zero cool
Considering that Bush is not elligable to run for president after serving two terms, it would be quite a feat to see him win the office again. :t:
But realistically, the economy is doing just fine. There's slow, steady, maintainable growth. Interest rates and inflation are low. Unemployment is about as low as it's possible to be in a dynamic economy. Long term, this is exactly where you want to be. If we had a huge growth spike like we did during the Dot Com thing, we'd only be setting ourselves up for a big crash again.
But one question I do have is what exactly the President does to "control" the economy? I mean, what does the President do to make the economy good or bad? What does the rest of government do to direct a free market economy? I mean, the economy was in the crapper under Carter but recovered under Reagan. It started down during Bush Sr., rebounded during Clinton's regime only to start failing during his last year in office, Bush inherited that but the economy has rebounded nicely since then. So you can't really attribute it to even a political party. So I'm just curious why anyone thinks the sitting administration has any control over how well the economy is doing... :-|
youdidwhat
zero cool wroteConsidering that Bush is not elligable to run for president after serving two terms, it would be quite a feat to see him win the office again. :t:
But realistically, the economy is doing just fine. There's slow, steady, maintainable growth. Interest rates and inflation are low. Unemployment is about as low as it's possible to be in a dynamic economy. Long term, this is exactly where you want to be. If we had a huge growth spike like we did during the Dot Com thing, we'd only be setting ourselves up for a big crash again.
But one question I do have is what exactly the President does to "control" the economy? I mean, what does the President do to make the economy good or bad? What does the rest of government do to direct a free market economy? I mean, the economy was in the crapper under Carter but recovered under Reagan. It started down during Bush Sr., rebounded during Clinton's regime only to start failing during his last year in office, Bush inherited that but the economy has rebounded nicely since then. So you can't really attribute it to even a political party. So I'm just curious why anyone thinks the sitting administration has any control over how well the economy is doing... :-|
two things there one, I just have this feeling that old Bush will be looking for a way to stay in power. I.E. (and I do not know if this is possible but) what if old bush helped get a law through (like the Big Brother I mean patriot act) that allows no change of office during times of extrem crisis (I.E. war) then declares with his crownies a state of national war beyound what we are already in. (just a thought that I hope does not come true)
and secondly it is not the Pres directly that has that much influnce it is his regime I mean cabniet that is pulling the strings and with a yes man in office they can push anything through. they already proved you do not have to be elected to be the pres.
and though only minor but still noticable that we have an oil barron in office and yet he is making more money on his oil than every in history.
further they just found a new oil field that is massive yet the oil companys say they are going to cut production if oil prices go to Low.
now Iknow with free enterprise they have that right, but it does not mean they shoud... just to pad an already fat pocket. Kind of like health care.
all we here is rising price of health care, rising price of health care, but yet we have health care CEO's who pull down eight digits a year WTF is that all about who the F needs to make that much money. and why is our Gov. letting it happen... wait scratch that last comment.. Kickbacks.
all the above is simply my opnion and should not be taken as anything more
old-engine-nut
It's the constitution that decrees the 4 year terms, limit of two, not "law" so no law can be passed to change it.
Salaries? It's not the government (there is no conspiricy) it's the society we live in, and US, WE that allow it. Good old free enterprise. Worse yet is the corporate mentality that causes it. Stock holders buy stock in a company when interest rates are low and they demand a return. To get the stock prices high and see a good return, companies hire execs to do whatever it takes to get those stocks up and dividends paid - gotta keep the stock holders happy. Who are those stock holders? Don't blame congress, as although they do own a lot, so do most other Americans - in fact, "joe average" actually owns more stock collectively than all of our government - 401K plans, other retirement plans, whole life insurance, etc. - and we all demand high stock prices and dividends. A return to the past of 10% + interest rates could change that, but then could you afford your home? Or a new car? Try health care overseas where you personally must PAY first, then they will operate. Yes, if you can't pay, you will indeed die in the hall! Period! That's no joke.
It's not our oil companies that would cut production - talk to OPEC. They have far more control. That oil field is a pipe dream at this point. It would be 4 or 5 years before it could produce, not to mention the 5 mile depth - among the deepest if not THE deepest drill ever - pay for that technology and ability......... Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to defend "big oil" but I also am a realist. Even at that, OPEC still controls the price of a barrel of oil because they are the largest producers. Our production is but a drop in the bucket. If OPEC cuts production, our prices rise, no matter how much we produce. If we open wide every well we have, and refine all we can, world oil prices would still climb if OPEC cuts production enough. Keep an eye on those boys - they are worried about falling oil prices!
I also think Bush has pulled some real blunders - but no president, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Lincoln, no president ever can or could control our economy. It's congress that passes appropriations bills - and controls the purse strings. Even the mighty Clinton occasionally lost against congress and was unable to do some of what he wanted (good or bad). The president can work torward things - and to help guide or set policy, but if congress doesn't want to cooperate, or wants to spend more or less, then that's what really happens. If you want to effect REAL change, start with congress. My take - start all over again. Every senator, every congressperson needs to be ousted and a complete new slate put in place. Republican and Democrat alike - start over. They are all arrogant pompous a $ $ e $.
The economy is fine by all measures and standards. What people aren't seeing is that it's now a global economy. We don't live in isolation and protection from competition. The Chinese play unfairly, yes but their time is coming, their bubble will burst just like it did for Japan. Manufacturin is no longer king and it will never ever go back to the way it was, no matter who is elected. This change just happened to take place during the watch of the last two presidents. No matter who was in office, it was going to happen. This huge monster economy cannot turn on a dime - that's like asking a semi driver to sit in his cab and stop his rig going 80 mph on a dime at the end of a 50' runway. It ain't gonna happen, it can't. We are too big, our economy too big and now forever entwined with the rest of the world economies. On the good side of all this - other countries have a huge stake in our economy. Recall what happened with that pipeline was shutdown in alaska? Two contries stepped in with offers of oil to offset our loss. There was a reason for that- if we suffer, so do they.
Oh, and wasn't it Clinton who started this free-trade thing that caused manufacturers to be able to move overseas? Seems to me he was involved with starting that..............
We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic.
We live in what's called "free enterprise" system where supply and demand should rule (if the government keeps their nose out)
The sole role of government is to protect their people. No, not from hot coffee or sharp objects (morons should be removed from the gene pool anyway - what do you expect when you buy coffee - cold brew in a tippy cup???) but from outside forces, criminals, etc. That's it.
Australia has a great model and it far better than ours. They have problems too - but every citizen is required to vote and their politicians are more accountable.
As stated earlier - my opions (with a few historical facts tossed in)
You opinion may- and probably will - vary, but that's GOOD! Thousands have died to protect your right to disagree and speak freely about it.
Goose
The problems we are having now..(economically ) are basically due to two things.. Media reach and accesibility and Our own laziness (we the people)..our economy is entirely dependant on oil.. period from beginning to end manufactring to transportation to joe bag-o-donuts getting to the store to buy it. there fore everytime the oil companies, have something to say..(or some small problem) the media grabs it and sensationalizes it every 15 minutes for the entire world and then the speculators start pushing prices up... I am sure that every one is aware that the oil at the pump today was pumped,shipped,refined and paid for months ago..thus the question. If the pipeline sneezes today..why should it affect prices tomorrow?? and not two months from now?
Well the short answer is because we the people will buy it..instead of the invetive and entreprenurial among us finding another answer.. You may not realize this but Steam locomotives died because the cost of diesel was waaaay cheaper than coal and there is less maintenance.. but today many of the large class3 railroads are looking at coal/steam power again..
