Obama: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president”

by Ben Hoffman

Barack Obama told ABC’s World News anchor Diane Sawyer that he’d “rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Source

Let’s take a look at Obama’s first year accomplishments.

After some two trillion dollars in bailouts including the 700 billion dollar TARP giveaway, there has yet to be any real banking regulation put in place to prevent another collapse. Obama should have immediately pushed for the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed in the late 90s. Its repeal allowed banks to become high-stakes gamblers.

There were numerous laws broken by the Bush administration, yet there has been no action taken. Obama claimed he didn’t want to look back. Well, we are a country of laws and criminals need to be prosecuted.

The push to get the costs of health insurance reform down was a noble cause, but the current bill being considered will do little to reduce costs and is really just a giant giveaway to the insurance industry. All the work trying to get a few Republicans on board was a waste of time and ruined any chance for real reform. Republicans have no desire to reform the health insurance industry. Their only objective is to bring down the Obama administration, just like they did with Clinton.

The “too big to fail” corporations that were bailed out have gotten even bigger. They are reaping record profits while the rest of the country suffers. There needs to be some trust busting going on to break up these banking giants.

There has yet to be any election reform, which is desperately needed to assure honest elections. Now, with the recent SCOTUS right-wing activist judges’ ruling, our democracy is in even greater peril.

And where’s the leadership we thought we were getting? The general public responds to rhetoric. Ronald Reagan was one of our worst presidents, but because of his powerful speaking skills, people consider him to be a great president. He was a horrible president but a great orator.

So far, Obama has been a very mediocre president. I guess he’s shooting for a second term.

Advertisements
Tags:

20 Comments to “Obama: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president””

  1. ” “rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” ”

    I hope our President gets his wish.

    • “mediocre”! that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard today, besides the the laughable statement: Bush’s administration broke laws … like Obama and his Chicago thugs don’t … DAILY! You can bet he’s gonna get his wish concerning the ‘one-term’.

  2. Or as Charles Krauthammer put it, “There is a third option. He could be a really mediocre 1-term president”

  3. I said this before. He had way too much praise before he did anything. He would have been smart to tamp down the applause and lower expectations. That also means turning down the Nobel Peace Prize. He thought when he bailed out the banks and signed the porkulus bill, the economy was fixed and he could just go on with his pet projects.

    If he had had half a brain he would have fixed the economy, and secured the airports, first. After that he could have walked on water and gotten all he wanted.

  4. Mr. Hoffman,

    Are you happy with Obama’s deficits? Don’t you think it is time to shut down the printing presses before our dollar is worthless ? I know other liberals who are college students and voted for Obama, and are finally getting really scared for their future.

    • [I know other liberals who are college students and voted for Obama, and are finally getting really scared for their future.]

      They should be scared. I’m scared for the future of our country, but now is not the time to cut spending. Deficits during an economic downturn are somewhat justified when the government tries to stimulate the economy.

      What they should do is roll back the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Those reckless tax cuts are what created the huge deficits in the first place and doing that would have little to no negative impact on our economy.

  5. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” What they should do is roll back the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Those reckless tax cuts are what created the huge deficits in the first place and doing that would have little to no negative impact on our economy. ”

    Got any figurrs to go with your so called fax ??

  6. Mr. Hoffman,

    A totally worthless graph. No relevant data at all. Now if you had a graph with tax receipts and government expenditures, that might impress me.

    But, I feel bad for you. You worked hard digging up this picture with it’s pretty colors, so I have to find something useful in it. You will notice that during the Clinton Presidency the lowest part of the debt occurred after the Bill Clinton tax cut of 1997.

    I could also go into Clinton’s successful passing of NAFTA in 1993 and it’s positive affects over his two terms, but we are speaking taxes right now.

  7. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” Those reckless tax cuts are what created the huge deficits in the first place and doing that would have little to no negative impact on our economy. ”

    You know I have brought up the budgetary situations in California and New York State, where they have followed your philosophy of taxing the rich. You never answer me on this. Yerr not scared R you ?

    Anyhoo I have another example where your tax and spend ways have ruined a State. That would be New Jersey.

    http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/02/nj_loses_70b_in_wealth_over_fo.html

    Care to comment or are you chicken ?

    • Well, your point lacks any logic. It’s just a talking point. But I’ll give a brief answer.

      California’s tax problems are twofold. It’s true that high corporate tax rates drove manufacturing jobs out of California and to other states with lower taxes. They also went where labor laws are more lax.

      On the other hand, California has a cap on property taxes and all taxes increases require a 2/3 vote in Congress, so they have no way to deal with their massive deficits.

  8. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” Well, your point lacks any logic. It’s just a talking point. But I’ll give a brief answer. ”

    I give a real world example to illustrate my idea and you say it lacks logic. Then you call it a talking point. You are being unfair and closed minded. However, you did give me an answer, for which I am grateful.

    ” California’s tax problems are twofold. It’s true that high corporate tax rates drove manufacturing jobs out of California and to other states with lower taxes. They also went where labor laws are more lax.

    On the other hand, California has a cap on property taxes and all taxes increases require a 2/3 vote in Congress, so they have no way to deal with their massive deficits. ”

    If as you say, high Corporate taxes drove out manufacturing, logically would that have not decreased overall corporate tax revenues ? With these manufacturers out of business, would that have also not reduced payroll taxes from workers who no longer have those manufacturing jobs ?

    Now if the California local and State governments had unlimited ability to raise property taxes, would that not just drive more property tax payers out of the state the way the corporate taxes drove out the manufacturers ? Would that not lower property tax receipts the way corporate tax increases lowered corporate tax receipts ?

    Wouldn’t getting a severely bloated State and local government cost structure under control be a more sane approach ?

    Now in fairness, California elected a Republican Governor to fix it’s fiscal troubles and he has been a dismal failure because of his girlie man approach to the entrenched spending interests .

    The Democratic New Jersey Governor Corzine lost because he didn’t fix the same kind of problems. If the new Republican can’t do it either, he will be gone in 4 years, as he should.

    If your hero Obama can’t fix the fiscal problems , which as he never neglects to remind us he inherited, he will be gone in 3 years, as he should.

    • If as you say, high Corporate taxes drove out manufacturing, logically would that have not decreased overall corporate tax revenues?

      That depends on how much revenues decreased due to jobs lost compared to how much they would have decreased by cutting taxes.

      [Now if the California local and State governments had unlimited ability to raise property taxes, would that not just drive more property tax payers out of the state the way the corporate taxes drove out the manufacturers?]

      Again, it depends. People like living in California and for that reason would be willing to pay higher taxes to stay there. There is a point of equilibrium where the taxes are low enough so people don’t move but high enough so they can balance the budget.

      [Wouldn’t getting a severely bloated State and local government cost structure under control be a more sane approach?]

      People like the government programs. They just don’t like to pay for them.

      [The Democratic New Jersey Governor Corzine lost because he didn’t fix the same kind of problems. If the new Republican can’t do it either, he will be gone in 4 years, as he should.]

      Corzine cut programs to try to balance the budget, so according to your logic, he should have won in a landslide.

  9. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” That depends on how much revenues decreased due to jobs lost compared to how much they would have decreased by cutting taxes. ”

    You overuse the word depends. I did not in this argument bring in tax cuts. I merely said that tax increases would cut tax revenues by removing taxable businesses from California verses keeping tax rates stable. However, the principal is the same. Trust me, at some point California will be so screwed up that even your Bolshevik government unions will lose control. Spending will be cut.

    At that point Corporate tax rates will go down, along with other taxes. As evil Corporations and evil rich come back, guess what will happen ? The tax base will be larger. Tax revenues will start going up. Problem solv ed until another generation is born. The stupid cycle will then repeat itself.

  10. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” People like the government programs. They just don’t like to pay for them. ”

    You’re right, they want you Democrats to get others to pay for them. We Conservatives call it class warfare. Works really well for you guys doesn’t it ? Demonize the wealthy. Tell the unscrubbed masses that they deserve it. That the rich got what they have by screwing the little guy. The little guy will never rise, but Democrats will help him by screwing the rich guy back. You guys wouldn’t survive without that.

    ” Corzine cut programs to try to balance the budget, so according to your logic, he should have won in a landslide. ”

    It’s your statement, so you defend it. How much did Corzine cut ? Obviously he did not go anywhere near far enough because New Jersey taxes are still the big issue. I live in the Pocono region of Pa. We’ve been getting tax refugees from Jersey and New York forever.

  11. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” How long is forever with you? Six thousand years? 🙂 ”

    So you saw the movie “Inherit The Wind”? Bet you didn’t think us knuckle draggers would get it ? 🙂

    Forever to me is how long I’ve encountered them in my current occupation. A little over 2 decades.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: