Here’s my analysis: Breezey is conflicted (kind of like Alex_Angel – whatever happened to him btw? Breeze is that you?). Deep inside he loves Obama, but he knows Obama is as clueless as W. More polished, but less experienced. Optimistic, but inept.
He hopes (like all BO supporters) his enthusiasm will catch on, but he’s put on enough cheer routines to know it won’t. So he needles us with posts likes this primarily to get a reaction.
We all know it, but humor him anyway.[/quote]
Yeah, I’ve been disappointed in Obomber so far. To me, it would have made sense politically and economically to allow all the big banks to fail fairly quickly after he took office. The Dow would likely be down another two- to three-thousand points and the economy would probably be worse now, but I think the economy and the stock market would have had a much better chance to turn around by the time Obama came up for election again in four years. This is essentially what Reagan/Volcker did at the beginning of his term and it worked out great for Reagan.
With this slow bleed approach and continual, periodic propping up of the big banks, I think both the economy and the stock market could just continue to slowly deflate for the next four years. By taking this approach, I think Obama is both risking his re-election chances and will end up causing more economic damage overall.
I have to admit that I’m baffled. Politically, it seems like it would have made sense to make a clean break from Bush on the economy. However, it appears that Obama has chosen to continue the Bush economic strategy.
