This question was posted on another thread and it was so ludicrous that I just had to start a new topic with it...
2wlady wrote: What a bunch of bull hockey! If a president could truly influence the economy, it would never be bad.
Really?
Then what is all the bull hockey about everything is Bush's fault? That's all I've heard about the economy from Obama and the Democrats. Can anyone reconcile the comment above with all the rhetoric that keep spewing from the left?
Don't bills have to be signed into law by the president? And if anyone out there doesn't think the heath care bill and higher taxes don't influence the growth of the economy, they need to do a little basic homework.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
How can a President influence the economy?
Example 1: Create an omnibus healthcare bill that is loaded with uncertainty for employers and consumers. Leave the bill vague enough that the different departments have to decide what it really means years later.
Example 2: Give a speech saying that you will bankrupt any energy company that tries to build a new coal fired power plant. That will discourage expansion of coal mining domestically and might even start a round of layoffs in the industry.
Example 3: Sign the bill that eliminates the homeowners mortgage tax deduction. That would decrease home prices and discourage people owning multiple homes.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
