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.
In another thread recently, it was implied (or I think it was - the post was written in a sort of broken pidgin English) that the president is responsible for our present low labor-participation rate.
What drawer of the Oval Office desk is the economy magic wand kept in?
Is the American economy centrally planned in secret? Is that what Area 51 is for?
If economic woes are to be blamed on the executive, in fairness shouldn't the executive have the power to set taxation rates and the budget, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer does for the British government?
In short, are those who make this point in fact not advocating for abandoning the American constitution in favor of a parliamentary system? Or even perhaps simply yearning for dictatorship?
Some people like to think the president has a lever in his office that controls gas prices. When he's feeling moody he'll push it up to raise the prices and make people panic and to gain respect he'll pull it down and drop it to less than $3 a gallon.
The President's power in our economy, with as many moving parts as it has, is fairly limited. After all he is just one man overseeing a nation of over 300 million people. At the end of the day he will sign or veto a bill that Congress passes, (except they haven't passed much in the last 3 years). People get all pent up with frustration and like to blame the president, mostly because he's our first black president and we have a lot of closet racists in our country. What many people fail to realize is all taxes and everything that controls the government's budget originated in the House of Representatives which is decisively controlled by the Republicans right now.
But people will play the blame game all day because it's easier than accepting responsibility for the failures of their own congressmen.
the government controls the economy through fiscal and tax policy and the Fed.
OK, right - thanks. And remind me again - how does "the government" work? We have a big plebiscite every four years to elect a king, right? And then for four years he gets to do anything he wants? His word is law, and he makes all the decisions, and everyone has to follow his every command - right?
In another thread recently, it was implied (or I think it was - the post was written in a sort of broken pidgin English) that the president is responsible for our present low labor-participation rate.
What drawer of the Oval Office desk is the economy magic wand kept in?
Is the American economy centrally planned in secret? Is that what Area 51 is for?
If economic woes are to be blamed on the executive, in fairness shouldn't the executive have the power to set taxation rates and the budget, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer does for the British government?
In short, are those who make this point in fact not advocating for abandoning the American constitution in favor of a parliamentary system? Or even perhaps simply yearning for dictatorship?
The office of President is a leadership position.
Leaders advocate policies and legislation that will for good or bad effect the nation.
Unfortunately for us, Obama is not a leader and he never has been.
He's a politician who has an incredible ability to win elections but that's all.
Early in his first term, as the economy was bottoming-out, all Obama had to do was cut taxes and spending and then wait for the economy rebound as it always does following a recession.
He could have taken full credit for what was going to happen anyway, but because Obama is the sort politician who seeks to capitalize on whatever bad news he can blame on someone else, instead of doing the right thing he borrowed a trillion dollars to pay off his supporters.
The deficit exploded, the currency crashed and the economy has failed to rebound for fours running.
By contrast, Reagan advocated for an increase in interest rates relative to inflation to help restore the value of the US dollar.
He asked Congress for a reduction in taxes and that kept us afloat while the higher interest rates predictably stalled the economy.
The resulting recession was sever and Reagan's approval rating suffered, but he stuck to his guns because he knew he was doing the right thing.
By 1983, the economy was booming and by 1984, the value of the US dollar was restored.
We had a healthy growing economy for the remainder of his presidency with low inflation and an expanding job market.
It took guts to do what Reagan did and we're all better off because of his leadership.
Today we are drifting as the campaigner in chief wonders why deficit spending by the federal government hasn't stimulated the economy the he's been told it should.
He doesn't have a clue, and I believe with his second term secured he really doesn't care.
He enjoys the perks of being president, but he's no leader.
Leading takes guts and the guy who votes present doesn't have that.
"By 1989, the U.S. GDP was at $5.48 trillion, almost double the level of 10 years earlier. The Reagan years also had inflation slowing from more than 13 percent in 1980 down to 4 percent in 1988."
In another thread recently, it was implied (or I think it was - the post was written in a sort of broken pidgin English) that the president is responsible for our present low labor-participation rate.
What drawer of the Oval Office desk is the economy magic wand kept in?
Is the American economy centrally planned in secret? Is that what Area 51 is for?
If economic woes are to be blamed on the executive, in fairness shouldn't the executive have the power to set taxation rates and the budget, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer does for the British government?
In short, are those who make this point in fact not advocating for abandoning the American constitution in favor of a parliamentary system? Or even perhaps simply yearning for dictatorship?
The President's policies can make or break an economy. A simple accidental/hacked tweet sometime last week from the White House made the Dow dip, therefore that shows simple mistakes can hurt a economy while larger mistakes can destroy a economy although viable legislation may not back what a President may say i.e. if Obama we're to say he that he was going to raise corporate taxes to 100%, companies would pull out of America although legislation may not be in place for such a an atrocious piece of legislation to pass. Therefore it's the Presidents duty to be sort of like a CEO, he must keep investors and citizens spirits high and confident in the USA, just as CEO must keep his shareholders optimistic while also providing the best product to his consumers.
Leaders advocate policies and legislation that will for good or bad effect the nation.
Unfortunately for us, Obama is not a leader and he never has been.
He's a politician who has an incredible ability to win elections but that's all.
Early in his first term, as the economy was bottoming-out, all Obama had to do was cut taxes and spending and then wait for the economy rebound as it always does following a recession.
He could have taken full credit for what was going to happen anyway, but because Obama is the sort politician who seeks to capitalize on whatever bad news he can blame on someone else, instead of doing the right thing he borrowed a trillion dollars to pay off his supporters.
The deficit exploded, the currency crashed and the economy has failed to rebound for fours running.
By contrast, Reagan advocated for an increase in interest rates relative to inflation to help restore the value of the US dollar.
He asked Congress for a reduction in taxes and that kept us afloat while the higher interest rates predictably stalled the economy.
The resulting recession was sever and Reagan's approval rating suffered, but he stuck to his guns because he knew he was doing the right thing.
By 1983, the economy was booming and by 1984, the value of the US dollar was restored.
We had a healthy growing economy for the remainder of his presidency with low inflation and an expanding job market.
It took guts to do what Reagan did and we're all better off because of his leadership.
Today we are drifting as the campaigner in chief wonders why deficit spending by the federal government hasn't stimulated the economy the he's been told it should.
He doesn't have a clue, and I believe with his second term secured he really doesn't care.
He enjoys the perks of being president, but he's no leader.
Leading takes guts and the guy who votes present doesn't have that.
"By 1989, the U.S. GDP was at $5.48 trillion, almost double the level of 10 years earlier. The Reagan years also had inflation slowing from more than 13 percent in 1980 down to 4 percent in 1988."
Because cutting taxes and spending is working so well in Europe right now. They're making all sorts of cuts and tightening up with all the austerity measures. Spain is experiencing unemployment levels of 27%.
In a recession when NO ONE is spending, the federal government needs to spend, to help stimulate the economy. This is pretty common sense, and it's almost exactly what happened in the Great Depression.
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.
