Profile
Elf Sternberg
Active Entries
- 1: Surge Pricing for Grocery Stores is a Disaster Only Psychopath MBAs Could Love
- 2: Antarctica Day 7: Swimming In the Antaractic Seas
- 3: Restarted my yoga classes, and I discovered I'm a total wreck
- 4: Antarctica: Getting To the Boat and the Disaster That Awaited
- 5: The Enshittification of All That Lives
- 6: How the green energy discourse resembles queer theory
- 7: Tori's Sake & Grill (restaurant, review)
- 8: I'm Not Always Sure I Trust My ADHD Diagonosis
- 9: You can't call it "Moral Injury" when your "morals" are monstrous
- 10: Ebay vs Newmark: You're all just cogs. Accept it. There is no joy in it, but you have no choice.
Style Credit
- Base style: ColorSide by
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot - Theme: NNWM 2010 Fresh by timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
Hmph
Date: 2008-07-14 04:57 pm (UTC)Surely it hasn't escaped your notice that the president doesn't even have much influence over the Federal budget. Every year, as long as I've been watching, the White House proposes a budget and the House leadership describes the proposal as "dead on arrival." It's almost like a game to these people.
The president's only hope for a substantial influence over the budget process is based on election results, and lasts only about a year. If the president can claim a mandate for the economic policies he advocated during his campaign, he can apply some leverage to Congress.
And we haven't had a president with that kind of leverage since Reagan. Bush Sr. didn't try. Clinton tried but his winning margin was slim and mostly the voters were suspicious of his economic plan, so he got reined in pretty much immediately. Dubya couldn't claim any kind of mandate for anything he wanted.
So what exactly is your theory to explain how any of these presidents deserve any credit OR blame for what happened to the economy during their terms in office?
. png