What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy? "Chief Executive" (CE), for this debate, is meant to be President of the United States, and/or the governor of a state.
Using the current national economy as an example, though the same concept could apply to a state government as well...
Is the state of the current economy Obama's fault? His supporters claim he's doing a good job, yet when it's pointed out the economy still sucks his supporters blame Congress (specifically Republicans and filibusters) for thwarting his moves. Hold on... doesn't that mean that the CE does not have the influence necessary to steer the economy? I mean, if Obama's so good, the economy would be better by now, in spite of Congress, wouldn't it?
This begs the question: Is President Obama the man in charge and with the influence necessary to steer the economy, or not?
If it is Congress and not the CE, then doesn't this let Bush II off the hook as well? After all, it's Congress, not the CE that has the influence, right?
If it is Congress that wields the power and influence, then how much does it matter *who* the President is?
Bottom line: If you want to blame Bush II for getting us in this mess, fine, but then Obama is also to blame for keeping us in this mess. If you want to absolve Obama of blame due to an uncooperative Congress, ok, but then Bush II is absolved of blame as well. Where's the the consistency in assessing blame and/or taking credit?