Davis McDavis: Yeah, presidential action has a big impact on how the economy is running. Here are a couple of some good and some bad examples:
> FDR: spend public monies to keep people employed via public works projects, spend public monies to build infrastructures [dams, roads]. Keynsian economics [did I spell his name right?]
> Eisenhower: spend public monies to construct high speed national highway system, increased public spending for science education programs in public elementary/middle/high schools which have resulted in a large number of scientists who are now doing research for drug companies - to cite an example
> Kennedy: Space exploration; moon shot
> LBJ: Great Society programs
> Nixon: price and wage control policies
> Reagan: True Reaganomics [cut taxes and inflate the defense budget]
> Clinton: promoting a free and mostly uncensored internet, balancing the budget and paying off the debt created by Reagonomics which could lead us to smaller national budgets and freeing up capital for private investments by companies and/or individuals, reforming welfare as we knew it back then to make it more profitable to get off the rolls and work, NAFTA
I am not quite sure when the Defense Dept “invented” the internet before it became the internet so I can’t note that down on under any particular administration. Not quite sure where to put Alan Greenspan, but you have got to admit that the Federal Reserve has had a significant impact on economic policies.
Political/Presidential decisions that impact on the economy either directly or indirectly:
> prime interest rates
> taxation policies
> import/export policies
> what to do with the national debt; pay off/borrow more
> securing key natural resources vital to the economy, ie: gasoline
> deregulation
> legal decisions on monopolies, take-overs, mergers etc
> human resources development, ie: education/health care
There’s more to list, but I think you get the idea.
So Bush’s comment was a very truncated, simplistic way of looking at the President’s role in public policy. He basically “gave the farm away” when he said that the current Administration has had no impact. If elected, will he “give the farm away” by letting the private sector make all the decisions? I certainly hope not. I assume that he has a broad outline of what his economic strategy would be. But I was appalled that he felt that we the public were so ignorant that he needn’t bother to discuss that issue with us, ie: he trusts us…