Should a U.S. president be import to U.S. economy and why
- Thread starter NoMoreOptions
- Start date
"wow, in the one post of yours that i've read, you've earned a prominent spot on my imbecile list."
I'm not saying the Republicans aren't screwing things up, nor am I ignoring the fact that they control both Houses of Congress. Re-read my post. I said that CONGRESS has control of the budget. I don't give a darn WHAT the President asks for. He can ask for the flippen moon, its up to Congress.
Don't forget that its only been recently that Repubs have had control. Dems were in control for 40 years for crying out loud.
you've earned a prominent spot on my imbecile list.
I'm not saying the Republicans aren't screwing things up, nor am I ignoring the fact that they control both Houses of Congress. Re-read my post. I said that CONGRESS has control of the budget. I don't give a darn WHAT the President asks for. He can ask for the flippen moon, its up to Congress.
Don't forget that its only been recently that Repubs have had control. Dems were in control for 40 years for crying out loud.
you've earned a prominent spot on my imbecile list.
i will be the first to admit that i am often an imbecile.
but not about this. historically, the financial markets have outperformed with a democrat president and a repub congress..
let's not forget that republicans like cheney and rumsfeld are the ones that have fucked the US in the 21st century by their support of puppet governments like the taliban and the baathists. let's not forget the impeachment bullshit (which had nothing to do with clinton lying and everything to do with attacking a popular president), sketchy election, and rush limbaugh. such winners as eisenhower (set the scene for today's middle east), harding (arguably our worst president), hoover (depression and yipee the hoover dam), and of course, nixon, who SUCKED.
let's also not forget that democrats have repeatedly bailed out the country thru history, despite the occasional problematic figure such as carter or mondale. the new deal, united nations, & civil rights.
regardless, i think it's clear that whenever either party gains control of everything, things tend to go to shit.
maybe the US should have 9 presidents instead of one retard texan, and the executive branch would be safer from extremists, right or left...this would modernize the US into the 20th century where, like other 1st world democratic govts, all parties get at least SOME representation in each branch of govt.
or maybe they could make it like the rings in the lord of the rings, and dumya could hold the master evil ring...
Does the US President have a legal obligation to the economy? No. Does he have a self-interest (re-election) in the economy? Yes.
Yes, President Bush is winning.
Ok now realize that the economic effects lag the president's term by 3-5 years. So you can thank Clinton for todays job situation.
Look as shady as republicans are, they get stuff done. If Gore was elected president, man we would have been in a true recession. It's more realistic but at the same time, that's not fun. And I doubt the markets would have been making the moves they make today.
One reason I do wish for democrats is because they strongly push alternative energy. Bush is putting on a fake image about the issue but he isn't even trying to push it to the level that Gore would have.
Quote from bungrider:
i will be the first to admit that i am often an imbecile.
or maybe they could make it like the rings in the lord of the rings, and dumya could hold the master evil ring...
This is unreal. I submit a post stating that it doesn't make a tinkers damn who is President because Congress controls the budget and you call me an imbecile. Then you rant and rave, proclaiming the virtues of one particular party. You just don't get it do you.
As long as voters, yourself included, are blind enough to believe one party or President or whoever are the devils and the other party and some past Presidents are saints, the root of the problem will forever escape you. You will never see the problem because you've fallen prey to the smoke, the fire will rage on for future generations to extinguish.
Say whatever you want to give credence to your position. Someone on the other side could do the same, with equal fervor. Both of you would be full of it.
I can understand the criticism of Bush on spending too much. I can understand the criticism on Iraq. I cna even understand the criticism of the tax cuts, since a tax cut to a liberal is like sunlight to a vampire. What I can't understand is the criticism over job losses, specifically jobs being exported to India,etc. What can he possibly do about that? This is not even a free trade versus "fair" trade type deal. Most of these jobs are service type jobs, phone centers, help desks, software coding. What should he do, cut phone lines to India? I'm not syaing it's a good thing or that it's not tough on those who lose their jobs, but I just don't see what Bush or anyone else can do.