Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isn't he just telling the truth? Especially when talking about market economies like America's. I mean a communist/socialist economy is probably the only economy where one leader can actually try to dictate economic outcomes.
Presidents have some minimal effect, but it takes awhile to show any effects. They can decide (as Bush did) to cut back on resources for regulators to allow certain sectors of the economy to run themselves off the rails. Takes awhile for that to happen, though. Or he can try to tighten lax regulation, which also takes awhile to get results.
The economy is largely in the hands of congress. And their actions require some time to take ahold, too.
The general rule is:
Presidents have most impact on foreign policy and international affairs, where they don't require congressional approval for each and every move.
Congress makes domestic policy, for all intents and purposes. Presidents have veto power, but that's about as far as they can control things domestically.
Thats because economies drop after you finish stimulating. It always happens because stimulating is a short term boost at a long term expense. Its why things are best left to go on their own. Just like government created the housing bubble, they now created an economic bubble. Those funds need to be paid back and when doing so, it causes a negative effect upon the economy which compounds the fact that stimulus spending isnt taking place and thus those that were artificially kept employed by stimulus spending, lose their jobs regardless.
Just curious has Paul Krugman or Robert Reich ever responded to those types of comments? I ask because those are the two I often see promoting the need for more stimulus.
Presidents can not create jobs, but they can set the conditions so do that business's either thrive, or fail. And this presidents policies are failing miserably.
Nearly every indicator shows that the economy is doing better now than it was when Obama took office.
Actually, that simply isn't true. Just your inaccurate analysis adopted as your truth.
Please list the ones that have been successful, and dont dare say the stimulus because Democrats this week have been saying that Obama didnt increase spending..
Just curious has Paul Krugman or Robert Reich ever responded to those types of comments? I ask because those are the two I often see promoting the need for more stimulus.
What these economist base their position on, is saving money up in good years, so they can be spent in bad. This on its face actually makes sense, if, (and thats a big if), the federal government would ever run surpluses and manage to save. Clearly they dont, and because they dont, then the additional debt needs to be subtracted from future GDP growth.
That $1T or so doesnt come without an economic cost. When the government needs to remove it again from society in order to pay back the debt, (they removed it first to stimuluate), this lowers any future GDP growth.
Of course what this means is that each stimulus, actually harms the economy twice, rather than helping since we run on deficits and not surpluses in good years.
David Brooks:
Isn't he just telling the truth? Especially when talking about market economies like America's. I mean a communist/socialist economy is probably the only economy where one leader can actually try to dictate economic outcomes.
He is doing what loyal dissent is about. But DO NOT expect most "conservatives" to get that. They are well-tuned for extremism and NOTHING that doesn't blame Obama, gets in their way.
It matters not who the POTUS is. Or what happens in Greece. We created this mess ourselves.
In Big Jon's attachment was
CRA Said should be consistent with safe and sound banking practices
Equal Credit Opportunity Act Reg B said availability to all creditworthy applicants
Seems the breakdown occurred here. The housing loans went to folks who had no business getting them. The loans were made possible by lenders who ignored safe and sound practices.
I'm not about to lay the housing bust on some dumb flight attendant who bought more house than she could afford. The person who approved the loan should go to jail for fraud.
Maybe then consumer confidence will return and we can get out of the doldrums.
It matters not who the POTUS is. Or what happens in Greece. We created this mess ourselves.
In Big Jon's attachment was
CRA Said should be consistent with safe and sound banking practices
Equal Credit Opportunity Act Reg B said availability to all creditworthy applicants
Seems the breakdown occurred here. The housing loans went to folks who had no business getting them. The loans were made possible by lenders who ignored safe and sound practices.
I'm not about to lay the housing bust on some dumb flight attendant who bought more house than she could afford. The person who approved the loan should go to jail for fraud.
Maybe then consumer confidence will return and we can get out of the doldrums.
The real gems start on page 13 (or 14 on your .pdf page tab).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
