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.
However, I am not entirely sure why the economic state of America is always attributed to the President when the Congress holds the purse strings.
Presidents write the budget, which is the spending plan drawn up against a reasonably well known revenue forecast. The President exerts influence through his Hill allies on authorizing and appropriating legislation. He can veto (or merely threaten to veto) changes to the plan that he does not like. In the end, if a monstrous deficit results from a budget, it is the President (and his team) who will typically bear the lion's share of the responsibility for that...
It's sad when the party of balanced budget and small government causes so much debt...
Bush is the worst thing to have hit this country since...ever?
Well the whole fiscal responsibility thing one of the main reasons I jump up and down and point at Ron Paul. Whatever people may think of the guy, his grasp of economics far exceeds that of any of the front runners and I feel it is a moral indignity to pass on the burden of debt to future generations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Presidents write the budget, which is the spending plan drawn up against a reasonably well known revenue forecast. The President exerts influence through his Hill allies on authorizing and appropriating legislation. He can veto (or merely threaten to veto) changes to the plan that he does not like. In the end, if a monstrous deficit results from a budget, it is the President (and his team) who will typically bear the lion's share of the responsibility for that...
Sounds like another great argument against having a single party control all three branches of government.
One of the more striking things I find in that depiction (from encarta encyclopedia) is how the debt has just simply skyrocketed. Starting slowly with Ford, then progressively getting greater, then just taking off.
Even during and after Vietnam, the debt rose but not in some dragster fashion. I can't attribute this rise in spending to just simply social services because I can tell you, I haven't seen any return in services based upon that amount of spending. I know that population rise and over all number of service recipients has risen by in this geometrically progressive manner? I suspect it is due in great part to military spending, just a hunch.
Now I also realize that when we run up large debts, we can always inflate the economy, or devalue the dollar in order to easier pay off these debts but there comes a point in which you head over the precipice and the people bearing this burden can no longer do so. So using history as the best guide I can think of, how close are we to this point in time?
But the stock market does much better under Democrat presidents. If only Gore was elected in 2000, who knows how much higher the stock market would be now. After all, under President Clinton the stock market doubled over 3 times. It hasn't doubled once under Bush.
But the stock market does much better under Democrat presidents. If only Gore was elected in 2000, who knows how much higher the stock market would be now. After all, under President Clinton the stock market doubled over 3 times. It hasn't doubled once under Bush.
Who knows, indeed? What a week, though. I bet even Clinton made money.
Too bad about you and all those pieces of fallen sky.
After all, under President Clinton the stock market doubled over 3 times. It hasn't doubled once under Bush.
Doubled? Heck, it took Bush 63 months to get it back to where it was in August of 2000. Of course those are nominal numbers. Inflation would have left you worse off even at that time...
This one speaks volumes. However, I am not entirely sure why the economic state of America is always attributed to the President when the Congress holds the purse strings.
[IMG][/IMG]
Interesting:
The debt skyrocketed during Reagan and Bush I's terms; come Slick Willie it started leveling off just in time for Dubya to oversee it spiking-------big time.
2001-06 also saw both Houses of Congress held by the GOP.
I am one disillusioned Republican here
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.
[/IMG]
