How much of an effect does a Pesident have on the economy?

My topic mainly deals with job creation- it's quite obvious that nearly every GOP who runs is going to use "jobs" as their platform, but folks let's be serious- the President has no real control over job creation in the respect where he can create millions of jobs in a year. Can someone tell me one thing Obama could have done to bring the Unemployment rate down to 4%?
This is as crazy as saying that Bush could have brought the oil pices down when he was President. Remember how the liberals were slamming him for high oil prices? The only way Bush could have brought oil prices down was to invade all the opec nations- take over their supply and have those nations hugely increase their output. Even Exxon and all those Big Oil countries can't control prices as much as Americans think they can- same with jobs- it takes time for a market to rebound- one President a lone can't change it overnight.

"Can someone tell me one thing Obama could have done to bring the Unemployment rate down to 4%?"

There are things that the president could do especially if they have a majority in the congress. There are many pressures which could have been placed on large corperations which would have forced hiring. Large corperations receive tax abatements which could be taken away, they could pressure them to hire through the threat of increasing corperate tax rates, or they could provide incentives such as tax cuts for business who hire and expand. Look the goverment forced very large corperations to merge and buy up failing debt, so to say that he cant do much is a but of an understatement. The president is the leader of the government and does have some say in the direction that government takes. I am not slaming the president, but I believe that he could have acted sooner to deal with the problem. I think he and his advisors thought there was going to be a bigger rebound from the stimulas package. I believe it was a miscalculation but not necessarily something to see as a fault or something to blame on him.

"Can someone tell me one thing Obama could have done to bring the Unemployment rate down to 4%?"

There are things that the president could do especially if they have a majority in the congress. There are many pressures which could have been placed on large corperations which would have forced hiring. Large corperations receive tax abatements which could be taken away, they could pressure them to hire through the threat of increasing corperate tax rates, or they could provide incentives such as tax cuts for business who hire and expand. Look the goverment forced very large corperations to merge and buy up failing debt, so to say that he cant do much is a but of an understatement. The president is the leader of the government and does have some say in the direction that government takes. I am not slaming the president, but I believe that he could have acted sooner to deal with the problem. I think he and his advisors thought there was going to be a bigger rebound from the stimulas package. I believe it was a miscalculation but not necessarily something to see as a fault or something to blame on him. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Welcome back DD- but correct me if I am wrong and again I am not attacking you even though we have had big differences before- but didn't Obama have a plan that would offer tax breaks for companies that hired unemployed people? Also, Obama did offer tax breaks to companies that didn't ship job overseas. Also, Obama offered small business a better chance at securing loans.
DD playing dvl's advocate- is there one thing the Obama administation can do between now and Nov of 2012 to boost employment that would have bipartisan appeal? Honestly I blame congess for a lot of this crap- these guys spends months debating over ideological bullshit then helping the country in the long run.

Welcome back DD- but correct me if I am wrong and again I am not attacking you even though we have had big differences before- but didn't Obama have a plan that would offer tax breaks for companies that hired unemployed people? I dont know, did he, I really dont know, maybe he could have done a better job getting the plan out to the people. Why didn't he get it passed, he had a majority in both the house and the senate. Also, Obama did offer tax breaks to companies that didn't ship job overseas. Also, Obama offered small business a better chance at securing loans. This loan program was BS, I applied, a buddy of mine applied for his asphalt company, a black woman who comes into the store once and a while and owns a cookie shop applied and another customer of mine who owns a car dealership applied, guess what all denied.

DD playing dvl's advocate- is there one thing the Obama administation can do between now and Nov of 2012 to boost employment that would have bipartisan appeal? Honestly I blame congess for a lot of this crap- these guys spends months debating over ideological bullshit then helping the country in the long run. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I dont think there is anything he can implement now that would have enough time to take effect before the election. I am not sure he needs to anyway, because the GOP has no candidate at least at this time, that can beat him regardless of what the rightwingers on this board say. I have to agree with you that congress and its members on both sides have stiffled growth and success in this country in order to promote their individual or party agenda's. It's time for a revelution, Longer grab your gun and charge, I will be right behind you.........

The President can set the tone, and initiate or block some policies. Most of the economic control is at the Fed. That being said, employers are not going to hire in an era of economic uncertainty. Who knows what tax rates are going to do? Who knows what inflation is going to be? The country is teetering on economic collapse, and no one wants to address the issue seriously.

If a company doesn't need an employee, the tax break is no incentive. If it still costs more to have the employee, after the tax break, than the employee can produce for the company, there is no job.

And companies don't want to borrow money because there is no confidence that they will be able to pay it back. Small business is not like Chrysler or GM, who can go in debt and get the government to bail them out.

To create jobs, we need a reasonable, predictable, sustainable and consistent economic policy from both Congress and the Fed.

The President gets too much of the credit when things go right and gets too much of the blame when things go wrong. The President sets the economic guidelines through the budget, the regulations the various cabinet departments set and Presidential order. Congress sets the rules by which these guidelines are implemented through tax policies, allocation of spending, laws enacted for social re-engineering and redistribution of wealth. Congress and choose to agree with or block the President's guidelines and the President has redress through his veto or through legal challenges up to and including the Supreme Court.

Specifically, this whole situation began in 2007 when Congress returned to the control of the Democrats and their policies began the economic downward spiral that manifested itself in 2008 and continues today. Policies like Obamacare and TARP exploded the deficit and threw gasoline on the fire of economic uncertainty.

As that other noted Democratic President once said during his campaign - "It's the economy, stupid." Good or bad, right or wrong, the President gets the blame and the credit; although in this case, I won't shed any tears if he gets the blame

Economic guidelines are not set by any president. The Presidential budget is simply the president's recommendation for the next year's fiscal budget. And it is ludicrous and delusional to say that the current financial situation in the US can be traced back to a specific date - as in 2007's congresional return to Democratic control.... The issue can be partisanized, but if that's the case then the "blame" can be distributed among those who supported those who have benefitted from the financial chaos that followed the 8 years of Bush's presidency - the same financial mess that the current POTUS inherited, not created - Big business has been the only business which has shown increases in profits and revenues. And just who is it that supports big business: the same people who support little government - they want as little government interferance as possible so that big business can continue to exploit the economy, their employees, and the environment. The "small business" focus is a ruse that is plied upon the little people to secure their votes and is used to disguise the intended recipients of certain congressional policies - small businesses do not make large campaign contributions....

From what I have read, the stimulus was necessary but instead of using the liquidity for loans to small business, car buyers and home purchasers, banks used it for investments to offset the "bad assets" on their books.

The President could initiate another stimulus which could possibly energize the economy but in today's political climate it would be hard to imagine Congress agreeing to it.

He could try to ramp up investment in military hardware but that's unlikely because they need reductions in military spending. We also need the debt ceiling raised but look how that's going.

Economic guidelines are not set by any president. The Presidential budget is simply the president's recommendation for the next year's fiscal budget. Originally Posted by thorough9

Which is an economic guideline.

And it is ludicrous and delusional to say that the current financial situation in the US can be traced back to a specific date - as in 2007's congresional return to Democratic control.... Originally Posted by thorough9

Then explain the growth in the economy that occurred from 2003 thru 2006 - even after the downturn that occurred in the wake of 9/11 - with the current collapse starting with Pelosi, Reid and their cronies Barney "My Boy Lollipop" Frank and Christopher "Stewardess Sandwich with Ted Kennedy" Dodd and their takeover beginning in 2007. It can be traced to a specific date - it's just those who are Democrat partisans have trouble remembering or researching their history.

I just think it is silly in this day and age to really believe the Democrats are anti big business. There is no support for that whatsoever. That's the problem. Both Republicans and Democrats are the servants of the multinational corporations and banks.

They are corporatists, not capitalists. Economic favors for big business is not a facet of capitalism, it is a facet of corporatism. What have the Democrats done to bring big business under control? GE paying no taxes? BP getting off with having to pay a fraction of the damages they caused?

If you have to place blame, the blame goes back to LBJ and each and every subsequent President and Congress. And let's not forget our benevolent dictators at the Fed for all those years.

Congress, the President and the Fed love arguing about the blame, because it gives them an excuse to avoid the issue. Let's put aside blame and fix the damn thing.

Let's put aside blame and fix the damn thing. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Says the defender of republican partisanship.....

LOL, Thorough! When have I defended Republican partisanship? I am NOT a Republican! You are becoming quite entertaining yourself. I think I blamed both Republicans and Democrats for our current situation, starting with LBJ, on through President Obama, and their respective Congresses. That list includes several Republicans: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II. None of them get off scot free. BUT if we want to fix what is wrong now, we are wasting time placing blame. Both sides need to get off their respective asses and get this under control.

Defender of Republican partisanship - LOL! That's funny!

Consider the words of Sir Denison Miller, first chairman of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia:

"This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished."

Political parties encourage debates over inconsequentials, such as who is to blame for the current situation, etc. This way, their real crimes go unnoticed.

INHERITED, NOT CREATED! Originally Posted by thorough9

There, I fixed it for you. Florid prose, nuance, and logic are wasted on conservatives. They only understand short slogans. Volume and repetition are what works on their brains. They're consensus builders and perceive the "noise" as fact.

INHERITED, NOT CREATED!
INHERITED, NOT CREATED!
INHERITED, NOT CREATED!
INHERITED, NOT CREATED!
INHERITED, NOT CREATED!

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/07/it...ou-says-obama/