Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
no offense dude but you seem to be under the false impression that the economy has a lot to do with who is president
clinton was lucky to be prez in the 90's. if bush was prez in the 90's you'd see similar results. same with obama.
the economy is mostly a matter of circumstance... not saying a prez can't help or hurt the situation. but the reason obama has bad numbers is cause he became president when he did. overall, his economic policies are hardly even that different from bush, or clinton for that matter.
ironically enough a lot of the growth in the 90's was a part of the same boom that eventually went bust in 2007, leading to obama's abysmal numbers. a lot of that was due to downright poor/dishonest business practices... which extend all the way back to the 90s economy from which they sprang.
|
The boom in the 90's went bust in 2000 when the Nasdaq bubble burst, but anyways your right to an extent, the federal reserve largely determines the economic direction of the country, but Presidents can steer the direction through various polices, economic stimulus, monetary contraction, tax cuts, hikes, industrial policy, trade agreements, & social programs ect.
I feel that if Obama had passed a much larger stimulus as advocated by prominent economists we would be in a lot better shape than we are now.
It's the perception that matters though, if the people feel that a President or his chosen successor isn't handling the economy well, than they're usually not re-elected. Otherwise I would be all for Biden.
Anyways I'm just writing for my own therapy, pondering politics helps me relax, take everything with a grain of salt.