What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

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?

The president only has two decisions to make that can substantially impact the short-term state of the economy: 1) Who he chooses to appoint to the Federal Reserve, and 2) Whether he chooses to sign or veto stimulus measures which Congress has passed.

Perversely, I think that #2 is one way that Romney might actually be better for the economy than Obama: If Romney is elected president, then congressional Republicans will be less likely to keep trying to drive the economy off a cliff and more likely to cooperate with passing economic stimulus measures.

He has about the same amount of influence as he does over gas prices.

Interesting to note the "I Hate Obama" crowd isn't voting here.

Somewhere between 2 and 3. The Federal Government is now 24% of GDP. The guy most responsible for steering that is going to have huge effects. Kandahar, I would say you missed another major point which is agency staffing. The EPA, for example, has an incredible power to depress economic activity. Who the President puts in these places is important.

Kandahar said:

If Romney is elected president, then congressional Republicans will be less likely to keep trying to drive the economy off a cliff and more likely to cooperate with passing economic stimulus measures.

Click to expand...

Only if they all want to be primaried.

cpwill said:

Only if they all want to be primaried.

Click to expand...

If there were a Republican president and a Republican Congress, I strongly suspect that ideological purity would take a back seat to actually improving the economy. Since both Mitt Romney and the Republican congressional leadership know perfectly well that Keynesian economic stimulus can help the economy recover, I think that most of them would be willing to take their chances with a primary if it meant actually improving the economy. Although making the base mildly angry (and I doubt it would even cause much of a fuss) might theoretically harm their primary reelection, presiding over a bad economy would harm them a lot more in the general election.

Kandahar said:

If there were a Republican president and a Republican Congress, I strongly suspect that ideological purity would take a back seat to actually improving the economy.

Click to expand...

Since conservatives believe that government stimulative spending in fact is a drag on the economy, I strongly suspect that you are mirror-imaging.

Since both Mitt Romney and the Republican congressional leadership know perfectly well that Keynesian economic stimulus can help the economy recover,

Click to expand...

yup. There it is.

I think that most of them would be willing to take their chances with a primary if it meant actually improving the economy.

Click to expand...

Yeah? How about if you ask Senator Lugar about that?

It is not within the President's control to completely manipulate the economy. As with all elected officials, he has some level of influence, though.

His influence can be felt in the following ways:

1. Approval or rejection of economic bills submitted through legislative vote.
2. Encouragement of legislative action on economic policy.
3. Leadership of legislative officials to affect change on economic policy.
4. The issuance of executive orders regarding economic policy.
5. Interaction with global business forces through multinational leadership summits and agreements with foreign bodies.
6. Multi-national leadership in issues that affect the global economy.

Should the President be blamed or held on high when the economy contracts or grows? To some degree, yes. Is the President the end-all, be-all of economic change? Absolutely not.

I'm willing to assign as much praise or blame as the President is willing to seek. If the President presents him/herself as though they're the final word on economic change, I will respond in kind. You don't promote the message that your policies or actions are the corner stone to economic advance and then immediately reject any responsibility for economic contraction. If you want it one way, you're getting it both ways.

Another issue is at what point the current government body can be legitimately assigned the praise or blame for economic progress. Is it one year after policy is enacted? Six months? Two years? The next presidential term? Some would tell you that it takes up to eight years for economic policy to have a lasting influence on the current economic climate. Some would tell you that changes in policy create immediate changes in the economic state.

cpwill said:

Since conservatives believe that government stimulative spending in fact is a drag on the economy, I strongly suspect that you are mirror-imaging.

yup. There it is.

Click to expand...

Except conservatives don't actually believe that stimulative spending is a drag on the economy. Maybe the rank-and-file who don't know any better believe that, but not the intellectuals and the ones in positions of power. Let's not forget that many Republicans supported an economic stimulus bill just four years ago when one George W. Bush was president. If conservative politicians actually believed that stimulative spending was a drag on the economy, then there would probably be a more concerted effort to improve the economy by cutting spending when Republicans hold the White House and Congress. History suggests that this is not the case.

Yeah? How about if you ask Senator Lugar about that?

Click to expand...

Well, it's all well and good for Republican politicians to rant about the economy and demand ideological purity to asinine ideas, when there is a Democrat in the White House. But if the voters actually view the Republicans as the custodians of the economy (as they would if Republicans controlled the White House and both branches of Congress), I suspect that they'd take the course of action that would actually improve the economy instead of continuing to tout crackpot ideas. And that means that they'd stop trying to drive the economy over a cliff.

This is why, in a perverse way, a Romney presidency might actually be better for the economy than an Obama presidency. (Not that I'd want to reward this kind of behavior.)

Kandahar said:

Except conservatives don't actually believe that stimulative spending is a drag on the economy.

Click to expand...

um, yes, actually, we do.

Maybe the rank-and-file who don't know any better believe that, but not the intellectuals and the ones in positions of power.

Click to expand...

:roll: so all the smart people agree with you? I call BS. You've got lots of conservative intellectuals who don't believe that crap.

However, I find your argument unique. You are suggesting that Republican Congresscritters will nobly do what is right despite the fact that they will be thrown from office for it. Color me suspicious.

Let's not forget that many Republicans supported an economic stimulus bill just four years ago when one George W. Bush was president.

Click to expand...

that is correct, and along with the attempt to impose amnesty, sparked the Tea Party. Stimulus spending is no longer an acceptable platform for a Republican any more than an individual healthcare mandate. To suggest it is effectively to announce that you are retiring/switching parties.

Well, it's all well and good for Republican politicians to rant about the economy and demand ideological purity to asinine ideas, when there is a Democrat in the White House. But if the voters actually view the Republicans as the custodians of the economy (as they would if Republicans controlled the White House and both branches of Congress), I suspect that they'd take the course of action that would actually improve the economy instead of continuing to tout crackpot ideas. And that means that they'd stop trying to drive the economy over a cliff.

Click to expand...

:lol: Implied Assumption is your forte, isn't it?

This is why, in a perverse way, a Romney presidency might actually be better for the economy than an Obama presidency. (Not that I'd want to reward this kind of behavior.)

Click to expand...

:roll: well we'll see. But I think you are living in a bubble if you think Republicans are going to be able to get away with Stimulus Spending, especially anything larger than that last pile of crap.

cpwill said:

:roll: so all the smart people agree with you? I call BS. You've got lots of conservative intellectuals who don't believe that crap.

Click to expand...

There are a few, but not many. Many of these same people were supportive of stimulus measures when Bush was president, and they'll be supportive of them again during the next Republican presidency. You can even see it now, because this mindset has not yet trickled down to all of the old talking points: "We can't afford to raise taxes in a bad economy," and "World War II cured the Great Depression." Apparently conservatives using these talking points haven't yet gotten the memo that the talking points have changed, since Keynesian stimulus is suddenly taboo. :lol:

However, I find your argument unique. You are suggesting that Republican Congresscritters will nobly do what is right despite the fact that they will be thrown from office for it. Color me suspicious.

Click to expand...

No, I'm suggesting that Republican Congresscritters will do what they know perfectly well benefits the economy, when they are the ones being held accountable for the state of the economy. It has nothing to do with "nobly doing what is right," it has to do with their own reelection. And might I suggest that presiding over a bad economy is more toxic to their reelection chances than passing a stimulus bill (which would have, at most, tepid opposition from right-wing pundits if it's done under a Republican's watch).

I think you grossly overestimate the Republican Party's desire for ideological consistency, and grossly underestimate its tribalism. Many posters on this very message board, who swear up and down to be conservatives and despise any stimulus signed by Obama, would be the first to defend such a stimulus under a Romney presidency.

that is correct, and along with the attempt to impose amnesty, sparked the Tea Party. Stimulus spending is no longer an acceptable platform for a Republican any more than an individual healthcare mandate. To suggest it is effectively to announce that you are retiring/switching parties.

Click to expand...

Stimulus doesn't seem to provoke the same outrage among Republicans as an individual mandate does. (For that matter, even the individual mandate doesn't provoke any outrage if it's suggested by a Republican. Did you know that there's an individual mandate in Paul Ryan's budget for Medicare? Neither did anyone else.)

And in any case, they could just create some lovely euphemism if they didn't want to call it a "stimulus," or concoct some rationale for why it's different than Obama's stimulus. That would be sufficient to calm the nerves of Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, and the like. They certainly aren't going to go to war with the Republican Party over an economic stimulus.

:roll: well we'll see. But I think you are living in a bubble if you think Republicans are going to be able to get away with Stimulus Spending, especially anything larger than that last pile of crap.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt in my mind that the Republican Party will instantly change its tune about a number of things, the minute there is a Republican president. Foremost among them are economic stimulus and deficit spending. The historical track record of Republicans supporting contractionary fiscal policies when THEY are the ones in power is...not very good, to say the least.

Depends on how far Congress is willing to go along with him.

radcen said:

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?

Click to expand...

Wall street runs the economy...by wall street I mean the rich powerful investors and the big corporate interests...They control us by holding back lending, increasing rates and prices and not hiring. The shoot up the price of oil which in turn shoots up the price of everything, from surcharges by my garbage hauler to the supermarket.
The president has ZERO to do with all that...nada thing

The president trying to control congress is like herding cats, it keeps you very busy and accomplishes nothing at all. The problem with congress is that they ALL work for campaign cash, that comes with very specific voting instructions. Deals are made for voting "correctly" and there are "after office" job opportunities included, so that even not getting re-elected, for casting "unpopular" votes, can become a good carreer move (see Newt Gingrich as an example). Getting something done in congress requires control of only a few key positions, mostly committee chairmanships. These positions effectively control what, if anything, makes it to the floor for a vote. Note that Obama ALWAYS claimed that the "Bush" tax cuts were the driving factor for the economic mess, yet did not ever change them, even with TOTAL demorat control of congress that could ram through the massive, and unpopular PPACA bill. Hmm...

Kandahar said:

There is no doubt in my mind that the Republican Party will instantly change its tune about a number of things, the minute there is a Republican president. Foremost among them are economic stimulus and deficit spending. The historical track record of Republicans supporting contractionary fiscal policies when THEY are the ones in power is...not very good, to say the least.

Click to expand...

Very well, what are you willing to wager on this?

cpwill said:

Very well, what are you willing to wager on this?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how a wager would work, because as I said, Republicans could always find some lovely euphemism for "stimulus," and/or create some rationale as to why their stimulus was different than Obama's. Such a situation would allow an easy "out," as the party taking the negative side of the bet could always claim it wasn't really a stimulus.

obvious Child said:

He has about the same amount of influence as he does over gas prices.

Interesting to note the "I Hate Obama" crowd isn't voting here.

Click to expand...

Does that mean that Bush isnt responsible for causing the 'Great Bush Recession?'

Kandahar said:

I'm not sure how a wager would work, because as I said, Republicans could always find some lovely euphemism for "stimulus," and/or create some rationale as to why their stimulus was different than Obama's. Such a situation would allow an easy "out," as the party taking the negative side of the bet could always claim it wasn't really a stimulus.

Click to expand...

You mean like how Obama just granted a limited form of immigration amnesty without using the word amnesty?

radcen said:

You mean like how Obama just granted a limited form of immigration amnesty without using the word amnesty?

Click to expand...

Yep. Relevance?

It really depends. When Bush was President, he did a lot to direct the agenda when he had control of congress. When Pelosi/Reid took control of congress, we saw a great deal of deference and trying to work across the aisle. Unfortunately, the results were not good.

Obama as President has taken a far more powerful approach with the economy. He chooses laws to disregard, has blocked some energy development, and specifically sought other forms of energy production through stimulus. In fact, just as No Child Left Behind and the Bush tax cuts were specific policies that Bush worked for, Obama has specifically fought for and gotten trillions of dollars in ineffective stimulus debt, cash for clunkers, auto industry takeover, Obamacare taxes, and other policies that damage the economy.

At the same time, he has been unclear on tax policy, refused to work across the aisle, and kept the economy in limbo about future law changes. A lot of this is Congress' fault, but it is also Obama's fault in many ways. He, while campaigning against a "do nothing congress", threatened to veto the student interest rate extension if it wasn't written exactly the way he wanted it.

So the President can certainly affect the economy depending on how much power they usurp or neglect. I don't think anyone can argue that Obama has maintained a constitutional separation of duties or limit on executive power. At the same time, he has forgone addressing some of our worst economic issues in favor of his stimulus union payoffs and Obamacare taxes.

cpwill said:

Very well, what are you willing to wager on this?

Click to expand...

Kandahar said:

I'm not sure how a wager would work, because as I said, Republicans could always find some lovely euphemism for "stimulus," and/or create some rationale as to why their stimulus was different than Obama's. Such a situation would allow an easy "out," as the party taking the negative side of the bet could always claim it wasn't really a stimulus.

Click to expand...

I say a "worship thread". The loser has to post a poll titled "Cpwill/Kandahar is the greatest human being 1) In the last century 2) Ever in America or 3) That I have ever heard of". Then, the loser has to submit support for his choice of one of the three with a 500 word post about how awesome the winner is. I will be the mediator/abitrator in this. Deal?

Fletch said:

Does that mean that Bush isnt responsible for causing the 'Great Bush Recession?'

Click to expand...

Look at the economy before and after Pelosi/Reid took over Congress. It's not a simple formula, you have to look at what policies they passed and what Bush capitulated to. They raised the minimum wage and Bush capitulated. The result was record unemployment among high school students, single mothers, college students, etc. They refused to address Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and called Republicans fear mongers and racists for bringing it up, and Bush capitulated. They wrote TARP giving unlimited powers to take over auto industries and limit CEO pay and Bush capitulated and signed it as written. The key isn't just who was President, but how much power that President decided to grab.

cpwill said:

Since conservatives believe that government stimulative spending in fact is a drag on the economy, I strongly suspect that you are mirror-imaging.

Click to expand...

Oh Look. Cpwill wrong again (this should surprise absolutely no one ever).

Unless you want to argue that Reagan was a tried and true liberal when he stimulated the economy with a massive arms build up.
Or that the All GOP Bush Years was a bunch of liberals in Republican clothing when they engaged in some of the largest government spending binges in US history.

cpwill said:

um, yes, actually, we do.

Click to expand...

No, you believe that on the surface but when your own economic interests are threaten, you will spend the bank to prevent your own personal loss.

However, I find your argument unique. You are suggesting that Republican Congresscritters will nobly do what is right despite the fact that they will be thrown from office for it. Color me suspicious.

Click to expand...

Okay, answer me this. The GOP are willing to produce a recession that will lead to further disapproval and likely end their political careers on the basis of ideological purity even all throughout history they have done the opposite? You are arguing that the GOP will actually do what they believe when it will cost them their jobs.

You think Austerity works? Go live in Europe. And don't even think about citing Germany. They managed to inflict their pain on others without having to take serious banking losses that would have caused serious economic harm within Germany. And Austerity is killing two responsible governments: Spain and Ireland who had solid financials before the debt crisis.

that is correct, and along with the attempt to impose amnesty, sparked the Tea Party. Stimulus spending is no longer an acceptable platform for a Republican any more than an individual healthcare mandate. To suggest it is effectively to announce that you are retiring/switching parties.

Click to expand...

And if they actually enact the ****-for-brains Ryan budget, they will be thrown from office. Only a hackjawed partisan idiot would come up with that plan that not only fails to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way (or the debt) but causes a recession at the same time. And on top of that, it doesn't even reign in the fake massive inflation the GOP keeps whining about.

Implied Assumption is your forte, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Better than citing ****-for-brain studies like you do. Like the kind that argue that the internet, monetary policy, resource finds and other non-fiscal impacts have zero impact on the economy. You remember that completely idiotic study you posted? Right after you claimed that economic data does not exist in a vacuum showing just how hypocritical you really are?

well we'll see. But I think you are living in a bubble if you think Republicans are going to be able to get away with Stimulus Spending, especially anything larger than that last pile of crap.

Click to expand...

Between losing their jobs and engaging in stimulus, the GOP will go stimulus.

obvious Child said:

Oh Look. Cpwill wrong again (this should surprise absolutely no one ever).

Click to expand...

Rude and unnecessary, but I did get a chuckle out of it. :3oops:

obvious Child said:

Unless you want to argue that Reagan was a tried and true liberal when he stimulated the economy with a massive arms build up.
Or that the All GOP Bush Years was a bunch of liberals in Republican clothing when they engaged in some of the largest government spending binges in US history.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that Reagan spending and Bush II spending are necessarily apples-to-apples.

Reagan's spending at least had some purpose behind it, and that purpose was not liberal in nature. Some have argued here that the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc would have fallen anyway, and may be true, but is really only conjecture on their part. I tend to believe, yes, it would have eventually fallen, but not nearly as fast. Reagan's spending was not without our own pain, but it was also not without purpose or our own gain.

On the other hand, as hard as I used to try, I cannot come to the same conclusion regarding Bush II. Just my opinion, but they grossly misinterpreted the successful portions of Reagan's debt spending, ignored the downsides, and acted like a bunch of irresponsible teenagers with a new credit card.

Another, albeit minor, point is that it is unfair to strictly compare different eras. Some aspects of a wisely run economy will remain true regardless, but each era also has it's own set of nuances that must be included in any hindsight evaluation. Reagan and Bush II were different eras to a great degree, even if the numbers of years separating them weren't that many. In this vein, it would be a mistake to think that today's economic recovery could be strictly modeled after our recovery from the Great Depression.