The fed has manufactured zillions of dollars out of thin air and infused it in to circulation.
As a result, inflation is looming.

Obama will inevitably demand credit for the slight economic improvement which WILL occur.
Then, when inflation finally hits as a result of the infusion of zillions of dollars of printed money, Obama will be burdened with the economy as his own.

Also, many corporations and companies and small businesses have not just laid people off for the short term, they have divested capital from their enterprises---and that is a long term hurdle.
Therefore, until those corporations, companies, and small businesses not only have re-gained the capital but are confident enough in the economy to risk that capital to expand their enterprises, it will be difficult for the unemployment numbers to decrease substantially.
Also, when inflation hits, it has an impact on government revenues for obvious reasons.
And what is the Democrats' solution to that ?
Let's say it altogether now, h-i-g-h-e-r t-a-x-e-s.

Anything can happen to affect the electorate's feelings about Obamessiah between now and November 2012.
War. Peace. Famine. Golden eggs falling from the sky.
And there's always the chance that the Obamessiah will cause the oceans to stop rising, and wolves and lambs to live in harmony.

But if I had to predict today, I'd say there's a pretty good chance he's a one-termer.
The inflation and unemployment will likely be pretty high in 2012, and I can't see Obama and the Nancy Pelosi Gang of Utopia-makers in Congress actually cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth.

I want him to fail now and later....any successful liberal plan is short term gain for long term pain.

by the way, this liberal outrage at those tea baggin, swastika carrying, angry mobs is quite laughable....liberals are the masters at organized outrage...it's ok for them to do it, i guess...what a bunch of hypocrites.

by the way..alot of people protesting aren't even republicans.

The fed has manufactured zillions of dollars out of thin air and infused it in to circulation.
As a result, inflation is looming.

Obama will inevitably demand credit for the slight economic improvement which WILL occur.
Then, when inflation finally hits as a result of the infusion of zillions of dollars of printed money, Obama will be burdened with the economy as his own.

Also, many corporations and companies and small businesses have not just laid people off for the short term, they have divested capital from their enterprises---and that is a long term hurdle.
Therefore, until those corporations, companies, and small businesses not only have re-gained the capital but are confident enough in the economy to risk that capital to expand their enterprises, it will be difficult for the unemployment numbers to decrease substantially.
Also, when inflation hits, it has an impact on government revenues for obvious reasons.
And what is the Democrats' solution to that ?
Let's say it altogether now, h-i-g-h-e-r t-a-x-e-s.

Anything can happen to affect the electorate's feelings about Obamessiah between now and November 2012.
War. Peace. Famine. Golden eggs falling from the sky.
And there's always the chance that the Obamessiah will cause the oceans to stop rising, and wolves and lambs to live in harmony.

But if I had to predict today, I'd say there's a pretty good chance he's a one-termer.
The inflation and unemployment will likely be pretty high in 2012, and I can't see Obama and the Nancy Pelosi Gang of Utopia-makers in Congress actually cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth.

My above comment didn't publish the first time, so that's why I submitted it again.
Sorry for the clutter.

I'd just like to add to Larry's remarks that I find it ironic that the world's most famous "community organizer" is opposed to....the community organizing to protest his policies.

In other words, dissent is for me, but not for thee !

Only my opinion, but I think the Oklahoma City bombing had as much as anything to do with Bill Clinton re-election, along with Dole, then anything else. Plus the press could blame all the bad news on the new Republican majority.
Also, I must add, Bill Clinton did not have anything what so ever to do with the Oklahoma City bombing,but he did use it to his advantage. The first thing he did after the bombing was to blame talk radio.

Walrus, I thank God there are others out there who are mindful of the inflation threat. The Fed is starting to monetize a few trillion dollars in new debt, but hey, Helicopter Ben doesn't see a problem in winding it down afterward.

We might not see it yet because, Keynesians tell us, "Decreased aggregate demand during a recession means no upward pressure on prices." Blah, blah, blah. That just means at best, if the Keynesians are right, we won't see inflation until the recovery begins. At worst, we'll have 1970s stagflation.

When the Fed tries to "wind down" its massive holdings of Treasuries, may God be merciful to us. Does anyone know what happened the last time we needed to bring the money supply under control? We had the recession of 1981-1982, because the Fed slammed the brakes on the monetary acceleration it had been pursuing for years. Yes, it was "necessary" to stabilize the money supply, and Reagan and his advisors knew a recession was the inevitable result, but the Fed, after all, were the creators of the problem in the first place.

And what was the other time the Fed suddenly cut the money supply after inflating the balloon for several years? The late 1920s.

It's only a matter of time before it happens again, except that we're already in a recession. I really worry for this country.

"...I hope Obama's plans get everyone a job, make the stock market go up, and generally keep us safe."

Oh, K, as I said before, it's one thing to hope these happen, but I don't want his methods to succeed.

Not that Obama can actually deliver on jobs, but is it worth it for everyone to have a job, when the government denies us the freedom to pursue the jobs we want?

I suspect that the latest rally is artificial, that it's because the federal government is buying things across the board. With its control of the top banks (who have broker-dealer operations), this wouldn't be hard to do or hide.

Now on "keeping us safe," you can have all the hope you want, but it's Obama: that ain't gonna happen no-time, no-how.

"What I mean by that is I hope Obama's plans get everyone a job, make the stock market go up, and generally keep us safe. But if Obama succeeds in passing this plan, I really think he doesn't get a second term."

You can't beat a somebody with a nobody. So who is going to beat Obama? And while Obama's numbers are lower (but still above 50% in most states: http://www.gallup.com/poll/122165/Obama-Approval-Highest-D.C.-Hawaii-Vermont.aspx), I don't think the GOP is in much better shape. I have a hard time thinking Palin or Romney can beat Obama.

Perry,

Great post, as usual.

Obama and His Hope and Change Orchestra just don't get Econ 101.
I wish they'd take the time to read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics."

Obviously, it's Obama's Golden Rule to blame Bush for the economy.
However, Obama's setting a trap for himself.
Once the economy begins showing signs of life during the next several months, Obama will inevitably take public "credit" for it being a result of his administration's steering of the ship.

Once Obama does take credit for the upturn, it will (by definition) be the point where he publicly takes ownership of the economy.

Thus, afterwards, when inflation inevitably hits as a result of the zillions of dollars printed, it's Obama's economy.

I believe Milton Friedman is often credited for the succinct definition of inflation as "too many dollars chasing too few goods."
Well, since Obama does not grasp the notion of what is necessary for the supply side before it is capable of or even willing to risk the capital to increase supply, it's possible that we might see a Jimmy Carter like malaise for the next few years.

Ironically, just as the GOP midterm elections of 1994 helped Clinton get re-elected in '96 by forcing him to govern from the center---as well as enabling Clinton to have a tangible opposition (Gingrich & the GOP House)to paint as Darth Vader---it's possible that if the GOP were to take the House in 2010, that doing so would put Obama in a better position for re-election in 2012.
However, if the Dems retain both the House & Senate going into the Presidential election in 2012, the GOP has a good opportunity to campaign against Obama AND Congress as obstacles to economic growth, as well as obstacles to partisan checks and balances (not to be conflated with Constitutional checks and balances).
In such a scenario where the Dems hold the 2 houses of Congress and the White House, the Dems won't be able to campaign as the opposition party with their silly 'power to the people' slogans---because they'll be the party of power.
They'll be forced to defend the economy.

Of course, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves in precise election strategy this far away.
The polls today don't mean anything in regards to 2012.
Dick Morris famously wrote a book in 2005 entitled "Hillary VS Condi" forecasting the '08 election.
Its premise was that Condi was the only one standing between Hillary and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Therefore, for people to cry in August 2009 about the fact that we don't yet "have" a candidate to defeat the Obamessiah in 2012 is rather childish in its prematurity.

Despite some people being 'bored,' we just have to keep on fighting the Dems in their policies every step of the way, and even in situations where we don't have the numbers in Congress to stop their freight train (i.e. in the case of Sotomayor), we need to attempt to at least make it a "teachable moment" by illuminating for the American people that Obama really is politically aligned with the politics of Reverend Wright, Bill Ayres, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Saul Alinsky, and Karl Marx.