage deduction limitation (it looks like it would be a limitation, at least) would apply to higher income individuals only. That may not be a good idea (it’s part of the proposed budget, BTW, not the stimulus bill, for some reason I was confused about that), but at least it’s falling on the people who can afford it the most.
As for the issue of who can’t pay their taxes, I haven’t noticed a shortage of Republicans who have trouble with that. Democratic politicians can be as slimy as their GOP counterparts, and a few are. Most of the ones who have had trouble so far are the ones I haven’t had much good to say about anyhow, for whatever that’s worth.
At least they haven’t created their own kickback scheme yet.