Obama’s 2nd term will be teh suck

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Worst is yet to come

Presidents’ second terms are usually not as good as the first. Obama’s 2nd term will be teh suck.

Why would I say that? I mean, there’s no way he could suck as bad in his second term as he did in his first, right?

WRONG!!!

Let’s look at history. Okay, who’s the oldest person here?

Okay, everybody put your hands down. Is there anyone here born before 1950? 1940? Oh, heck, 1900? No one?

That’s our starting point. We’ll cover all the presidents who won re-election all our lifetimes, m’kay?

Let’s see. 1900. That was William McKinley, and he was re-elected in 1900. He got shot. That sucks.

Teddy Roosevelt finished McKinley’s term, then got elected again in 1904. That’s when he proposed income taxes (this was before the 16th Amendment, remember) and inheritance taxes, both of which passed shortly after he left office, along with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Tell me that second term didn’t suck.

Woodrow Wilson was re-elected in 1914 1916. His second term included World War I and the League of Nations, forerunner to the United Nations. He implemented segregation laws in Washington (for segregation, not against). Oh, and then the whole having a stroke thing happened. That second term sucked.

Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected in 1936, and never would leave office. He finally had to go to Warm Springs, Georgia and die to get him out of the Oval Office. He made government really, really huge. He extended the Great Depression by screwing with the economy, instead of leaving it alone and letting it right itself in 18 months like it would have. World War II started in his second term, which sucked. Of course, it took his attention off screwing with the economy and expanding government, and the economy suddenly got better, but a lot of soldiers died. So, his second and third terms sucked. He died in his fourth. Which sucked.

Harry Truman, so full of promise after nuking his way to victory in World War II, won in 1948 and, within two years, we were in another war. Plus, he fired MacArthur. Truman let Commies in the government, but you can almost excuse that, since there’s not a hill of beans difference between a Commie and a Democrat. Oh, and a couple of Puerto Ricans shot at him. That sucked.

Dwight Eisenhower was re-elected in 1956 and then had heart attacks about every third day. The Soviets orbited satellites while ours blew up on the launch pad. And, Hawaii became a state, allowing their fake birth certificates to be used to put idiots in the White House. Then, there was the whole deal with taking over from the French in a little place called Vietnam. You might have heard of that. His second term sucked.

Lyndon Johnson got to keep his office job at 1600 Pennsylvania after winning the 1964 election. Remember that Vietnam thing Eisenhower got us into? Johnson doubled down. Hippies were running wild in the streets and left-wingers were blowing up college buildings and shooting people. They waited until after he left office to land on the moon, his second term sucked so bad.

Nixon was re-elected in 1972. Watergate. I don’t need to go any further, do I? His second term sucked.

Ronald Reagan’s second term had Iran-Contra, which led to a bunch of folks going to jail. He failed to get Robert Bork on the Supreme Court, and we wound up with Anthony Kennedy instead. And, a Space Shuttle blew up. Reagan’s second term kinda sucked.

Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996. He was impeached in his second term. That kinda sucked.

George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004. A year later, somebody in Georgia (not ours, the other one) threw a grenade at him. He didn’t tell the military to kick everyone’s #### and come home in his first term, and that lead to the Democrats taking over Congress in 2006. That sucked big time.

Now, you’re wondering why I left out Calvin Coolidge. Well, it turns out that Calvin Coolidge is the anomaly of this group. He kept the presidency by winning the 1924 election, and then cut taxes, reduced regulation, and the economy flourished. He’s the only president to do a great job in his second term.

So, what would happen if Barack Obama won a second term? Well, you can be damn sure he won’t cut taxes and reduce regulation, and that the economy won’t flourish.

You think his first term was bad? If even good presidents like Reagan, Bush, Truman, and Eisenhower can screw up their second term, what do you think a born screw-up like Barack Obama will do?

Don’t even want to think about it.

http://www.imao.us/index.php/2012/08/worst-is-yet-to-come/

Makes you think, don't it? Well, if you are a liberal, I guess not. And if you are a pot smoker, you can put your hand down now.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Makes you think, don't it?

Makes me think this Basil character that wrote this is full of #######.

[dalegg 143]

Personally I am looking forward to another 4 years of "all our problems will be solved if we can just tax the top 1% more".

[웃 910]

Personally I am looking forward to another 4 years of "all our problems will be solved if we can just tax the top 1% more".

We need to tax the top 100%. Taxes are too low. We must RISE UP AND DEMAND HIGHER TAXES from our elected officials!

[dalegg 143]

We need to tax the top 100%. Taxes are too low. We must RISE UP AND DEMAND HIGHER TAXES from our elected officials!

We don't have to demand anything. The President just has to sit back, do nothing, and they will go up on their own.

[Pooky 3,830]

We need to tax the top 100%. Taxes are too low. We must RISE UP AND DEMAND HIGHER TAXES from our elected officials!

I'm all for taxing our elected officials at 100%! That we pay these insufferable weasels in the first place is bad enough!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We don't have to demand anything. The President just has to sit back, do nothing, and they will go up on their own.

That is true. And that, in my opinion is exactly how the tax issue ought to be addressed. Let the tax cuts expire - all of them across the board - and then sit down and talk about what tax cuts from the now higher tax rates the country can actually afford. The debate then becomes a debate about tax cuts rather than tax hikes - tax hikes that both parties are responsible for.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Makes me think this Basil character that wrote this is full of #######.

No fan of Obama but have to agree. How could anyone think Reagen was not the best President ever all 8 years ?

[mawilson 2,133]

That is true. And that, in my opinion is exactly how the tax issue ought to be addressed. Let the tax cuts expire - all of them across the board - and then sit down and talk about what tax cuts from the now higher tax rates the country can actually afford. The debate then becomes a debate about tax cuts rather than tax hikes - tax hikes that both parties are responsible for.

I don't disagree.

I'm also a bit skeptical about the impact of the so-called "fiscal cliff" - I remember in 2011 when people were polled about Obama's big "tax break to the middle class" (he reduced the Social Security payroll tax by two percentage points), something like 70% of responders had no clue they got more money in their paycheck (which means they didn't change their spending habits.)

If the Bush/Obama tax cuts were to expire as scheduled, I bet most people wouldn't even notice the tax increase - we're talking what, $10-20/week?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No fan of Obama but have to agree. How could anyone think Reagen was not the best President ever all 8 years ?

Reagen who?

If you meant Ronald Reagan, he slept through most of his second term, and Donald Regan was running the county while he slept. Weirdness, to say the least.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I remember in 2011 when people were polled about Obama's big "tax break to the middle class" (he reduced the Social Security payroll tax by two percentage points), something like 70% of responders had no clue they got more money in their paycheck (which means they didn't change their spending habits.)

That was precisely the point, though. Because people wouldn't notice, the odds of that extra money circulating right back into the economy were higher. Take $20.00 a week times 50,000,000 (if that's the number of people living paycheck to paycheck) and you're looking at $1 billion dollars of demand - read: economic stimulus - a week. If you reverse that, that $1 billion a week worth of demand would be gone. There must be an economic impact to that.

Be all that as it may, I think that the more fruitful outcome from a budgetary and hence mid- and long term perspective is to let the cuts expire across the board and then negotiate tax policy. The incentives change for both sides of the discussion and no matter what is decided in the end, it'll be a tax cut that everyone can and will support.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

The next 4 years are probably going to suck regardless of the election outcome.