No President can be trusted with the economy while running for office

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I am starting to think that Presidential re-election campaigns are a menace because nobody will ever do what is objectively best for the economy while running for office, when they need the economy to be super-good at one point in time. It's too much to expect of anyone. (And as one who doesn't trust even uber-cool people with power the down-side that single terms presidents might be less powerful does not fill me with dread.)

Nixon re-election campaign 1972 > > > Ford/Carter era inflation

Carter re-election campaign 1980 > > > Carter appointed Fed Chair Paul Volker wrings inflation out of the economy with monetary policy induced recession of 1982, the worst down-turn since Great Depression. Should the tightening have occurred earlier for a softer landing? No way... not during an election year. (Volker was appointed in August 1979.)

Reagan re-election campaign 1984 > > > Stock bubble & crash of 1987

Bush re-election campaign 1992 > > > No chance of goosing economy due to hostile Greenspan policy. (Didn't he know it was an election year?) No easy-money disaster. To this day GHW Bush blames Greenspan for his loss.

Clinton re-election campaign 1996 > > > 1997-1999 internet bubble

Chimp re-election campaign 2004 > > > 2005-2007 mortgage derivative bubble

Also, the track record for second terms is appalling. Nixon resigns. Reagan not impeached for Iran-Contra, but should have been. Clinton bogus impeachment. GW Bush a non-president since Katrina.

[BlooInBloo]

1. (facepalm)

[Lisa0825]

2. .

[BlooInBloo]

4. HEEEHEEHEEEH!!!!! I am SOOOOO stealing that!!!!

:rofl:

[Lisa0825]

5. Be my guest....

I stole it via Google Image Search. LOL

I just thought it was appropriate. :evilgrin:

[BlooInBloo]

7. Too late to object! It's stolen!

:P

[Doityourself]

15. ha ha ha loooove it

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. Lame duck on day one....

...great way to institute government-by-delay-in-Congress.

I remember the pre-shot clock ACC, and the four corners.

Interesting basketball -- terrible politics.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. Roosevelt..... Damn his second term! And Lincoln.... that bastard!!

Massive fail

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. You assume that FDR was the only Dem in the country who could do anything?

If a system is changed it changes everywhere... you cannot take an isolated instance and assume nothing else in the world would have changed.

A one-term president is only a lame duck because we have an expectation presidents are always campaigning. In a different set-up the president would do different things, as would congress.

Sorry, but I am not enough of an authoritarian to take a few examples of good behavior as arguments for encouraging bad behavior.

The eternal campaign is cancerous. Most second terms are disasters.

Typical presidents are not FDRs or Lincolns. Throwing out the two most unusual presidencies in US history, Lincoln and FDR, could just as sensibly be an argument for life-time presidential appointments, since both died in office.

[frogcycle]

8. you'd have to increase length of term

four years doesn't let a real program get passed, launched, and refined

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. I assume it would be 6 years

[Motown_Johnny]

9. good luck amending the constitution for that one... Besides, you won't get the results you want

for some reason you think that you will be eliminating the President's final term. You won't be. You would be eliminating their first term. They would not need to worry about being re-elected and you would just make things worse.

Thanks but no thanks, ya betcha

[RagAss]

10. ...and the answer is.....

FDR

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. That's really dumb.

That's like arguing for emperors based on Octavian and forgetting Nero and Caligula.

You don't craft a government based on theories about bizarre outliers and hopes of excellence.

I have laid out one particular argument for single term presidents, and several people have responded with "FDR!"

That's like citing WWII as a reason for the Iraq War. (Which, as I recall, many did.) It's on the level of those people who talk about how you shouldn't wear seat-belts because you might be thrown out of a flaming crash. Yes, you might. But you probably won't.

And the average president isn't FDR.

Reagan and GW Bush between them have served longer than FDR... color we unimpressed.

[ShortnFiery]

11. Arrrgh! :(

[Jennicut]

12. Having a great second term is possible it just has not happened in the last 35 or so years

Clinton's second term could have been good if that impeachment ridiculousness had not happened. But a one term for a president? No way. Not enough time to get something really substantial done. Perhaps increasing the length of the terms to be like the Senate...6 years and 12 years total but 12 years is alot for one man to have all the power. I don't know, I like it the way it is.