President-elect Obama made his strongest pitch yet Thursday for a huge stimulus package to jump-start the economy. Some critics said he was still being too general -- they wanted more details on spending priorities and what they would cost.
Filling in the specifics of his plan will come soon enough after he's sworn into office and sends his proposals to Congress. Leaders say it will be acted on by early February.
The details he did get into in his speech were about what awful shape the economy is in: "a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime, a crisis that has only deepened over the last few weeks." And then he went on to list all the bad economic news that's been reported in recent months and suggested there may be worse to come with unemployment possibly reaching double digits.
"We could lose a generation of potential and promise as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future."
To be sure, he went on to say his stimulus package was the best bet at averting further disasters, but even then he didn't speak with a lot of certainty that it would work.
Obama's tone was more reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's "malaise" talk than FDR's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" speech, or Ronald Reagan's always-confident optimism in the depths of the early 1980s recession.
Obama could use some of Reagan's optimism; it could build confidence in his plan.
Recall that The New York Times and others in the mainstream media beat up on George W. Bush shortly after he became president for his complaining about "the Clinton recession." Talking down the economy, said his media critics, contributed to the downturn by undermining consumer confidence and the public's hopes for recovery.
The same could be said now about Obama's words concerning the economy. He need not be pollyanna, but a positive word here or there could assure folks he's certain the future will be better than the past. If he doesn't believe this, why should we?
What Americans don't need are constant reminders of current woes and the cultivating of low expectations that things will soon get any better.
In short, a little less Carter-speak and a little more Reagan-speak would serve Obama and the people well. Americans built this nation on energy and optimism. That's what they need to hear from their new president.
Comments
A large part of the problem is the constant hearing and viewing of the fact that problems exsist. Our leaders must be forthright but also need to build confidence and keep things within perspective. The media is good enough at using the chicken little method of "the sky is falling" no matter what the conversation is.
Just ask Hannity. He says the economy is just fine. (He leaves out the-for him part).
Optimism, pessimism; I'd much rather hear ALL folks speak the language of realism. Sour milk and the smell of roses are both somewhat nauseating after time. GGpap.
I'm tellin' ya, you all didn't like the Bush economic plan in his last days, but Obama's economic plan is more of the same only on steriods.
Politicians talk trash in a way that wins them votes from their base. That's how they stay in office. The reason Obama sounds like Carter is that he's a radical version of Carter. Luckily, Congress is made up of a large group of ego-freaks that have no intention of allowing him much power. Stand by for some scary executive orders.
True leaders lead. They don't whine and start making excuses for themselves before starting to work. We need someone with real solutions and spending trillions we ain't got is not a solution. I didn't agree when President Bush did it & I won't agree when President Obama does it. Notice how slick he is about preparing all of his followers that he will not be keeping his campaign promises. Just be honest and have a plan. That's all we ask.
The Washington Post reports today that during the last 8 years, the economy has been the worst in generations. Plural. Job creation, at 2%, was the worst in 70 years. Obama is preparing us for the hard road ahead. And may I ask why the AC chooses to use the term "trash talking"? It doesn't begin to apply to Obama's careful and eloquent speech; moreover, it has racist undertones. I guess the AC editorial folks feel more comfortable picturing our president on the basketball court than in the White House.
AC editorials are the worst. Spewing words that are not only ignorant, but harmful. Preparing us for the long road to economic recovery is not "trash talking", but responsible. This paper is my local paper, but it is possibly the worst piece of journalism that I have ever been exposed to.
It's nice to know that our next President who acts with maturity and responsibility and is not just someone you'd like to have a beer with. Give me substance over form any day.
It seems that almost daily and in several sections of the Chronicle, all we get is "gloom and doom!" Of course it is usually an "Associated Press" story (not a local writer) that is credited with the stories. Can't the Chronicle either get a new source for their National News or at least "edit" the AP stories so that they are more balanced and not just left wing ideology and propaganda? No wonder people don't have faith in the economy or the Chronicle. Could this be the reason that advertisers and readers are leaving your paper in droves?
MidwesternTransplant is setting the standard. We had all better get used to it. Beginning next Tuesday, ANY and ALL criticism of any facet of the Obama administration will have, as Transplant puts it, "racist undertones." How convenient. No one will have to defend on the merits any argument, because all arguments are racist, including confiscation of wealth and property.
President Reagan told people what they want to hear. Of course people loved him. Obama, on the other hand, is speaking words of truth and soberness. Yet, the Bible says that the truth shall make you free. If you lack interest in the truth, who needs a newspaper?
TechLover, just when did you hear Hannity say the economy was "just fine". I listen to him and haven't heard anything like that. More of your BS?
Midwest, which revisionist history book is the Washington Poop writers are reading? The facts don't support that BS, as Bush lead us OUT of a recession, had the lowest unemployment rate in recent history (4%), and a steady growth in GDP UNTIL the DIMs took control of Congress two years ago. Since '06, our economy is in the toilet, unemployment up to 7% and climbing, and the DIM Congress passed a stimulas bill (including welfare payments called tax rebates to those not paying taxes) that didn't stimulate chit and then give $Bs to Wall Street with no strings attached, again not accomplishing any type of economic growth with more of the same coming. But yeah, it's been all Bush's fault.
Reagan spoke in positive terms and pulled us out of Carter's stagflation, got or people freed by Iran, and crushed the USSR while the MSM and Obama have nothing positive to say concerning the economy or anything else other than "change" that ain't changed anything. RCR, if there is any "racial undertones", it is in your post (as usual).
I guess Bush's optimism is why he is handing over the reigns with an economy in tank... I think the AC Editorial Staff needs to understand the difference between someone being honest and "trash talk"...Or perhaps they are the type of people who can't handle the truth....
grouse, weren't those the exact same quotes used to describe the last Dem president?
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
