Will American's "need" for immediate fix bring era of 1 term Presidents?

[IndependentinWis]

When Obama came into office the country's economy was to say the least in a world of hurt. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month, the stock market was falling and eventually bottomed out around 6500 and we were in what most call the deepest recession since the depression. Since then the economy has slowly turned around, job growth has been very slow but steady, the stock market is hitting close to an all time high and we are slowly climbing out of the recession. But for most Americans that is not a fast enough turn around. They want the instant fix and we will probably have a new President come January. If Romney heads us back into the same direction as Bush and Reagan economics, we have no idea where this economy may go. But if it continues to have slow job growth and the stock market doesn't keep its upward trend I would think that in four years we will have another change at the top. In fact, the need for a "quick fix" seems to be dooming us to an era of one term Presidents.

 

[RickWA]

I think it's still President Obama's election to lose - incumbancy is a huge advantage. Regardless, though, I can't say that the prospect of one-term presidencies is all that bad.

 

[connieb]

If they aren't getting the job done, then they should only be one term.

 

[fairsheet]

When Obama came into office the country's economy was to say the least in a world of hurt. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month, the stock market was falling and eventually bottomed out around 6500 and we were in what most call the deepest recession since the depression. Since then the economy has slowly turned around, job growth has been very slow but steady, the stock market is hitting close to an all time high and we are slowly climbing out of the recession. But for most Americans that is not a fast enough turn around. They want the instant fix and we will probably have a new President come January. If Romney heads us back into the same direction as Bush and Reagan economics, we have no idea where this economy may go. But if it continues to have slow job growth and the stock market doesn't keep its upward trend I would think that in four years we will have another change at the top. In fact, the need for a "quick fix" seems to be dooming us to an era of one term Presidents.

No, the era of two-term presidents is not over.

 

[Lukey]

When Obama came into office the country's economy was to say the least in a world of hurt. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month, the stock market was falling and eventually bottomed out around 6500 and we were in what most call the deepest recession since the depression. Since then the economy has slowly turned around, job growth has been very slow but steady, the stock market is hitting close to an all time high and we are slowly climbing out of the recession. But for most Americans that is not a fast enough turn around. They want the instant fix and we will probably have a new President come January. If Romney heads us back into the same direction as Bush and Reagan economics, we have no idea where this economy may go. But if it continues to have slow job growth and the stock market doesn't keep its upward trend I would think that in four years we will have another change at the top. In fact, the need for a "quick fix" seems to be dooming us to an era of one term Presidents.

First of all, the stock market isn't the economy. But yes, the market is up, largely on serial Fed liquidity shots. This ten or twelve trillion in "stimulus" should have the rest of the economy rocking and rolling by now, but Obama's anti-capitalist policy agenda and rhetoric has got business men and women sitting on their hands. THAT is what I am "hoping" we "change."

 

[IndependentinWis]

Luke, You sound just like a Republican talking point. What did the Bush pro-business policies bring the nation but to the edge of economic doom? And what is Romney going to do different from Bush, <NOTHING>. The problem with people like you is that you can't see the forest for the Republican talking points. Obama isn't anti-business or a socialist or a Communist, he is a Democrat. Our economy has grown quicker under Democratic Presidents for the past 150 years. Look at the difference in growth between, Reagan, and the two Bushes and Clinton. So, Democrats aren't against business, they feel that government can help business spread the wealth, while Republicans seem to want to keep all wealth in the hands of a few, and they are doing a good job of that.

 

[Woolleybugger]

It could happen to end up that way until a large part of the electorate stops watching Fox News.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

When Obama came into office the country's economy was to say the least in a world of hurt. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month, the stock market was falling and eventually bottomed out around 6500 and we were in what most call the deepest recession since the depression. Since then the economy has slowly turned around, job growth has been very slow but steady, the stock market is hitting close to an all time high and we are slowly climbing out of the recession. But for most Americans that is not a fast enough turn around. They want the instant fix and we will probably have a new President come January. If Romney heads us back into the same direction as Bush and Reagan economics, we have no idea where this economy may go. But if it continues to have slow job growth and the stock market doesn't keep its upward trend I would think that in four years we will have another change at the top. In fact, the need for a "quick fix" seems to be dooming us to an era of one term Presidents.

I would have said no way until I saw the results of the 2010 midterms - the GOP had created the horrendous mess left for Obama, but many Americans forgot about that in 2 years and re-elected the same GOP morons who ran a flim-flam with their "Tea Party" hats.

Americans have been so dumbed down today, especially given our worthless corporate media, that anything is possible.

 

[Lukey]

Luke, You sound just like a Republican talking point. What did the Bush pro-business policies bring the nation but to the edge of economic doom? And what is Romney going to do different from Bush, <NOTHING>. The problem with people like you is that you can't see the forest for the Republican talking points. Obama isn't anti-business or a socialist or a Communist, he is a Democrat. Our economy has grown quicker under Democratic Presidents for the past 150 years. Look at the difference in growth between, Reagan, and the two Bushes and Clinton. So, Democrats aren't against business, they feel that government can help business spread the wealth, while Republicans seem to want to keep all wealth in the hands of a few, and they are doing a good job of that.

LOL! No Democratic talking points there...

 

[TomFitz]

I think the President will be re elected at this point as well. I was never worried about it until two weeks ago. But I have plenty of reasons to believe that the uncertainty is overblown by a media obsessed with horse race over substance.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mitt Romney would be a one term president. And little doubt in my mind that we will be in very bad shape when he leaves. His policies,like his advisors, are all Bush retreads. Romney was practically run out of Massachusetts on a rail. And, after watching Presidents come and go since Eisenhower, one thing I've learned is that the record of a President when he was governor will very accurately reflect what kind of President he will make.

The very idea that we could go right back to the policies the delivered us into this mess in the first place, and install a bust out banking specialist at the head of the table is beyond me.

 

[IndependentinWis]

Actual Luke, they are not Democratic talking points, they are just the facts. Is anything I have written wrong, no. The reason that Democrats do better with economy is the fact that Republicans still see us from the supply side. They seem to think that if enough is invested growth will just happen. So they try and get the wealth to those who will invest, hoping that it will work. The problem is that we are a consumer driven economy. We do need investments, but even more we need people who have money and will spend it, all or most of what they have. That isn't the wealthy, that is the middle class and the poor. If the tax cuts by the Republicans would have gone mainly to the middle class and the poor and not to the wealthy, the economy would have been pushed along by the income. Instead the wealthy sent our well paying jobs overseas while the Republicans gave tax cuts that helped mainly the wealthy sending our purchasing power out of the country and the economy has drooped. Until we either get better paying jobs back or give tax cuts that give money back to people who will spend most or all of it, it we will have an economy that either has slow growth or will actually fall behind.