Main Menu

Obama’s third term (not)

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution limits US Presidents to two terms in office. Since the Amendment’s ratification in 1951, US Presidents have left office quietly after their second term (or after losing their second term election bid). For normal folks, that’s the end of the story. For others, the unthinkable, like a modern third-term President, is always hiding in the wood pile.

Rush Limbaugh weighs in saying:

[Obama] has sympathy for dictators; he relates to them. He inherited his father’s Marxism. It’s not me saying this—it’s somebody from American Thinker, the Nigerian woman writing last week1, referring to Obama as an average African colonel. You have to wonder  if Obama is just trying to lay a foundation for not being a hypocrite  when he tries to serve beyond 2016. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment which term limits the President of the United States. He may not do it that way. He may not openly try to change the Constitution, but there might be this movement in the country from his cult-like followers to support the notion that a democratically elected leader, who is loved and adored, has carte blanche once elected, to just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it. And I wouldn’t put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016.

Well it would be nice if Obama did so well in his second term that everybody loved him and wanted him to stay on, but while on any given issue 20% of the population line up on the crazy side (whether it’s birtherism, climate change denial, belief in alien abductions or how 9/11 happened), there’s not enough of them to effect real change, like overruling the Constitution on a whim. Limbaugh, as usual, plays on the prejudices of his audience.

An investment consultant, Porter Stansberry, predicting ultimate doom that he can help you survive, says that there will be a huge financial boom during Obama’s second term and that so many will become so wealthy that they will want Obama to have a third term and happily surrender all their freedoms to him. In a pre-2012-election letter he writes:

imageIn 2015, during Obama’s second term, a specific event will take place that will change the course of history in the United States.

It has to do with an unstoppable development that’s underway now. This event will usher in a new age of American prosperity, the likes of which we haven’t seen in decades. In fact, this upcoming event is nearly identical to events that happened in 1901 and 1930. Most Americans have forgotten how powerful these events can be. Most Americans would tell you that events like these can’t happen anymore…

According to Salon.com, a Stansberry-inspired email went out from Newt Gingrich including:

“The truth is, the next election has already been decided. Obama is going to win. It’s nearly impossible to beat an incumbent president,” wrote Porter Stansberry in the email. ”What’s actually at stake right now is whether or not he will have a third-term.”

Alex Jones, paranoid-styled radio host, had Stansberry on his Info Wars program hawking the theory (video).

Not to be left out of an anxiety-promotion opportunity, Joseph Farah, self-proclaimed creator of the birther movement, commented on an Obama third term, saying:

Listen, if you don’t believe in the Constitution and you’ve got a President who is not even eligible under the Constitution to serve, anything is possible, isn’t it? See the difference with the United States of America is that we’re supposed to be a country under the rule of law and that starts with the Constitution and that’s the most important law we have. And yet we ignore it every single day in Washington, every single day. Most acts of Congress are unconstitutional; we’ve gotten to that point. And the President has no—, he thinks we have a living Constitution that could mean whatever he wants it to mean. So hey, I wouldn’t rule it out.

Porter Stansberry claims to have predicted all sorts of events over the past decade (no word on how many he got wrong). A broken clock is right twice a day. Well here’s my prediction. Obama will not have, nor attempt to have, a third term as President. You heard it here first, folks.


1Actually, the American Thinker article by L. E. Ikenga, “Obama, the African colonel,” was not from last week, but from September of 2009.

Print Friendly

, , , , , ,

66 Responses to Obama’s third term (not)

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 24, 2012 at 10:31 am #

    H/t to Phil Cave for point me to this conspiracy.

  2. avatar
    Woodrowfan November 24, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    1930?? Really? Generally 1930 is not remembered as a good year economically….

  3. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    “In fact, this upcoming event is nearly identical to events that happened in…1930.”

    Another stock market crash, and another Great Depression? Doubt it.

  4. avatar
    Dave November 24, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    I just wanted to point out to Dr. C that this is the reason Farah’s website is making bucketloads of money, and this site is not. People say “truth is stranger than fiction” but in fact 99% of the time fiction is a lot more exciting than truth.

    I do find it interesting that this fake financial advisor is telling us that there’s going to be a huge economic boom, and tries to make it sound sinister.

  5. avatar
    JPotter November 24, 2012 at 11:28 am #

    Woodrowfan:
    1930??Really? Generally 1930 is not remembered as a good year economically….

    1901 …. not much better. Dude is picking random years and floating them people whose history is spoonfed to them by shills revising on the fly.

    Great unnamed portents in 2015? Sounds like the Bible Prophecy Power Hour to me. It’s an old routine, a fine ‘Merican tradition.

    Limblob citing the ‘Stinker? Oh, brother…..

  6. avatar
    Bob November 24, 2012 at 11:29 am #

    Wouldn’t changing the rules to give Obama a third term be a bit more difficult than just installing another Obama-type like we did with our 50-year long, FBI, State Department, and SCOTUS-complicit, fake birth certificate conspiracy? According to the Birthers, it wasn’t all that difficult and fooled everyone in the world except for the twelve of them.

    I like how Wingnuts pretend to believe that Democrats walk in lockstep and there wouldn’t be any challenge from the Left.

  7. avatar
    JPotter November 24, 2012 at 11:44 am #

    Bob: Wouldn’t changing the rules to give Obama a third term be a bit more difficult than just installing another Obama-type like we did with our 50-year long, FBI, State Department, and SCOTUS-complicit, fake birth certificate conspiracy?

    The next Perfect Candidate™ has already been revealed. The Syndicate has a long line of them, each is revealed at highly orchestrated ‘coming out’ parties called “Democratic Party Conventions”. It’s so subtle, so brilliant, so unstoppable.

    Remember, do not repeat The Name until the Home Office transmits Candidate 2016-D is cleared hot, status green for low-level social media mention. Make no acknowledgment until further notice.

    With the rubes foaming at the mouth over Obama (he’s so 2012), they’ll never see the next One coming. Rinse and repeat every 4 to 8 years per the dictates of The Syndicate.

    All glory to continual victory.

  8. avatar
    Scientist November 24, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    Well, technically, he could run for VP and then if the elected President resigned he could serve a third term. Now, why someone who put all the work into running and won would just resign is good question

    I will happily accept a be from any of the authors that this will not happen. Surely an investment guru like Mr Stansberry won’t turn down a chance to make money by betting on what he considers a sure thing?

  9. avatar
    Thinker November 24, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    I’m still waiting for these nutters to admit they were wrong with their predictions that Obama would create some sort of false flag national crisis and cancel the 2012 election. That didn’t happen, did it? And what about those FEMA camps? Have they opened yet? Did Obama decide to wait until his third term for those? The gang at Dr. kHate’s needs to know.

  10. avatar
    Steve November 24, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    I thought the guy’s name was Porter Stansberry, not Peter Stansberry, but I get a kick out of how he’s always trying to get you to watch some two-hour-long video, as if anyone has time to do that.

  11. avatar
    JPotter November 24, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    Thinker: And what about those FEMA camps?

    We’ve all been waiting 20 years for those FEMA camps. just a few months more ….just wait, the nutters are going to oscillate faster and faster as March approaches :P

    Still not sure why the FEMA camps were shelved for 8 years … Bush cut FEMA off at the knees so they couldn’t afford them, right? Has nothing to do with the political affiliation of the WH occupant….right?

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

    Thanks for the correction. There is a trick with that page. If you click to close the tab containing the video, it will pop-up a dialog asking you whether you want to leave the page, or stay on the page. If you select “stay” the video will be replaced with the text version.

    BTW, his newsletter is on half-price sale at $49.50 a year.

    Steve: I thought the guy’s name was Porter Stansberry, not Peter Stansberry, but I get a kick out of how he’s always trying to get you to watch some two-hour-long video, as if anyone has time to do that.

  13. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: BTW, his newsletter is on half-price sale at $49.50 a year.

    Black Friday sale.

  14. avatar
    JPotter November 24, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    misha marinsky: Black Friday sale.

    Everyday low prices.

    Permanent sale for the gullible, or an admission it just won’t move at his desired price point. Either way, crap is on sale every day! Remember the WTBC? $4.95 “sale”? Speaking of, that tome has recovered, after a post-election crater to #240,000 on Amazon, back up to #60,000.

  15. avatar
    Keith November 24, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    Scientist:
    Well, technically, he could run for VP and then if the elected President resigned he could serve a third term.Now, why someone who put all the work into running and won would just resign isgood question

    Nope. Sorry, can’t happen.

    Did I miss the tongue in your cheek?

  16. avatar
    Scientist November 24, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    Keith: Nope. Sorry, can’t happen.

    The 22nd Amendment only forbids being elected President more than twice. If you are elected VP and then become President that does not violate the Amendment.

    Of course, practically speaking, no, it won’t happen. But it is technically possible.

  17. avatar
    James M November 24, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    Well, if it’s “unstoppable”, then why fuss about it Porter?

  18. avatar
    Keith November 24, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

    Scientist: The 22nd Amendment only forbids being elected President more than twice.If you are elected VP and then become President that does not violate the Amendment.

    Of course, practically speaking, no, it won’t happen.But it is technically possible.

    No it is not technically possible. The 12th amendment forbids it:

    But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

    A person who has completed two terms as President is constitutionally ineligible to the office of President.

  19. avatar
    LW November 24, 2012 at 11:40 pm #

    Keith: No it is not technically possible. The 12th amendment forbids it:

    So it’s full speed ahead with Candidate 2016-D, then. I personally am excited as can be about our first-ever husband-and-wife president and veep combo. Has the decision about which one’s going to be president been made yet?

    The whole “false flag” operation with both her dad and his mom has been a real hoot, too. People have totally bought into their acts. Oops, have I said too much?

  20. avatar
    misha marinsky November 25, 2012 at 1:02 am #

    LW: Oops, have I said too much?

    We had an agreement. Thanks for spilling the beans.

  21. avatar
    ROBB November 25, 2012 at 2:15 am #

    Note, if they are in order of succession but not the VP then it could work
    For example, bill as speaker, the two above are removed for cause, he becomes president (maybe, who knows if the current order is constitutional).

  22. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 25, 2012 at 4:22 am #

    LW: The whole “false flag” operation with both her dad and his mom has been a real hoot, too. People have totally bought into their acts. Oops, have I said too much?

    First off…

    We have to find a husband and wife who have their house on a state line. That way, the husband can claim to be a resident of one state, and the wife a resident of the other… That’s going to be tough to do…

  23. avatar
    Pastor Charmley November 25, 2012 at 4:24 am #

    Having been a watcher of the 9/11 conspiracy theories for years, I experience a certain deja vu when reading these remarks about Obama being a would-be dictator. Mostly because they are practically identical to things that were being said by some 9/11 ‘Truthers’ about Bush. There were many who were certain that the 2008 elections would be cancelled by a false-flag terror attack, and right up until Obama was sworn in there were folk saying that Bush would annul the election because of a false-flag attack.

    From the perspective of the 9/11 Truther that makes some sort of sense – these were people who thought that George W. Bush staged the 9/11 attacks, after all. For the Obama Birthers? Not so much. The extent of the villainy they attribute to Obama seems to be concealment of the truth about his origins, not any sort of false flag action.

    I was most amused by the whole “Obama will cancel the 2012 election” nonsense – as I pointed out to various people, the time to start recycling the anti-Bush paranoia from 2008 is 2016, in 2012 Obama could be re-elected. And it will be pointless in 2016 as well. Of course, had Obama cancelled the elections or annulled a result against him, I should have been in quite a pickle – I pledged to eat him if he did so.

    On a more serious note, why is it that people feel the need to come up with such wild conspiracy nonsense? As I have said time and again, if you think Obama’s policies are so bad for the US, concentrate on them, not on absurd speculation about his origins and imagined destiny.

  24. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 25, 2012 at 4:38 am #

    ROBB:
    Note, if they are in order of succession but not the VP then it could work
    For example, bill as speaker, the two above are removed for cause, he becomes president (maybe, who knows if the current order is constitutional).

    They are only in the line of succession, if they are eligible to be President. For instance, if a Secretary is not a Natural Born Citizen, they are taken out of the succession. A recent example was Elaine Chao and Carlos Gutierrez of the George W. Bush Administration

  25. avatar
    James M November 25, 2012 at 6:07 am #

    Keith: No it is not technically possible. The 12th amendment forbids it:

    A person who has completed two terms as President is constitutionally ineligible to the office of President.

    There is a distinction between being eligible to hold the office and eligibility for being elected to the office.

    The scenario involves a Vice Presidential vacancy, where a former two-term President may be nominated as a replacement and confirmed by Congress. He is never elected, but can then properly succeed to the Presidency. With a coherent enough conspiracy, this could be repeated for the life of the dictator that the conspiracy wishes to install, provided the conspirators can be elected and relied upon to resign as necessary.

  26. avatar
    ROBB November 25, 2012 at 6:58 am #

    Dunst, is that how the law is written? The constitution only bans the ELECTION of a president with more than two terms, or a VP who had two as president – nothing about appointment or other succession methods
    Thus, any ban MUST come from the law of succession as provided by Fongress
    The reason the NBC matters is that that’s a qualification to HOLD, not just be elected.

    Edit, what James said

  27. avatar
    Thrifty November 25, 2012 at 7:10 am #

    I saw an article a year or two ago about some old 1930 census data being declassified and opened to the public. One of the commenter nostalgically pined for the peace and prosperity of the 30s and 40s.

    Woodrowfan:
    1930??Really? Generally 1930 is not remembered as a good year economically….

  28. avatar
    Thrifty November 25, 2012 at 7:18 am #

    I find it particularly absurd that they say an economic boom will result in Obama getting a third term. Bill Clinton ended his presidency with an incredibly strong economy and one of the highest approval ratings ever, yet when 2000 rolled around he stepped aside and let the electoral process pick his successor.

  29. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 25, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    Thrifty: yet when 2000 rolled around he stepped aside and let the electoral process pick his successor.

    You’ve got that one a little bit wrong. He let SCOTUS pick his successor.

  30. avatar
    jdkinpa November 25, 2012 at 3:40 pm #

    There is a lot of money to be made from birfers, preppers, and other assorted nutters. Glenn Beck being the perfect example of this new breed of modern day snake oil salesman.

    http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12906-agenda-21-the-latest-sleight-of-hand-trick-by-corporate-elite

  31. avatar
    Thrifty November 25, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    *sigh*

    I knew somebody would make that dumbass comment.

    The controversy of the 2000 election aside, the point was that Clinton did not angle for a 3rd term.

    Paul Pieniezny: You’ve got that one a little bit wrong. He let SCOTUS pick his successor.

  32. avatar
    bgansel9 November 25, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Porter Stansberry is a crook. That’s all. – http://briandeer.com/vaxgen/stansberry-fraud.htm

  33. avatar
    Keith November 26, 2012 at 3:23 am #

    Thrifty:
    I saw an article a year or two ago about some old 1930 census data being declassified and opened to the public.One of the commenter nostalgically pined for the peace and prosperity of the 30s and 40s.

    Census data ‘declassified’.

    I thought Census data was public record. All of it.

    Identifying data items are embargoed for many years, but it is not a case of ‘declassifying’ it.

  34. avatar
    Thrifty November 26, 2012 at 8:21 am #

    Yes, this last paragraph, about identifying items, was what I was thinking of. Maybe declassified was the wrong word, but that’s what I meant. Previously private data became public.

    Keith: Identifying data items are embargoed for many years, but it is not a case of ‘declassifying’ it.

  35. avatar
    JPotter November 26, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    bgansel9: Porter Stansberry is a crook. That’s all.

    You don’t say. An OCT profit engaged in fiscal shenanigans? It’s like peanut butter and jelly, often found together.

    I got a sweet spam today. Slipped through my filters. (Apparently) from “investorgation.com”: “Don’t miss the next FACEBOOK!”

    I’ll try my best. Thanks Investorgation….

  36. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate November 26, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    “You have to wonder if Obama is just trying to lay a foundation for not being a hypocrite when he tries to serve beyond 2016. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment which term limits the President of the United States,” says Rush Limbaugh, quoted by Dr C.

    My mind wandered back a quarter of a century to the 1980s, & the echo of a long-forgotten organization called Project 88. I did a little research on the Intertubes & found in Google Books:

    Section Two [of this study] discusses Ronald Reagan’s frustrations over the 22nd Amendment reducing him to “Lame Duck” status immediately following his re-election in 1984. He was the first post World War II President to chafe under the restriction, or at least the first to say so publicly, and to seek its repeal. This highly popular president might have succeeded in this effort had not Alzheimer’s Disease intervened.
    – R. Alton Lee, Kansas State University, “Presidential Term Limitations in the Cold War, or Beware the Anti-Third Termites,” published in White House Studies Compendium, Volume 6 (Nova Science Publishers, 2008), p.351.

  37. avatar
    jdkinpa November 26, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

    Section Two [of this study] discusses Ronald Reagan’s frustrations over the 22nd Amendment reducing him to “Lame Duck” status immediately following his re-election in 1984. He was the first post World War II President to chafe under the restriction, or at least the first to say so publicly, and to seek its repeal. This highly popular president might have succeeded in this effort had not Alzheimer’s Disease intervened.
    – R. Alton Lee, Kansas State University, “Presidential Term Limitations in the Cold War, or Beware the Anti-Third Termites,” published in White House Studies Compendium, Volume 6 (Nova Science Publishers, 2008), p.351.

    IOKIYAR

  38. avatar
    JPotter November 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

    jdkinpa: Section Two [of this study] discusses Ronald Reagan’s frustrations over the 22nd Amendment reducing him to “Lame Duck” status immediately following his re-election in 1984.

    An interesting take and an odd way to look at it. I would take the conventional view, that the end of the political road frees one from politics, allows a President to compromise, and lead from a position of strength (unless he is compromised in other ways….)

    For instance, I expect Obama to do some horsetrading soon, that will really peeve the far left. Well, peeve them even more. The countries problems need addressing, Rome wasn’t built, and certainly not maintained, in a day. He doesn’t have to worry about re-election, now he can make moves not possible in his first term.

    And whatever the 2nd-term President does that is unpopular with his base, his party’s nominee can run against by promising to ‘correct’, ‘repeal’, or improve on. In short, they can throw him under the bus if need be. And he shouldn’t mind, as any worthy sacrifices made will stand the test of time.

    Now thinking about the realities of second-term Presidents …. hmmmm, can’t think of many that came close to this idealistic vision ….

  39. avatar
    jdkinpa November 26, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    JPotter “An interesting take and an odd way to look at it.”

    I agree that Obama has some ‘horsetrading’ he can do. You can already see some cracks in the TEApublican dam of obstruction that has slowed ‘governing’ to a trickle over the last two years. Bush said he had a mandate after his 2004 squeaker of a win. I hope that the President doesn’t get all ‘Mission Accomplished’ and act like ‘W’. But he does need to get out and about and use the leverage that he now has.

    I just went to see ‘Lincoln’, a very good movie. I’m afraid a lot of people, unless they are history buffs, will not understand that President Lincoln felt that with his reelection, and that the proposed 13th Amendment was part of the Republican platform, he could push it through the House of Representatives. Back then patronage was a political tool and was used by Lincoln to his advantage. Not saying that would work today, but he does have some political ammunition that he should use. My thought about pissing of the far left; tough, they will just have to deal with it. Getting the Republicans, those who still want to keep their jobs, past the negotiating table on taxes and entitlements is going to be a real challenge. I really hope that he’s up to the task… It’s just my opinion, but I believe that a lot of the swing voters and independents, voted for Obama because they want the wealthiest to pay a little bit more, since they are the ones who have gotten the most benefit from the Bush tax cuts. He needs to show some backbone and not cave on that. Like you say he’s got nothing to lose.

  40. avatar
    LW November 26, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    In Reagan’s defense, it should be noted that he was pushing for the 22nd Amendment to be repealed, but had said that he would not run for a third term if it were, since he was elected when it was in effect.

    When the quoted article said “This highly popular president might have succeeded in this effort had not Alzheimer’s Disease intervened,” it was almost certainly referring to the fact that he was prepared to continue to push for its repeal after he left office — he was quoted as saying as much in an interview with Tom Brokaw in the final week of his term.

    This will be one of the very few times I will start a post with “In Reagan’s defense” with no trace of irony intended.

    Repeal of the 22nd Amendment is something both parties have toyed with at different times. And of course, the other party will then respond that the first party is obviously a bunch of power-grabbing awfuls for even suggesting it, until it’s their turn to suggest it again.

  41. avatar
    LHO November 27, 2012 at 1:26 am #

    jdkinpa: ” It’s just my opinion, but I believe that a lot of the swing voters and independents, voted for Obama because they want the wealthiest to pay a little bit more, since they are the ones who have gotten the most benefit from the Bush tax cuts. He needs to show some backbone and not cave on that. Like you say he’s got nothing to lose.”

    I really hope you’re wrong, because if you are right, that means swing voters and independents are all a bunch of suckers for the typical class-envy rhetoric for which the Democrats are so famous.

    According to the Obama administration, if you let the Bush tax cuts for anyone making over $250k per year expire, that will increase revenues by $850B over 10 YEARS! Or, about $85B per year on average. That is paltry compared to a deficit that is currently 17 times that amount AND RISING! Also, that $850B over ten years probably assumes no changes to any other inputs, which anyone with half a brain knows is very unlikely. In economics, nothing happens in a vacuum: you can’t change one variable without other variables changing automatically. You can’t raise tax rates and assume economic activity will not be affected, the same way you can’t raise prices and assume the number of units sold will remain the same. And like I said, this $850B number comes from the Obama administration – not exactly an impartial source. That’s like saying, “according to me, I’m AWESOME!” This same group has already grossly underestimated the cost of ObamaCare by a factor of 1.7, and counting. But I digress…

    A really smart guy once said (paraphrasing), “A poor man has never given me a job, but several rich men have!” I think we can all agree that we need more tax revenue. The best way to create more tax revenue is to create more tax payers.

  42. avatar
    LHO November 27, 2012 at 1:28 am #

    And let me also say that I am new to this site, but I absolutely LOVE IT! Lot’s of really smart people on here! Thank you all for existing and for sharing your thoughts!

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2012 at 8:48 am #

    Yeah, but where did the rich guy and his business get his money?

    LHO: A really smart guy once said (paraphrasing), “A poor man has never given me a job, but several rich men have!”

  44. avatar
    The Magic M November 27, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Yeah, but where did the rich guy and his business get his money?

    Which is exactly where “You didn’t build that” came from (which of course was deliberately misunderstood by the right-wing press).

  45. avatar
    J.D. Reed November 27, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    LHO, I believe you’re wrong about the federal budget deficit rising. The record deficit is still $1.4 trillion, for the fiscal year 2009.
    A few facts about that deficit:
    – President George W. Bush initiated the budget, projecting a deficit of $400 billion.
    –On Nov. 30, 2008, the second month of FY 2009 — and almost two months before Barack Obama became president — the accumuilated deficit for the FY had already hit that $400 billion.
    – In early January 2009, the congressional budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009.
    – The final deficit included a $600 billion shortfall in projected revenue, due to the Great Recessioin. People not working, or earning less money than they did before, don’t pay the taxes they once did, causing the plummeting government intake.
    – President Bush signed the $800 billion TARP legislation. GM and Crysler were later included in this bailout of financial institutions — starting with $25 billion authorized by Bush in December ’08. Obama later added $60 billion for the car companies. TARP repayment in subsequent years has lowered the deificts from what they would have been otherwise.
    – The $800 billion-plus stimulus package of ’09 was spread out over several years, so it did not have an impact of that magnitude in ’09. Something over $500 billion was spending, with the balance in tax breaks. Estimates of the number of jobs saved or created range as high as 2 million,
    – Last I saw, the projected deficit for 2013 is under $1 trillion. A humongous amount, to be sure, but the direction is down, not up. Projections for the next several years are for the deficit to drop into the mid-hundred billion range. Again, a lot, but better than where we’ve been. An upsurge in jobs is expected to fuel this decline in red ink — the flip side of job losses causing the record deficit.

    Hope this helps your understanding.

  46. avatar
    Thomas Brown November 27, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    My predictions for the situation at end of Obama’s second term:

    Dow 16,000+.
    Deficit 60% of this year’s.
    Unemployment 6%.

    His place in posterity as an exceptional President is all but assured.

  47. avatar
    misha marinsky November 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

    J.D. Reed: LHO, I believe you’re wrong about the federal budget deficit rising.

    Thank you.

    When Shrub walked through the door, there was a surplus of ~$212M. When Obama walked through the door, there was a deficit of $1T.

    We are going to be paying for Iraq over the next 50 years. There’s your $1T.

    Gotta get hold of that oil for Cheney’s cronies.

  48. avatar
    misha marinsky November 27, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

    Thomas Brown: His place in posterity as an exceptional President is all but assured.

    I completely agree. We are fortunate to have Obama as our President.

  49. avatar
    Scientist November 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    LHO: A really smart guy once said (paraphrasing), “A poor man has never given me a job, but several rich men have!”

    This statement completely misunderstands how the economy works. While the business owner who signs your paycheck may be rich (though in most cases, they are not), your job exists because of the customers of the business. Unless you work at Tiffany’s or a Rolls Royce dealership, those customers are probably middle class and some may even be poor. So, yes, non-rich and even poor people may have given you a job.

    As a thought experiment, imagine a country where all the wealth was in the hands of the top 50 people (the US is on track for that). You would have a few thousand jobs for their cooks, chauffers, gardeners, etc. but even the Queen only needs so many retainers. A healthy economy requires a vibrant middle class. That will benefit everyone, including the rich who will find more customers for the goods and services the companies they own produce.

  50. avatar
    Rickey November 27, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

    LHO:
    This same group has already grossly underestimated the cost of ObamaCare by a factor of 1.7, and counting.

    Since you produce no evidence of this, I’m inclined to not believe you.

    On the other hand, the CBO has estimated that repealing ObamaCare will add $109 billion to the deficit. And don’t take my word for it.

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf

  51. avatar
    Rickey November 27, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    Scientist: This statement completely misunderstands how the economy works. While the business owner who signs your paycheck may be rich (though in most cases, they are not), your job exists because of the customers of the business.Unless you work at Tiffany’s or a Rolls Royce dealership, those customers are probably middle class and some may even be poor. So, yes, non-rich and even poor people may have given you a job.

    Precisely. “Job creators” don’t create jobs because they have a lot of money. They create jobs when they have a lot of customers for their goods or services.

  52. avatar
    Northland10 November 27, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

    Bingo! It seems that many companies have decided that they would rather increase profits by reducing spending instead of increasing revenue . It is probably the quick and easy approach to look good for the next quarterly report. Long term growth will be inhibited though.

    Rickey: Precisely. “Job creators” don’t create jobs because they have a lot of money. They create jobs when they have a lot of customers for their goods or services.

  53. avatar
    JPotter November 27, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    Northland10: It seems that many companies have decided that they would rather increase profits by reducing spending instead of increasing revenue . It is probably the quick and easy approach to look good for the next quarterly report. Long term growth will be inhibited though.

    Speaking from experience, this is a subject of intense discussion, and much bemoaned, in MBA courses. Yet business types are resigned to it. Too much is addicted to instant gratification, which brings with it short-term focus. Saving and planning are afterthoughts … if thought of at all.

  54. avatar
    Keith November 28, 2012 at 12:22 am #

    Northland10:
    Bingo!It seems that many companies have decided that they would rather increase profits by reducing spending instead of increasing revenue .It is probably the quick and easy approach to look good for the next quarterly report.Long term growth will be inhibited though.

    This is exactly why CostCo is being referred to as the “anti-Walmart”.

    How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart

  55. avatar
    bgansel9 November 28, 2012 at 2:09 am #

    LHO: According to the Obama administration, if you let the Bush tax cuts for anyone making over $250k per year expire, that will increase revenues by $850B over 10 YEARS!Or, about $85B per year on average.That is paltry compared to a deficit that is currently 17 times that amount AND RISING!Also, that $850B over ten years probably assumes no changes to any other inputs, which anyone with half a brain knows is very unlikely.

    I think nothing in this world drives me anywhere near as crazy as pro-capitalists who hate debt. ::shaking head::

  56. avatar
    Rickey November 28, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    bgansel9: I think nothing in this world drives me anywhere near as crazy as pro-capitalists who hate debt. ::shaking head::

    I love how people such as LHO shrug off $85 billion as if it is pocket change. And I’ll bet that he supported the war in Iraq, which to date has cost $809 billion.

  57. avatar
    JPotter November 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    bgansel9: I think nothing in this world drives me anywhere near as crazy as pro-capitalists who hate debt. ::shaking head::

    They might not even notice it if it were passed off as “high finance”. And perhaps they could take pride in such an unfathomable, apparently infinite credit line. Any actual “job creator” ( ;) ) would kill for such access to credit!

  58. avatar
    Daniel November 28, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    Rich people don’t use the money they pay taxes on to create jobs. They use other people’s money for that, and take the tax advantage that brings.

    The money that rich people pay taxes on goes toward buying yachts, and Rolls, and mansions, and caviar.

    I’m not terribly upset that a rich guy might have to keep the old Rolls one more year just so he can pay his fair share.

  59. avatar
    Terri November 30, 2012 at 11:46 pm #

    I am sick of all the speculation of anything Obama and his cronies are “planning” to do. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like Obama as a president, I don’t like crooked democrats or republicans. If you have something on Obama that is TRUE and can be backed up by facts, then bring it forward. Many people are spewing conspiracy that this administration is trying to undermine our Constitution, Bill of Rights and our way of life. That may be true; quit complaining, pontificating, speculating….prove it or shut up! Do I think Obama is wrong for this country? Yes. Do I believe that there was voter fraud in the 2012 Presidential election? You betcha! But until someone that has the “facts” and irrefutable proof can get someone of some status and power to come forward, then get the Supreme Court to act, nothing will be done. The people of this country need bipartisanship in Washington and this administration isn’t working toward it, but then again neither are the republicans. So I challenge anyone with irrefutable proof that Obama is not an American citizen, condones voter fraud, is working to undermine and destroy this United Sates of America to come forward. Sheriff Joe where were you with your proof before the election? Not that it would have done any good with all the voter fraud. We cannot let this administration, the House or Senate, continue to destroy our great country!

  60. avatar
    Sudoku December 1, 2012 at 12:29 am #

    That encapsulates it!

    Daniel: Rich people don’t use the money they pay taxes on to create jobs. They use other people’s money for that, and take the tax advantage that brings.

  61. avatar
    Steve December 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    Terri: I am sick of all the speculation of anything Obama and his cronies are “planning” to do. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like Obama as a president, I don’t like crooked democrats or republicans. If you have something on Obama that is TRUE and can be backed up by facts, then bring it forward. Many people are spewing conspiracy that this administration is trying to undermine our Constitution, Bill of Rights and our way of life. That may be true; quit complaining, pontificating, speculating….prove it or shut up! Do I think Obama is wrong for this country? Yes. Do I believe that there was voter fraud in the 2012 Presidential election? You betcha! But until someone that has the “facts” and irrefutable proof can get someone of some status and power to come forward, then get the Supreme Court to act, nothing will be done. The people of this country need bipartisanship in Washington and this administration isn’t working toward it, but then again neither are the republicans. So I challenge anyone with irrefutable proof that Obama is not an American citizen, condones voter fraud, is working to undermine and destroy this United Sates of America to come forward. Sheriff Joe where were you with your proof before the election? Not that it would have done any good with all the voter fraud. We cannot let this administration, the House or Senate, continue to destroy our great country!

    So you think there’s no way Obama could have legitimately won the election?

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

    And I am sick of these baseless claims of election fraud like yours. If you have facts, then bring them forward, otherwise stop spamming the Internet with rumors. One delusion is just as crazy as the other.

    Terri: I am sick of all the speculation of anything Obama and his cronies are “planning” to do. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like Obama as a president, I don’t like crooked democrats or republicans. If you have something on Obama that is TRUE and can be backed up by facts, then bring it forward.

  63. avatar
    misha marinsky December 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    Terri: We cannot let this administration, the House or Senate, continue to destroy our great country!

    How much coffee have you had?

  64. avatar
    Keith December 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    misha marinsky: How much coffee have you had?

    Too much is never enough.

  65. avatar
    Rickey December 1, 2012 at 11:39 pm #

    Terri: . Sheriff Joe where were you with your proof before the election?

    Sheriff Joe is an evil man, but he is not stupid. He has no proof of a crime and no proof of a forgery. That is why he was only willing to “come forward” with a couple of press conferences. If he had any real evidence of wrongdoing, he would have turned it over to authorities who have jurisdiction.

  66. avatar
    James M December 2, 2012 at 2:53 pm #

    Terri: But until someone that has the “facts” and irrefutable proof can get someone of some status and power to come forward, then get the Supreme Court to act, nothing will be done.

    You actually had my attention until this line. What do you imagine can be done by “someone of some status and power” coming forward, or “acts of the Supreme Court” for that matter?

    At this point, President Obama may be removed from office by impeachment in Congress and conviction in the Senate. Other than that specific “status and power”, there is no other process, and the Supreme Court is utterly irrelevant to this.

    You are rightly and wisely telling conspiracy theorists to put up or shut up, but then you show total ignorance about what could possibly be done. Unless “put up” leads literally to an impeachment in the House of Representatives, then “shut up” is long overdue.

    Your well-intentioned, but ignorant advice is noted.