How much control does the President truly have over the economy?

[keithers]

There are independent candidates, even if they haven't a chance to win.
Anyway, I see some differences between republicans and democrats.

Here's the thing, politics is like WWE wrestling. They pretend to hate each other and focus on all their differences, but behind closed doors, they are all buddies, playing golf and smoking cigars together.

[1714120206]

1714120206

[1714120206]

1714120206

[1714120206]

1714120206

[1714120206]

1714120206

[1714120206]

1714120206

[Nagle]

Bush really isn't to blame for the downturn since it was third-party forces outside of his control. His biggest blunder with the economy was the appearance of his mishandling, but he's not really to blame.

The big crash of 2008 could have been avoided at the cost of a smaller crash about two years earlier. Without some of the Bush-era stimulus policies, there would have been a crash in housing several years earlier, but it would have been about the size of the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. There was a mindset, fully endorsed by Alan Greenspan at the Fed, that rising house prices were a good thing and a source of wealth. Greenspan really didn't believe that someday there had to be a crash in housing. ("Houses can only go up!". Wrong.)

A big problem was the earlier elimination of Glass-Stegall, the law which kept commercial banks from getting into the stock market. While brokerages were separate from banking, a Wall Street crash didn't take down the banking system. That separation was put into place in 1933 because of the 1929 crash. It was repealed in 1999. Trouble soon followed.

[twiifm]

Bush really isn't to blame for the downturn since it was third-party forces outside of his control. His biggest blunder with the economy was the appearance of his mishandling, but he's not really to blame.

The big crash of 2008 could have been avoided at the cost of a smaller crash about two years earlier. Without some of the Bush-era stimulus policies, there would have been a crash in housing several years earlier, but it would have been about the size of the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. There was a mindset, fully endorsed by Alan Greenspan at the Fed, that rising house prices were a good thing and a source of wealth. Greenspan really didn't believe that someday there had to be a crash in housing. ("Houses can only go up!". Wrong.)

A big problem was the earlier elimination of Glass-Stegall, the law which kept commercial banks from getting into the stock market. While brokerages were separate from banking, a Wall Street crash didn't take down the banking system. That separation was put into place in 1933 because of the 1929 crash. It was repealed in 1999. Trouble soon followed.

Deregulation happened during Clinton administration

[DigitalMoneyISR]

Must watch:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232207/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=232qaFGyzwQ

[umair127]

This assessment is partially correct.
the president can't fix the economy any better than the soviet union could centrally manage theirs successfully, it is not possible to reach economic prosperity by having someone with a gun telling everyone how much to produce of everything.

the way modern economies work today is broken.
the main problem is that we no longer have free markets, mainly because central banks try to centrally control the amount of money and credit in circulation by setting an arbitrary interest rate, instead of letting the market decide what the interest should be.
the president could in theory abolish the central bank, and stop the commercial banks from conducting fractional reserve lending, and stop propping up failed businesses, which is why he is somewhat responsible for this mess.

you cant blame only the president for this mess, you have to blame the whole government from this mess, since the time they started taking loans from banks and printing more money, and these caused the USA to lose there rating from owing not only banks but other countries as well.

[thresher]

Well if we say Obama has control over the economy, we have to acknowledge that the US economy is controlled by minorities under 29, who make less than 50k a year, since they placed Obama into power through their overwhelming support of Obama      
 
       

[sana8410]

Well if we say Obama has control over the economy, we have to acknowledge that the US economy is controlled by minorities under 29, who make less than 50k a year, since they placed Obama into power through their overwhelming support of Obama      .
       

so if they put him there, your saying he had only minority votes is kinda being naive dont you think, There were educated who put him there and middle class that made over 50k a year.  Celeberity support also they surely dont make underneath 50k a  year

[RoadTrain]

Actually the most powerful economic weapon is fiscal policy. Though it depends on whether it's used correctly.
So the President (and gov't as a whole) does theoretically have significant control over economy. The problem is that he hardly uses his weapon correctly.

[Jcw188]

Bush really isn't to blame for the downturn since it was third-party forces outside of his control. His biggest blunder with the economy was the appearance of his mishandling, but he's not really to blame.

The big crash of 2008 could have been avoided at the cost of a smaller crash about two years earlier. Without some of the Bush-era stimulus policies, there would have been a crash in housing several years earlier, but it would have been about the size of the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. There was a mindset, fully endorsed by Alan Greenspan at the Fed, that rising house prices were a good thing and a source of wealth. Greenspan really didn't believe that someday there had to be a crash in housing. ("Houses can only go up!". Wrong.)

A big problem was the earlier elimination of Glass-Stegall, the law which kept commercial banks from getting into the stock market. While brokerages were separate from banking, a Wall Street crash didn't take down the banking system. That separation was put into place in 1933 because of the 1929 crash. It was repealed in 1999. Trouble soon followed.

We're having the same problem now because of Bernanke.  There was the idea that they could use the "threat" of QE, and then QE itself, to prevent a downturn in the market and weakening of the economy.  There have ALWAYS been business cycles in the modern economy and the Fed is trying to get rid of them.  It seems a bubble has been forming AGAIN because we didn't take our medicine after the last 2.  I mean, interest rates are so freakin low already and they used QE and are still using QE, meanwhile we are due for another recession pretty soon (maybe it's happening now) so what the heck is the Fed gonna do if things get ugly now? 

[thresher]

Well if we say Obama has control over the economy, we have to acknowledge that the US economy is controlled by minorities under 29, who make less than 50k a year, since they placed Obama into power through their overwhelming support of Obama      .
       

so if they put him there, your saying he had only minority votes is kinda being naive dont you think, There were educated who put him there and middle class that made over 50k a year.  Celeberity support also they surely dont make underneath 50k a  year

I don't care if some jerk off celebrity voted for him.  The point is he was elected basically from Hispanic votes in swing states.  His support stems primarily from "minorities" that make less than 50k (because if I say black and hispanic; people will have a shit fit.)  He also dominated the population of voters under age 29. 

The point was just to comment that if you think the president controls the economy., then these are the people that control the economy.  I don't believe that, but than again maybe that's part of why the US is in the predicament it is in.

[solarion]

Bush really isn't to blame for the downturn since it was third-party forces outside of his control. His biggest blunder with the economy was the appearance of his mishandling, but he's not really to blame.

The big crash of 2008 could have been avoided at the cost of a smaller crash about two years earlier. Without some of the Bush-era stimulus policies, there would have been a crash in housing several years earlier, but it would have been about the size of the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. There was a mindset, fully endorsed by Alan Greenspan at the Fed, that rising house prices were a good thing and a source of wealth. Greenspan really didn't believe that someday there had to be a crash in housing. ("Houses can only go up!". Wrong.)

A big problem was the earlier elimination of Glass-Stegall, the law which kept commercial banks from getting into the stock market. While brokerages were separate from banking, a Wall Street crash didn't take down the banking system. That separation was put into place in 1933 because of the 1929 crash. It was repealed in 1999. Trouble soon followed.

We're having the same problem now because of Bernanke.  There was the idea that they could use the "threat" of QE, and then QE itself, to prevent a downturn in the market and weakening of the economy.  There have ALWAYS been business cycles in the modern economy and the Fed is trying to get rid of them.  It seems a bubble has been forming AGAIN because we didn't take our medicine after the last 2.  I mean, interest rates are so freakin low already and they used QE and are still using QE, meanwhile we are due for another recession pretty soon (maybe it's happening now) so what the heck is the Fed gonna do if things get ugly now?

The fed is out of weapons. All of their tampering with free markets, manipulation of interest rates, looting of savers, encouraging obscene public and private debt levels, it's all to keep the dollar ponzi running a little longer.

[umair127]

Well if we say Obama has control over the economy, we have to acknowledge that the US economy is controlled by minorities under 29, who make less than 50k a year, since they placed Obama into power through their overwhelming support of Obama      .
       

so if they put him there, your saying he had only minority votes is kinda being naive dont you think, There were educated who put him there and middle class that made over 50k a year.  Celeberity support also they surely dont make underneath 50k a  year

I don't care if some jerk off celebrity voted for him.  The point is he was elected basically from Hispanic votes in swing states.  His support stems primarily from "minorities" that make less than 50k (because if I say black and hispanic; people will have a shit fit.)  He also dominated the population of voters under age 29. 

The point was just to comment that if you think the president controls the economy., then these are the people that control the economy.  I don't believe that, but than again maybe that's part of why the US is in the predicament it is in.

Listen just because the american people put him there doesnt mean that people voted for him had anything to do with his failures and it goes for all the presidents before him.  The ones who put the strings is the ones he owes favors for.

[gigEls]

He is a puppet of people with money.

[solarion]

He is a puppet of people with money.

Naturally. In this case owned and operated by goldman sachs.

[CarlesPuyol]

look at the china president...they have the power to make what they want!

[r34tr783tr78]

It's well known that the candidate that gets more money usually wins. But to be fair, Obama gets most of his money from small contributions.

[true2self]

Sorry, but puppets has no power.

[zimmah]

If the president made it his top priority to cut government spending and reduce regulations, I believe he could greatly affect the economy in the long run.

The president also has certain powers that could reduce costs & at the same time show his resolve in cutting spending. For instance, he could give a full pardon to every person in prison on a drug charge, state he will continue to pardon all drug charges the rest of his term, and that would be the end to the war on drugs (at least at the federal level).

Of course, all of this is moot. The goal of presidents is to increase federal power, regardless of the cost to the economy.

Cut government spending? That means they'll recieve taxes but don't spend it on education, healthcare, maintenance of infrastructure, etc.

Great idea.

The economy is in the hands of the federal reserve and the large banks, not the presidents and other rulers or nations. They should completely rebuild the financial system but I doubt anyone has that power.

[NXTplayer]

they control the money supply so it's fully control.

[sana8410]

He is a puppet of people with money.

Naturally. In this case owned and operated by goldman sachs.

not only Gold man Sachs Was RGB and other wall street firms that threw him parties to promote him, I worked at one of them and they threw him a event.