First term records : Obama vs Reagan.

[Politico]

Those numbers are not even good economics, let alone good politics.

Unemployment is 8%. Millions more have given up hope, and have stopped looking for work (these people are excluded from the unemployment figure). Many are clinging to part-time jobs when they wish they had a full-time job (this is not reflected in the unemployment figure). Obama has created the first administration in history to run trillion dollar deficits for an entire presidential term. None of this held true in 1984. There is a reason why Reagan won 49 states and Obama will be lucky to get 270 EVs.

Furthermore, we had a severe spike in the deficit in 2008, as a result of the financial crisis caused by subprime mortgages (which were created by liberal policies), so of course Obama's "debt growth rate" is going to be significantly lower than a number of previous presidents. The debt growth rate is not the problem; perpetual trillion dollar deficits cannot exist, and this is the problem. Is Obama going to pledge tonight to not allow the tax rates to revert back to pre-2001 levels on January 1? Or is he going to pledge to cut spending? He needs to do one or the other because we cannot run a trillion dollar deficit year-in, year-out. We know Romney will cut spending and not raise taxes. What will Obama do?

AMERICA WILL NOT GO THE WAY OF A SOCIALIST HELLHOLE.

[Politico]

AMERICA WILL NOT GO THE WAY OF A SOCIALIST HELLHOLE.

Such as...?

Pick your poison. The news is littered with countries that are going down the tubes due to excessive, mismanaged government intervention. We must not replicate them.

[Politico]

In term of actual jobs since the start of the term (January) to August of the election year.

Reagan:

+5,208,000

Obama:

-441,000

GWB during the same respective period:

+1,795,000

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

Difference was Reagan had a strengthening economy when he came into office and Obama had a finacial meltdown. Also with dubya thats pretty much all the jobs he got in 8 years.

This is NOT true. We had a recession in January - July 1980 and a double dip in July 1981 –
November 1982. The circumstances were obviously different from the 2008 financial crisis, but it is incorrect to say that Reagan had a "strengthening economy when he came into office."

What matters today: We do NOT have a strengthening economy as evidenced by the fact that job growth has lagged behind population growth for almost half a decade. Obama needs to man up and take responsibility for, at the very least, the last two years. If he wanted to run against George W. Bush, he should have ran in 2004. If the economy was actually strengthening, most people would want four more years of the last two years. That is obviously not the case.

[Politico]

Difference was Reagan had a strengthening economy when he came into office and Obama had a finacial meltdown. Also with dubya thats pretty much all the jobs he got in 8 years.

Ah, no.  

In 1/80, the unemployment rate was 6.30%; in 1/81, it was 7.50%.

In GWB's case:

1/05:  140,245,000

1/09:  142,187,000

+2,062,000 jobs

Now, yes, the economy was weakening at the start of Obama's term, with unemployment going from 5.0% to 7.8%, but it was at the start of Reagan's first term as well, and weakened (in terms of unemployment) though 1982.  The difference is, it improved under Reagan.  It hasn't under Obama.

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

Facts stand up to historical revision.  

In all fairness, everybody agrees President Obama "inherited" a bad situation (although Bush did not "cause" the financial crisis; it is far more complicated than that). However, the same holds true with regards to many presidents. Some of them managed to turn things around whereas others did not. After almost four years of Obama, I think it is clear that Obama belongs in the latter category. The proof: Who wants four more years of the last two years?

Obama needs to man up and take responsibility for at least the last two years.