« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Happy Obama ‘one-term proposition’ day

By: Dan Spencer (Diary)  |  February 2nd, 2012 at 06:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” – President Barack Obama on NBC’s “Today,” February 2, 2009:

Three years ago today, President Obama appeared on NBC’s “Today show and and made his infamous “one-term proposition” prediction:

“I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. … A year from now, I think people are gonna see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still gonna be some pain out there. If I don’t this done in three years, then there’s gonna be a one-term proposition.”

I feel the pain, but I don’t see any progress. How about you? Even Obama admits that we are not better off than we were four years ago — inviting comparisons to the malaise of Jimmy Carter’s failed presidency.

It’s time to revisit the devastating video put together by the good folks at Minnesota Majority. The video uses Obama’s own metrics to assess his presidency. You can watch “Obama Presidency by the numbers” here.

The more people are exposed to Reagan’s “are you better off” question to Carter, the more the belief that Obama will also be a one-term president is reinforced.

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • daveoconnor

    I trust you will correct that.
    Great post and a good antidote to the reams of verbal wimpery about our presumptive nominee and “the poor”.

    • Dan Spencer

      Thank you. The links have been linked.

  • btpull

    Taking money from one person to give to another does Not create economic growth.

  • michaelbowler

    He meant that he thought he’d be voted out. He obviously believes the measures he took would work…most people who subscribe to Keynesian theory do believe that government spending is a win-win proposition. Like alcoholics and other insane people, the facts never seem to dissuade them from their belief that it’s all OK, just a little more and we’ll get there. You can’t reason with them, they cling to a belief that has been proven wrong by countless examples, yet refuse to see the parallels.

    With Romney as the probable nominee, because the base has been suckered to believe the milquetoast loser is the savior that will bring independent voters to the polls with an “R” in their hearts, we will have four more of the uber-Keynesian economics and statist attacks on our rights from Obama.

    Just think, we could be getting statist attacks on our rights from a republican liberal instead…how cool would that be?

    • Death_of_the_Donkey

      Let us not forget that Reagan also ran huge deficits and tripled the national debt during his tenure and yet I seem to remember I pretty robust economy back then.

      • johnt

        Do you remember the tax cuts, do you remember that deficits as a % of GDP actually fell, do you remember that deficits went up $1,8 trillion under Reagan, but over eight years, count them Eight. Do you remember the massive build up in defense that occurred under Reagan, and had to occur, how about the prosperity, are you comparing the Reagan years with the garbage in the WH now?
        And do you compare roughly five $ trillion in debt increase in three years with nothing, 0, zero, to show for it, to Reagan?
        And are you defending these current deficits? Your last sentence doesn’t leave you much wiggle room donkey If the Reagan deficits were huge, what are the Obama deficits?

        • Death_of_the_Donkey

          I wasn’t criticizing Reagan, I was criticizing the idea that a) what Reagan did wasn’t Keynesian and b) that deficits are automatically bad for the economy.

          Second, you do know what inflation is right? a $1 from 1983 isn’t the same as a dollar in 2012, so comparing nominal dollars is pointless. Also, we must take into account that Reagan ran these deficits with an incredibly robust economy not the Japanesque situation we are in now.

          • johnt

            of GNP fell, as in went down, in the Reagan years. meaning that inflationary impact has already been allowed for, is built into the statement made in & for any comparisons made today. Nobody is comparing dollars therefore, which leaves you with the utterly worthless deficit, vote buying, spending of today. “Pointless”!
            To assert that Reagan was Keynesian is fantasy. He didn’t rely on printing money, whatever your twists and turns, Obama & Bernake have, would you wish to compare resuts?
            Though you attempt to make comparisons, yet you ignore results, odd. I assume they still count. As a conservative, or someone who purports to be one, i should think they matter. How do ecnonmkies compare?
            I point out to you tax cuts, reduced deficits[ do go back and this time read my post] and the rearming of america after Carter, { all those plans on all those “drawing boards}.
            Nowhere do you address the ugly comparison of the trash Obama to Reagan, are you pathetic enough to either deny the obvious or evade your intentions.
            My points in the intitial response remain evaded, you might try & start with the Obama/democrat deficits. Failing that. please be civil enough to not waste my time. If not, see you tomorrow.
            And yes, you were criticizing Reagan. Come on, comparing him to Obama? But then you proably didn’t know what you were saying.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            The deficit as a % of GDP went from roughly 2.5% the year he took office to nearly 6% by 1983 and then stayed at 5% until the 1986 tax reform, when it climbed to 3% of GDP. And let us also not forget that Reagan was able to rely on the hiked social security tax revenues (which were bringing in substantial surpluses) to offset his deficits (ie they would have been much worse without taking social security money).

            Second, defense spending on a deficit is still Keynesian and so are deficit funded tax cuts. All Keynes argued for was deficit spending to juice a stagnant economy (he assumed governments would run balanced budgets during expansions).

            Third, while we have a serious deficit problem today, much of it will go away with economic recovery. We must address structural issue like entitlements for the elderly/retired, but much of the rest goes away with employment.

            Also, since there is no inflation (it is lower now than during Reagan), all your money printing complaints sound to me like is a Paul supporter’s rants.

            As for results, of course the Reagan economy was far superior. However, these recessions are not comparable and neither are the economic recoveries. Reagan’s was a typical recession caused by fed tightening and as soon as Volcker loosened up on rates, the economy recovered. This recession is a credit crisis much more akin the the Great Depression or the Panic of 1907 and thus there is no easy solution to renewing growth. Also note that in the Reagan recovery, something like a million manufacturing jobs and another million construction jobs were created in the first 18 months of the recovery. Now, all those manufacutring jobs are either in China or automated and obviously the housing disaster is preventing any sort of construction recovery.

          • johnt

            And to say that defense spending is Keynsian is to describe such spending as predating the man and the theory. If that is keynsian than anything government spends is as well. But if you claim anything and everything as keynsian then the term and the policy mean nothing. It is quite plain that deficts have not accomplished anything, despite running in the trillions and for three years. So the juice as you call it has had no effect, zero. And you expect me to continue with you? There are these things called proof & reality, learn to live with them.
            In the meantime, keep your fingers crossed, while watching your favored policies continue to fail. I’d advise you not to hold your breath.

  • ombd

    Seems Obama makes lots of promises over and over that never come close to fruition. Perfect timing for Groundhog Day. And if history is any guide, this Administration and Democrats in general are once again falling into the trap of greatly overestimating their chances for success in November ? www.ombudizen.com

  • http://www.firstchevalier.com Mark Malcolm

    and sees his shadow does that mean we will have four more years of winter?