Gingrich: Obama Is Like Jimmy Carter

August 4, 2009 RSS Feed Print

By Nikki Schwab, Washington Whispers

There have been plenty of parallels drawn between President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, but Newt Gingrich thinks the current prez is turning out to be more like Reagan's one-term Democratic predecessor, Jimmy Carter. "There are certain parallels that are kind of eerie," said the former House speaker. "When Reagan was running for office, we had a liberal Democratic president who seemed out of touch with reality." Carter favored much larger government, had an economic program that was not succeeding, and was "very confused" on foreign policy, Gingrich explained at today's Young America's Foundation National Conservative Student Conference. "I think in some ways we are back in a similar environment," he contended. So if Obama's the current Carter, who's the next Reagan? It seems that's a role Gingrich is pondering. "It is something that I will look closely at in January 2011," he said.

Check out our Whispers political caricatures.

Read 10 Things You Didn't Know About Newt Gingrich.

Want your Whispers first? Check out U.S. News Weekly.

Tags:
Jimmy Carter,
Barack Obama,
Newt Gingrich,
Ronald Reagan

Reader Comments Read all comments (16)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

To start with taxes are much higher now than they were in the 50's and 60's. New taxes on food, drink, gas and health care have caused Americans to pay much higher taxes which our leaders in Washington crow about lowering the marginal tax rates on our Federal Income Taxes.

I agree Obama is a new Jimmy Carter. I voted for Carter and lived through his years in office. I had a great job when Carter took office but by the end of his term I had been unemployed for almost two years. No jobs anywhere, not even the military! Sound familiar!! Carter was unable to get much of anything done, his fireside chats were supposed to make America feel good again and hope was just around the corner. Change in Washington was happening, streamlining government would create millions of jobs and so on. Again does this sound like something we here from the White House today!!

The jobs were never created, government costs went up not down like he said his programs would do. Things kept getting worse because Carter kept doing the wrong things over and over.

If you don't learn from your mistakes you will continue making the same mistakes. Carter was someone outside of Washington politics, an inexperienced leader but was a businessman. Obama was an outsider, very inexperienced leader, no pratical business experience. Both very smart, maybe to smart, both seem to over think things. Look at how long Obama took to decide to increase troop strength.

If Obama gets a second term it is not because of what he has done to earn it, it will be because Republican blew there chance with internal bickering and party splitting agendas.

As far as Ronald Reagan, he brought the country back from the brink. Unemployment was higher than now in most of the midwest. People left in droves from the "Rust Belt", leaving behind forclosed homes and empty buildings. Former union workers fleed to right to work states. Unrest was everywhere, but Reagan was able to move the country out of depression and back to prosperity. What he did lasted for decades after he left office. But slowly it became politically incorrect to have a business make a profit, for the rich to get richer, so taxes have increased to curb all the profits and to punish the rich. When the rich don't have the money to invest, few businesses are started, spending decresses across the board. Businesses start laying off amnd factories close. That is where we are right now. I admit that is a simplification of all that has happened. But I stand by my cause and effect. High Taxes bring on recessions. Now look forward and try to imagine how things are going to look with Cap and Trade, Health care and the high national debit? These will be paid for with new and/or higher taxes.

Just a final thought, retirement will become something your parents did but you can't because you can afford to retire!!

Ron of TX 12:07PM December 11, 2009

Gingrich must be letting the rhetoric from his Fox news buddies go to his head. Somehow he has forgotten how he left congress under a cloud of ethics problems. Does he really believe that all of that and his adultery problems won't end up on the front page right under his name as soon as he decides to run. He has no intention of running. He's just pulling everyone's leg so that his paymasters will continue to think he's relevant.

LucasFoxx of WA 11:05AM August 07, 2009

The easiest solution for taxes is a flat rate federal income tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes. This would be the sole tax on the individual, so others, such as the payroll tax, Social Security, Corporate gains, commodities (gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol) and so fourth would all be eliminated. The corporate income tax (also flat rate) would still be in place, as it's not something attached to an individual or family. At the same time there would be no tax loopholes. If you were living beyond your means, it would draw obvious attention from the IRS and bring charges of tax falsifications. Some would argue that such taxes would penalize the poor--however when one factors in the payroll tax, commodities taxes, taxes on gasoline and so fourth, it wouldn't. Nor would it be a massive benefit to the rich as they couldn't use loopholes to pay less in taxation. Not to mention, it would make filing taxes extremely easy.

As for entitlements, I am not for the 'sudden end' approach, though I am for gradually ending them. Prior to entitlements, families took care of their own and those who had problems got help from charities. Just as the parents took care of their children in youth, the children--when grown--took care of their parents in late-life. Entitlements are part of the reason why multi-generation families have fallen apart.

Ideally I'd see Social Security ended as in everyone in the workforce for under 10 years would not be eligible for receiving any benefits while all persons in the workforce for 10 years and over would be guaranteed their benefits--unless they wished to withdraw from the system, something which would be purposely complicated as they would be unable to re-enter. As the population aged, fewer and fewer people would end up receiving the benefits and to put things crudely, the system would die with them, though it would take a long time, as a 28 year old (assuming working since 18) would be expected to live 50-55 more years, so even if enacted today, the system would linger on tell around 2065, perhaps in a few tens of thousands of cases, until 2080-2090.

Some may consider that unfair, and it is, however life isn't fair. My great grandfather on my father's side of the family was alive when Social Security was made law and he was enraged, labeling it as state-sponsored theft. He was right, he died before he could collect anything, as did my great-grandmother. The same is true for my grandfather and grandmother. Only my father has only begun to collect benefits, however given how much money he put into the system as a small business owner (8 leased stores, 100 employees) for 32 years (15 as part-owner, 17 as full owner) as well as that of my grandparents and great grandparents, my father could collect benefits for nearly 300 years before he exhausted the money my family put into the system.

Stephen of WI 3:32PM August 06, 2009

About this blog

About this blog

Washington Whispers has been featured in U.S. News & World Report since 1933, offering a fun, insider's view of Washington.

advertisement

Latest Video

advertisement