We did it again today

[jim]

Fri...Feb. 7, 1908...

The stock market did it again today: Hershey shipping out their factory jobs.:devil Hooray again for "W" and his thugs - and - BOYCOTT Hershey and all other job shippers:devil

[AYFR]

How is outsourcing GWB's fault? Companies hove been outsourcing long befor GWB was in office.

[Trueblue]

Hershey? That is really contrary to their past philosophy, isn't it?

[AYFR]

Super Tuesday was quite possibly the most important day for Presidential hopefuls outside of the general election in November. As is often the case, the economy was the biggest concern for voters. Nearly 40% of potential voters listed the economy as their number one issue; this is more than double the amount of voters that claimed the Iraq war as their top issue. The obvious question is how much control does the Commander-in-Chief actually have over the economy?

The two most significant ways that a President can affect the economy is through taxes and government spending. Although, most of that power resides with Congress and the President merely lends a signature at the end of the process to make the proposal law. The President can and will state his opinion on such matters, but ultimate responsibility for fiscal policy is Congress’ alone. Thus, while the President has enormous influence over fiscal policy, Congress is the ultimate authority.

There is no shortage of instances where a President has attempted to adjust the economy to suit a particular political agenda. Most notably, FDR’s “New Deal” attempted to jump-start a broken financial system struggling through the Great Depression. He greatly expanded the size of government through public works projects, regulated the stock market, instituted bank deposit Insurance, and tried to stabilize prices. FDR did not create the problem of 25% unemployment but he did try to fix it; however, his legacy will not be that he lowered unemployment--which remained high until World War II, but rather that he greatly expanded the size and scope of government. Ultimately, the U.S. did not fully recover economically from the Great Depression until World War II, which dramatically boosted production and employment.

A President does have an important role to play in the macro economy, but much of what a President can affect requires a “trickle-down” effect which may take years to for its impact to be felt. Presidents are politicians and not economists, but so often a boom or a bust is credited to the sitting President when there was little they actually did to create the situation. Often when the President targets a particular goal, such as FDR did in attempting to reign in unemployment, they create a new set of issues. One of the wonderful things about being a politician is that when the day of reckoning comes, it is almost always someone else’s problem.

In conclusion, voters should certainly be aware of each candidate’s economic philosophy and goals, but they must recognize that Presidents are one cog in the political machine. And politics rarely has an answer for a slowdown in the business cycle, inflation, or other economic challenges that are best solved by market forces. If a candidate tells you differently, don’t believe it.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/63451-the-president-s-effect-on-the-economy-less-than-you-d-think

[Trueblue]

:roll

[jim]

How is outsourcing GWB's fault? Companies hove been outsourcing long befor GWB was in office.


Think!!:godzilla

[sparks]

Most notably, FDR’s “New Deal” attempted to jump-start a broken financial system struggling through the Great Depression. He greatly expanded the size of government through public works projects, regulated the stock market, instituted bank deposit Insurance, and tried to stabilize prices. FDR did not create the problem of 25% unemployment but he did try to fix it; however, his legacy will not be that he lowered unemployment--which remained high until World War II, but rather that he greatly expanded the size and scope of government. Ultimately, the U.S. did not fully recover economically from the Great Depression until World War II, which dramatically boosted production and employment.

Apparently the old political ideas that a war jump starts the economy doesn't work anymore. For if that theory worked, we would be sitting pretty economically as a country right now!

[April15]

Apparently the old political ideas that a war jump starts the economy doesn't work anymore. For if that theory worked, we would be sitting pretty economically as a country right now!We import to much of the military supplies to help with the economy.

[sparks]

We import to much of the military supplies to help with the economy.

It's a new age, where the old idea of a war machine is obsolete! Too bad we as a country are still playing the same old game.

[jim]

There is no shortage of instances where a President has attempted to adjust the economy to suit a particular political agenda. Most notably, FDR’s “New Deal” attempted to jump-start a broken financial system struggling through the Great Depression. He greatly expanded the size of government through public works projects, regulated the stock market, instituted bank deposit Insurance, and tried to stabilize prices. FDR did not create the problem of 25% unemployment but he did try to fix it; however, his legacy will not be that he lowered unemployment--which remained high until World War II, but rather that he greatly expanded the size and scope of government. Ultimately, the U.S. did not fully recover economically from the Great Depression until World War II, which dramatically boosted production and employment.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63451-the-president-s-effect-on-the-economy-less-than-you-d-think[/QUOTE]

Not true that he didn't increase employment. I lived is a goodly portion of that era. This is the Republican version of the story Besides - What had the Republicans done??? We had to marshall things up, of course, or lose the war!!! And - there was unity in the country...Historians tell us that before FDR's actions the country was beginning to seriously consider Communism as an alternative and the Social Security so hated by the Fascistic Republicans was created as one of the moves to avoid a turn to communism. The Republicans were not hurt - They just lost a lot of their dominance...And what are we getting now??? A nation full of little tin Gods!!...we don't have greatly qualified people to run for president on either side of the aisle...Obama probably has the most potential and would be a step in the right direction - I don't know about Hillary...Organized crime is playing a big role and, I have no doubt, put Hillary and Obama out in front to get another Republican elected!!! :devil:devil If something rather major is not done soon - The rift in the country is too great to mend and we are going down...:deadshot

[jim]

It's a new age, where the old idea of a war machine is obsolete! Too bad we as a country are still playing the same old game.

Right on!!!:zen