Obama listened to the GOP’s criticisms of, and suggestions for, his economic stimulus plan, and included the title of this post as one of his rebuttals.  The Kos Krowd krows about it, but Moe Lane at Redstate takes Obama up on that offer.

So, it’s all yours. Your responsibility, your obligation, your reputation on the line. Not ours: yours.

Because, after all, you won.

Indeed, Obama won, and he can have it any way he wants.  Elections, as the GOP noted during its time, mean things.  But this quip, just days after being seated in the Oval Office, makes it sound like that vaunted bipartisanship that Democrats always say they want is not so highly valued by the Democratic President. 

I know he’ll take credit where credit is due, but will he take the blame where it’s due?  All the blame?  Hey, he won.

From Chuck Asay:

For the record, I disagreed with Cheney’s remark, and I disagree with Obama’s solution.  Putting the country in massive debt now and kicking the can down the road is completely wrong.

The plunging oil prices over the past few months have brought to light a failing of socialism that Hugo Chavez is now having to deal with.  When he was awash in oil revenues, he could afford to give it away and pretend that his utopia was working, and the inefficiencies could be smoothed over.  However, reality set in, and he had his hat in hand, returning to the evil capitalists for what might be called a bailout.

President Hugo Chávez, buffeted by falling oil prices that threaten to damage his efforts to establish a Socialist-inspired state, is quietly courting Western oil companies once again.

Until recently, Chávez had pushed foreign oil companies here into a corner by nationalizing their oil fields, raiding their offices with tax authorities and imposing a series of royalties increases.

But faced with the plunge in prices and a decline in domestic production, senior officials here have begun soliciting bids from some of the largest Western oil companies in recent weeks — including Chevron, Royal Dutch/Shell and Total of France — promising them access to some of the world’s largest petroleum reserves, according to energy executives and industry consultants here.

It’s like that whole idea of government control isn’t working out for them.  Odd, that.

As we approach the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, many postmortems will be written to explain how horrible or wonderful the President performed depending on point of view. No doubt many liberals will be quick to proclaim Bush as the worst president ever. But he did in fact have many achievements.

I believe that history is likely to judge him far more kindly as time passes. President Bush’s lasting legacy will be the War on Terror. His response to the 9/11 attacks reset forever our approach to terrorism. Unless President-elect Barack Obama totally dismantles the anti-terrorism measures adopted under President Bush (and I don’t think he will), President Bush will long be remembered as the President who forever changed America’s approach to terrorism.

But there are those critics of President Bush who will bring up the economy as evidence of malfeasance on the part of the outgoing President. A couple of factors to consider: (1) the foundation for the economic collapse was laid back during President Clinton’s time in office when regulations restricting lending practices at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and (2) the financial crisis occurred so late in President Bush’s term that there was not time for him to see the crisis to a conclusion.

Come January 20th, the economy will be Obama’s problem. It will be the issue most likely to dominate his presidency much as the Great Depression did for most of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s time in office. The best way that President-elect Obama can succeed is to realize first that blaming President Bush will get him nowhere.

Mr. Obama has stated on several occassions that FDR has been a role model for him as he prepares for the presidency. He would do well to remember that Roosevelt’s economic policies did more to prolong the Great Depression that to relieve it. Unfortunately for him, Democrats have never met a government program that they didn’t like. Unless Mr. Obama can demonstrate a willingness to stand up to his party and try to relieve the economy through other means besides more spending we may be in for tough economic times for many years to come. That will  be the legacy that will dog President Obama, not President Bush.

I had an interesting notion today regarding the world economic crises. Right now, the government is thinking, that for stimulus large amounts of credit should be injected into the economy.

I once read that years ago, an economic study showed large companies would make more money if they increased wages. Those companies for which that would work were large enough that by them increasing their wages, then to compete for workers other similar companies and even those in other industries would be forced to follow suit. As a consequence enough people would have spending money to buy more of their product, which ultimately would result in large profits than they would arrive at if they cut wages as aggressively as they could.

It is also true that national fuel economies are affected most by raising the economies of those (alas large) number of cars with poor gas efficiency first.

Putting those two notions together, perhaps the best thing to do would be to encourage those corporations hiring overseas labor to raise the wages they pay them. Chinese and Indian workers can get as little as $2 per diem in wages. Raise that to $2 per hour and … you’ll soon have a large number of people with disposable income … needing goods … needing automation … fueling a global economy.

With regarding the current financial crises has the following connection been made anywhere?

• Many American’s operate close to the edge of their liquidity, spending money on “things” at about the same rate it comes in.
• Gas prices doubled in a short period of time, coming to a maximum shortly before the crises.
• Our economy is called rightly petroleum based.
• Our behavior didn’t markedly change quickly when prices doubled.
• Then the credit markets collapsed.

It is hard to adjust habits, spending and activities rapidly to match rapidly fluctuating commodity prices. When that commodity is oil, which is so fundemental to every one of our activities. That could spell trouble.

Is it too simplistic to account for the current market problems to the inability of that same market to adjust quickly to fluctuations in cost of its fundamental commodity? If not, why isn’t this being noted? Or more to the point, what’s wrong with my logic above? And if it isn’t wrong, who else is suggesting it.

Yes YOU, if you opposed the auto maker bailout, want the economy to fail.  YOU are a reckless ideologue.  YOU don’t want to solve problems.  YOU want the US to suck up a Depression.  YOU are extraordinarily irresponsible.

So says Harry Reid and the Left side of the blogosphere.  If you want fiscal responsibility out of our government, you’re irresponsible. 

And in January, this line of thinking will hold even more sway in Washington, DC.  Hold on to your wallets, ladies and gentlemen.  It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

From Mike Lester (click for larger version):

Thanks to Senate Republicans, the auto bailout didn’t happen.  For now.  The UAW, et. al. may just be biding their time until there are more Democrats in the Senate (i.e. January).  More analysis (and specific credit to Sen. Bob Corker) from Francis Cianfrocca at RedState.

When gas prices were quite a bit north of $4, Democrats blamed Bush’s policies.  Now that they’re down to $1.50, do they give him the credit?

Cue crickets.

Here’s another one; when the dollar was tanking against foreign currency, it was blamed on Bush.  But in the past 6 months, as Don Surber notes, the dollar has rallied against many currencies.  Credit where credit is due?

Keep the crickets handy.

In fact, neither of these events may be directly related to Bush policies, but if you’re going to blame him when things go bad, you should be at least intellectually honest when things go well. 

Unless everything is partisan, no matter what it is. 

A few links covering much of the non-change the Obama administration is giving us.

* The Audacity of Patience on RedState, noting status quo in cabinet appointments, the Bush tax cuts, but mostly the closing (or not) of Gitmo.

* The Washington Times:  "Don’t ask, don’t tell"?  Don’t hold your breath.

* The New York Times (yes, that New York Times):  Reality rears its ugly head regarding Iraqi forces.  I like this line:

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Yes, I’m sure that’s the catchy way he said it in all his speeches.

That what the NY Times seems to think.  In today’s editorial (hat tip NewsBusters), we find this sentiment.

Experts say that Detroit’s automakers could achieve 43 m.p.g. by then even without technological breakthroughs. If the companies were willing to make smaller cars, they could achieve 50 m.p.g. Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date.

Eight years ago, my family exceeded what I called "critical mass"; we no longer all fit in a sedan, legally or comfortably.  So now when we drive about 1,000 miles to visit my folks or even the 10 miles to visit my wife’s, we should drive 2 sedans?  That’s more economical and green…how, exactly?

From Chuck Asay.  Click for full-size version.

On major things like global warming and the economy, expert opinions are good to have, but if we jump to conclusions too soon we may not have the whole story.  And predicting the future has been notoriously difficult, even for the experts.

The trouble with new financial crises is that they provide pretexts for implementing old social agendas. As the president-elect’s new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said recently, “never allow a crisis to go to waste.”

Consider President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which President-elect Barack Obama invokes when he talks of “a defining moment.” Like Obama today, FDR was inaugurated into trouble. He wisely addressed the financial crisis through the steps that we learned about in school. He signed deposit insurance into law, reassuring savers. He created the Securities and Exchange Commission, making the stock market more transparent and consistent. He soothed our grandparents via his radio Fireside Chats. This was the FDR we love.

But FDR also used the crisis mood to push through an unprecedented program of reforms that progressives had been hoping to put in place for years. Sen. George Norris of Nebraska, for example, had for decades argued that utilities should be in the public, not the private, sector. As far back as the early ’20s, Norris wanted to build a big power project on Tennessee River. He wanted the government – and not the Ford Motor Company, which was drawing up such plans – to be in charge. FDR made Norris’ progressive dream a reality by creating the publicly owned Tennessee Valley Authority. Washington won out, but it wasn’t clear its power served the South down the decades.

From Chuck Asay: