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.
It is completely within a presidents power to veto any new tax. If he veto's it and then it gets passed anyway, only then would this hold true and that is something that doesn't happen but very rarely.
Which is to say, responsibility is shared between Congress and president. Is there an echo in here?
Nobody "controls" the economy. But a vigilant administration can out the fraudulent businesses that can bring down an economy. It is not magic, but it is a worthwhile job to do. One that Bush did NOT do because Greenspan and Friedman (Milton) told him not to.
Which is to say, responsibility is shared between Congress and president. Is there an echo in here?
"The buck stops here" It's the presidents job to set the agenda and lay out the policies he wants the country to operate under. If the Senate bucks him, then he can use the veto. Veto's are very difficult to over ride.
If he fails in that one of two things happened. He picked the wrong policies or he is extremely weak as a leader.
"The responsibility". The Executive has to be the watchdog, and Congress has to get out of the way. That's been a problem for too long. Congress keeps starving the watchdog and taking away authority.
"The buck stops here" It's the presidents job to set the agenda and lay out the policies he wants the country to operate under. If the Senate bucks him, then he can use the veto. Veto's are very difficult to over ride.
If he fails in that one of two things happened. He picked the wrong policies or he is extremely weak as a leader.
That doesn't make any sense. If the presidents sets an agenda and lay out the policies that the Congress refuses to pass, there is nothing to veto and he still doesn't get his agenda nor policies.
"The buck stops here" It's the presidents job to set the agenda and lay out the policies he wants the country to operate under. If the Senate bucks him, then he can use the veto. Veto's are very difficult to over ride.
If he fails in that one of two things happened. He picked the wrong policies or he is extremely weak as a leader.
So, a president is "at fault" for the state of the economy because he has a negative power. That is not a logical proposition, you know.
And by the way, "the buck stops here" was a slogan of Mr. Truman's - it's not in the constitution, and neither is the phrase "whiter and brighter".
That doesn't make any sense. If the presidents sets an agenda and lay out the policies that the Congress refuses to pass, there is nothing to veto and he still doesn't get his agenda nor policies.
Which is a sign of a poor leader. Reagan was able to get his way despite having neither the House or Senate controlled by his party.
I didn't want to make this partisan but Obama had 60 votes in the Senate and his party controlled the House. Despite this it took a year to pass Obamacare and we ended up with a mess.
Bush showed where a president can lead the country where he wanted it to go. That was an example of picking failed policies. Obama can not get anyone to follow anything including his own party. That is an example of a failed leader.
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.
