How big a part does the president play in the economy and the stock market? Which candidate would be bad/good for the economy in your opinion. I think the President plays a large role in the economy: debt, unemployment, consumer confidence, etc. and less so the stock market but still influential. I think that Republican candidates are more business friendly and have lower taxes, but the stock market is (artificially?) high under Obama. Also some say the previous president affects the economy during the term of the following president due to their policies.
I think Sanders would be best for the economy in the long term if he were successful in getting legislation passed consistent with his political thought, but it would take decades to fully realize the benefits. He would be trans formative if that would happen, but it won't. If heard somewhere that Obama does not like to discuss much in the way publicly about the economy because he fears that the way his words get parsed, not phrasing his comments precisely could have unintentional negative impacts on the stock market. So it would seem that they might be more afraid of being a negative factor than they are willing to risk trying to be a positive factor. The Republicans are not more business friendly. They are more friendly to some businesses while the democrats are more friendly to others. In the end, both parties are beholding to corporations/ the ubber wealthy.
The richest 1% of Democrats, Republicans, and Others have hoarded over 90% of all economic gains since Obama moved into the White House. Virtually any candidate who takes his place will be inclined to applaud the asset-price inflation that drives the stock market higher by financing corporate buyouts on credit which adds interest payments and fees into the prices companies charge for their goods and services. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/01/how-wall-street-parasites-have-devoured-their-hosts-your-retirement-plan-and-the-u-s-economy/ “Paying these financial charges leaves less available to invest or hire more labor. Likewise for the overall economy, the effect of a debt-leveraged real estate bubble and asset-price inflation is that interest payments and fees to bankers and bondholders leave less available to spend on goods and services. The financial overhead rises, squeezing the ‘real’ economy and slowing new investment and hiring.” Wall Street banks have become the central planners of the US Economy, and they want industry and labor to serve finance instead of the other way around.
Well yes, looting the productive economy to serve the financial sector has been in vogue since the 1980s. It is how Mitt Romney made his fortune. It is what bankrupted the steel industry and car manufacturers. It created the rust belt by selling all the machinery at pennies on the dollar to China in order to "maximize the realization of underlying asset value". This included looting the pension funds of workers at those factories closed and shipped overseas and successfully lobbying the government to get tax breaks for doing it and for picking up the tab for all those laid off workers and bereft pensioners. All that money was fuel for the equity markets. More recently the financiers engineered a housing boom by exploiting loopholes in the law which allowed the financial market to completely bypass mortgage lending laws and the SEC. When the financial markets collapsed the government rescued them. In many nations there was a massive transfer of private bank debt to the public coffers creating massive economic distress for the citizenry. It has become quite obvious that finance is operating well outside its remit, which is to serve the rest of the economy by providing a market for equity. Requiring the rest of the economy to supply the financial markets with equity when they fail is a recipe for economic disaster, a disaster that could easily lead nations to the point of popular rebellion. Iceland had one. Iceland agreed to implement new liberal EU banking laws as part of a trade agreement. When the Icelandic banks collapsed the UK made their depositors whole and then attempted to get Iceland to pay them back the UK going so far as to label Iceland a terrorist organization. Iceland refused, citing its to the letter following of the treaty. The court agreed with Iceland and the UK had no place to appeal. So, far Iceland is the only nation to successfully refuse the nationalization of private bank debt. The austerity in Greece is entirely the result of Greece taking on the debt of private banks. It is the same with the austerity in Ireland and Spain and Portugal. The biggest lenders to all these countries private banks were German banks and pension funds and the biggest push for these nations to nationalize these private bank debts and implement austerity came from Angela Merkel. Coincidence? This makes the corporate raiders like Romney look like amateurs, this is looting on a scale that even the IMF could not pull off.
Steven D. Kelley is interesting! https://www.facebook.com/Steven-D-K...-states-of-America-1656420081237824/timeline/ Steven D Kelley for President of the United states of America
If we get a Republican in the White House the economy will greatly improve. I'm about ready to the bulk of my investments back in to the Stock Market. I think it will soar in the next year.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...man-schultz-under-conservative-republican-pr/ Wasserman Schultz: Under 'conservative Republican president we were losing 750,000 jobs a month' Its been nearly eight years since George W. Bush was president, but Democrats still plan to run against him. Certainly, thats what Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz promised on the eve of the first Democratic presidential debate. "There are so many people who are focused on making sure we can look at the fact that, when we had a conservative Republican president, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month," Wasserman Schultz said on CNNs State of the Union Oct. 11, 2015. "Weve come through that -- 67 straight months of job growth in the private sector. People are no longer losing their homes. Thats the contrast well talk about." The DNC press office told us that Wasserman Schultz was thinking of President George W. Bush, and that the time period she had in mind were the last few months of his presidency, November through January. President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, so its reasonable to count that month as part of the Bush legacy. We pulled up the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers and Wasserman Schultz is on solid ground. Month Jobs (000s) Loss Nov 135,469 -765 Dec 134,773 -696 Jan 133,977 -796 Average -752 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Benchmark comparison The number is particularly high because Wasserman Schultz chose the three worst months of the Bush presidency. If she had chosen a longer period, say the last full year, the losses would have averaged about 365,000 per month. The losses would shrink even more if you look at longer period of time. Wasserman Schultz didnt mention that the economy continued to shed jobs at or above the 700,000 mark for the first two months of Obamas presidency before the trend began to ease. This chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics gives a more complete jobs picture. The Great Recession saw employment declines of historic proportions. Government analysts compared the relative losses from 2007 to 2009 to past downturns. The bottom purple line on their chart tracks jobs in the Great Recession which officially began December 2007. BLS recessions.gif Of course, Wasserman Schultzs statement implies that conservative Republican policies alone brought about a massive loss of jobs and the reality is more complicated. Some analysts believe that a portion of the blame goes back to policies that enjoyed Democratic support, including changes in financial regulation passed during the Clinton administration. But Wasserman Schultz did not make that claim specifically. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said that under a conservative Republican president the country was losing 750,000 jobs a month. Wasserman Schultz was speaking of President George W. Bush and at the end of his term, the monthly job losses averaged about 750,000 jobs. The average would of course be less if she had included Bushs final 12 months -- or a period longer than that. There is an element of cherry-picking here, but the overall point holds up. We rate the claim Mostly True.
The next President of the United States will begin his term in a year that Rabbi Judah Ben Samuel identified as a Jubilee year. Theoretically......… the foundation for the paying off of the national debt of the USA can be laid in that year............. and a very different type of relationship between the USA, Canada and Israel and the newly formed Jerusalem Sanhedrin is a possible key to this type of shift. The people who attend churches and synagogues do a huge amount of volunteerism. The real value of their efforts is much greater to the Creator the G-d of Abraham .... and to all seven billion of our neighbours (not to mention much cattle), than we might at first imagine. Cooking up a way to measure, program into a database, make more efficient and increase volunteerism is a potential key to a North America where all of us have some sort of job offer on the table that we may well decide to accept. A percentage of us simply cannot make it in the market economy so we do need to come up with an option for those of us who are somewhat unemployable. Even actions that are probably an error....... are helping to set the stage for this Jubilee style shift in the world economy. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=419320&page=8&p=1065450030#post1065450030
Ben Bernanke says he is no longer a Republican because the GOP has lost its economic policy mind http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...bernanke-has-had-it-with-stupid-gop-economics It's the stupid economics. That's why he's no longer a Republican, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke tells us in his new memoir. Bernanke says he "lost patience with Republicans' susceptibility to the know-nothing-ism of the far right." Here's part of his indictment: They saw inflation where it did not exist and, when the official data did not bear out their predictions, invoked conspiracy theories. They denied that monetary or fiscal policy could support job growth, while still working to direct federal spending to their own districts. They advocated discredited monetary systems, like the gold standard. Bernanke's right; these views aren't conservative – they're kooky. Members espousing them may have made Bernanke's interactions with Congress uncomfortable, but they couldn't stop the Fed from using extraordinary monetary policy measures to try to pull the economy out of the Great Recession. In Bernanke's harsh but accurate judgment, "fiscal policymakers, far from helping the economy, appeared to be actively working to hinder it." He's talking about Republican congressional efforts to use "must pass" legislation – e.g., raising the legal limit on total federal debt or approving annual spending bills to fund the government – as bargaining chips to achieve deep cuts in government spending, even when the economy is weak. One thing's for sure - the USA needs a Dem in the White House and a truly Democratic run Congress
You wouldn't know it listening to most people, but who the President is makes virtually no difference in the economy. The President does have a great degree of influence and can get new laws proposed. The President has a huge influence over the budget, because there is the potential threat of a veto lurking in the background, but the President still has to walk a fine line because he needs the support of the Congressmen in his Party (he has to bow to realistic pressure, otherwise there is the real possibility he could be impeached if he held up the budget and prevented the government from functioning). Maybe another question is how much difference does a change in government spending affect the economy? Because as much as politicians fight over it, the reality is that the allocation of spending is most likely not going to change that drastically just because the other side comes into power. These type of fundamental changes in taxation and spending typically happen over long periods of time. But of course all the regulations have a tremendous effect on the economy (usually negative, but not always, such as in the case of consumer protection legislation). If the government wanted to they could ban the sale of apples. There are already SO many regulations, most people have no idea, a large part of them were passed within just the last 35 years. This could really be having a huge effect on commerce, but it is really hard to say exactly to what extent this alters the economy.
