I'm wondering what a second term for President Obama would look like.

Conservatives say it would be the apocalypse -- from the ruination of the American economy (something we seem to have accomplished years ago) to government confiscation of guns (a subject Obama actually seems to have no interest in).

Obama supporters say a second term would allow the president to address global warming, repair the nation's crumbling infrastructure, balance the federal budget fairly, protect the middle class and make college affordable to all.

I can't imagine either camp is correct.

If Obama is re-elected, it will be by a narrow margin. We can count on control of Congress either being divided between the parties or being so closely split that neither side has the requisite votes to accomplish anything, particularly in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to order lunch. Further, the United States isn't just broke, it's so far beyond broke that it would take the light from broke six years to reach us. There's no money for new initiatives, and even if there was, the current U.S. Supreme Court frowns on initiative.

So.

Four more years much like the last four years?

I agree with everything you say here except this. When we want something, we find a way to pay for it. When we feel like waving our magic wand and creating $7.7 trillion in imaginary America Fun Bucks™ for the investment banks, we make it happen.

When our country says "we can't afford X," we actually mean, "we don't want X. We'd rather have tax cuts, bank bailouts, and defense spending."

Do we want four years of Romney?

Goodness, that sure would be terrifying.

(EDIT: When I responded to your post, it was asking if we wanted a president who would push deregulation. Now it's been edited, and my response looks like a non sequitur.)

This is true.

Ditto for spending $1 trillion-plus on two long wars.

But -- we can't keep doing that. The deficit hawks have a point on this. Our current levels of spending -- and taxation -- are not sustainable. You can argue about what spending should be cut, and who should be taxed more and how, but simple math shows us our current path is not sustainable.

Unfortunately for the next president, the U.S. economy remains weak, and this is not a good time to remove billions of dollars from it, either through spending cuts or tax hikes.

"Slightly Less Awful Than The Other Guy" is a shitty campaign slogan.

Joe, I suspect you know how I'll be voting in November. I'm simply saying, it's hard to get excited about the next four years.

The difference being, for a Republican this would be a campaign promise kept.

But it's how our process works.

If you want better choices you need to get involved a lot earlier than the presidential elections.

In my state, Democrats had one choice in the spring presidential primary. His name was Barack Obama. How much earlier should I have gotten involved in the 2012 election, June of 1990?