Posted on 02/05/2008 7:56:32 PM PST by Kaslin
As the economy weakens and the campaign intensifies, we'll hear more of James Carville's familiar refrain: It's the economy, stupid. Well, it ain't — or, at least, shouldn't be.
I'm not claiming that Carville is wrong about voting. People vote their pocketbooks. In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, the economy overshadows Iraq as the most important issue by a 39% to 19% margin. What I'm saying is that this sort of voting is shortsighted. It rewards or punishes candidates for something beyond their power.
We have a $14 trillion economy. The idea that presidents can control it lies between an exaggeration and an illusion.
Our presidential preferences ought to reflect judgments about candidates' character, values, competence and their views on issues where what they think counts: foreign policy; long-term economic and social policy — how they would tax and spend; health care; immigration. Forget the business cycle.
True, presidents try to manipulate it. In 1971, President Nixon imposed wage and price controls in part to prevent inflation from jeopardizing his re-election. The economy boomed in 1972. But the controls were a time-delayed disaster. When they were removed, inflation exploded to 12% in 1974.
In 1980, the Carter administration adopted credit controls to squelch raging inflation. The result was a short recession — a complete surprise — that probably sealed Carter's defeat in November.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Presidents significantly influence the economy as does the Congress and the Federal Reserve.
I blame the democratic congress.
Exactly! When I hear Republican candidates talking about “managing” the economy, it makes my teeth hurt.
They may not control it, but they should understand it. McStain says he doesn’t understand it. What a MORON. What a dangerous, liberal, Mr. Tuddball, MORON. ARGGGGG!
No President has been able to alter the economy more than superficially...not that that prevents them from trying. Sometimes their actions are timed well (FDR) as to seem as if they pulled off a miracle, but most of the time the results backfire. PR spins all gains due to a President’s “decisive action” while any losses are because of Congress or the opposing Party. It’s so formula it’s cliche’.
The real game is every years submitted budget from the President(’s staff), Congresses treatment of it and eventual signing off or veto until said Prez gets his way (or not). This year’s has a 3.5 TRILLION dollar budget with yet another record-setting deficit. Those grandkids better bone up on those scout skills like foraging, shooting and making fire.
A POTUS may not be able to "control" an economy but a POTUS can certainly contribute to its success!
Isn’t it unRepublican for the government to control economy?
Just in time for Hillary's presidency, "The President can't do anything about the economy"...another instance of the double-standard is saved for the Clinton's.
I was just watching the Fox Business Block and saw Forbes's support for McCain. Troubling was, however, the many pundits on that show who use the phrase, "Who is better suited to run the economy?" when referring to McCain or Romney. Since when does a president run an economy? For that matter, when does a congress run an economy? -- a much better question but still misses the mark (but perhaps hits the Marx).Individual people run an economy -- these people are consumers, suppliers, and many times fill both roles. Government officials place hurdles in an economy and make it more difficult for the people to 'run it'. A best case scenario is that a congress removes hurdles but it typically does not do this because the electorate is dumb enough to believe that government is responsible for job creation, GDP growth, and the health of the economy that THE ELECORATE are, in fact, really running themselves. The only thing a president can do is make it harder for the congress to add to or clear the hurdles on the 'run track'.
For Fox to perpetuate such language is a disservice. For people like Steve Forbes, himself, to allow for the king of language to be used without correcting it on the spot, just shows how dumbed-down we've become and just how much proper education we'll need to get us back to where we should be.
10 posted on 02/02/2008 12:12:06 PM EST by LowCountryJoe (Do class-warfare and disdain of laissez-faire have their places in today's GOP?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
. Since then we are playing a runaway game with paper money that we will eventually lose. The founders of this great country knew that paper money was a trap and we should return to gold as a standard. Other wise we will be overtaken.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.