What makes you think "Presidents" are responsible for an economy? You and I are responsible because we are consumers. If Consumers don't Consume then THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN! And they do so whenever the economy nosedives. And why does that happen? Well, the last dramatic evidence of that happening was called the Great Recession. And what provoked the GR? Carefully concealed manipulation of untrustworthy real-estate lending because no national lending-process oversight was being applied by the US government! And to this day, there still in NO NATIONAL LENDING-PROCESS OVERSIGHT as subsequent governments (particularly that of the Replicants) have "loosened" the regulations. Great Recession Version 2.0? Just you wait. Just you wait ...
And it is closer than any of us might care to think. From here: Recessions, and the fear that another one is just around the corner, explained Recessions are essentially HUMAN in nature. Americans are good-consumers. So good that downturns (typically) don't last all that long. (The Great Recession was a notable exception to that rule.) But despite the presently wacky manner of economic-growth in the US has to stop sometime*. And that time will come soon enough. Any economy is timewise cyclic in nature. What goes up usually comes back down. But the long-term trend is typically up. So what's the problem? It is only a question of time and (often) circumstance that the next recession WILL HAPPEN. So, be prepared for it! But, howzat? Keep total debt in a proper proportion to your revenue since that revenue in a downturn is likely to be in "shock-mode". What does that mean? It means that your "savings" should be less risky - that is, in a simple savings-account and not the Stock Market ... *What remains, sadly enough, is the fact that the Ultra-rich in America will not feel particularly the "downturn" as harshly as Jack-'n-Jill in the lower income classes will do.
I do not believe presidents have the authority to kill the economy. F/F made our rules and still do. Dodd Franks is a major error and democrats own this mistake.
Clinton loosened 1 regulation that harmed nothing and Bush tried to tighten F/F but Democrats killed that change. Bush did not do what you said he did. Trump needs to kill Dodd Frank. Pelosi won't allow that. Wallison explains it.
You are correct, and Bush allowed it to continue, then tried to tighten up but it was too late. The damage was done. Trump should not kill Dodd-Frank and my understanding is that the major banks want it kept because it prevents banks from going nuts again. Trump has deregulated them anyway just as he had lifted many regulations that protect the population, for profit.
Bush warned Congress as early as 2001 and around 12 times. Democrats said he was nuts. Bush correctly diagnosed it early. Dodd frank heavily damaged the mortgage industry along with borrowers.
Uh, no. Republicans killed every single bill attempting to regulate fanny and Freddie from 2001-2007. TIMELINE FOR FANNIE/FREDDIE REGULATION 1995-2006 No legislation to further regulate GSEs is passed by a Republican-controlled Congress. October 7, 2004 The House Financial Services Committee Chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH) cancels a markup on legislation to reform GSEs at the request of President Bush. According to CBS Marketwatch: “Strong opposition by the Bush Administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” May 25, 2005 The House Financial Services Committee, under control of House Republicans and Chairman Oxley, passed a GSE Reform bill, H.R. 1461, by a vote of 65-5. Every Democrat on the Committee voted for the bill. Five Republicans, arguing that the bill did not go far enough, voted against H.R. 1461: Reps. Ed Royce, Ron Paul, Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling, and Scott Garrett. July 28, 2005 The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, then chaired by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), passed S. 190, the Bush Administration’s bill, out of Committee. The bill was passed by a party-line vote of 11-10. The bill did not reach the Senate floor for a vote. October 26, 2005 On the day the House was scheduled to vote on H.R. 1461, the Bush Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing the House Republican GSE bill. October 26, 2005 H.R. 1461 passes House by a vote of 331-90, with 122 Democrats voting in favor. Note: Frank voted against the bill when it reached the floor, but not because of any opposition to reforming the GSEs, but because the Republican leadership decided to cut out funding for faith-based charities that provide low-income rental housing from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. September 2006 Oxley and Frank send a bipartisan letter to Senator Shelby urging GSE reform. Many Democrats and Republicans signed this letter urging the Senate to act. January 2007 Democrats take control of the House and Senate; Barney Frank is named Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. March 28, 2007 The House Financial Services Committee passes H.R. 1427, the GSE reform bill, by a vote of 49-15. The legislation had the support of the Bush Administration and represented a tougher bill than the 2005 effort. Incredibly, 19 Republicans opposed the bill. May 22, 2007 The House of Representatives passes H.R. 1427, by a vote of 313-104. All opposition came from Republicans. January, 2008 Chairman Frank offers to insert both GSE reform and FHA reform into the stimulus bill that was being negotiated by Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration. Secretary Paulson declined, citing opposition from the White House. May 8, 2008 House of Representatives passes H.R. 3221, which contains GSE reform provision, after receiving the Senate amendments to the original bill. May 20, 2008 The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee passes a bill containing GSE Reform provisions- The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008. July 11, 2008 The United States Senate passes GSE reform as part of a bigger bill. July 30, 2008 President Bush signs GSE reform as part of H.R. 3221 https://financialservices.house.gov...11/timeline_for_fannie_freddie_regulation.pdf
Of course they don't. But in America, you seem to think that the PotUS is the Great Achiever of economic well-being. They aint - the real achievers are you and Jack-'n-Jill Consumer! Look, you're in an Economics forum, so learn a bit about the subject! There is damn little that is political about Economic Outcomes, because an economy's GDP depends mostly upon Consumption - which is something YOU DO! Private Consumption is the main factor of any economic outcome. For your edification, start here: GDP = C + I + G But, do we ever love to blame the PotUS when things go bad! When anyone can see the real culprit by looking into a mirror!!!!!
Dodd-Frank is necessary for today's economy. Warning and doing are 2 different things. If that wasn't an emergency, I don't know what is. Trump uses Executive privilege when he feels like it.
From Forbes, here: The Weakening Of Big Bank Regulations Under Trump Is The Seed For The Next Financial Crisis Excerpt: Read on, it gets even more interesting ...
Democrats laws is more like it. Since 1933 bulk of laws are created by Democrats. Just like Kings of olden days.
Democrats freely admit there is a vast shortage of laws and demand more are needed, not less. I frequently comment about this. The more they control, they crave more control. Let them stop claiming they believe in freedom.
Velocity of money is key to a great and safe economy. Democrats snatch freedom from you and proudly admit they do it.
Why hand them your own freedom? As a professional since 1971, during a good many up and down cycles, Democrats sold you many lies. Why in other eras, why suddenly Dodd Frank as a law, when other times we recovered in 3 to 5 years with no Dodd frank laws?
Laws are long and complicated now so the big people in the swamp can screw the little people in the hinterlands and say it's all legal. In Athens the legislators wrote the laws, but the people voted to accept or reject their laws. They couldn't make up anything too complicated because the legislators would lose every time.
What makes you believe Bush was the creator of laws? In your constitution, after duties and rules for congress, then the duty of Presidents is described. EO laws apply only to federal workers.
True but we are not citizens of Athens. Democrats love control. Making law, they feel like kings of old.
So you smugly agree with me then chide me to learn about economics. You have no clue how long I have studied economics yet you persuaded yourself I do not understand the subject; My early education about economics was happening by 1966. Congress killed off one of my inventions. I got a crash course in economics. Yes, my invention was accepted by the public and myself, though not by the man in your mirror. The worker may never understand economics 101. I have no quarrel with consumption and try to enjoin readers to learn about velocity of money, matching your comments about consumption.
What makes anyone think laws should be "short-'n-sweet"? Our market-economy is anything but simple. It is extremely complex and becoming even more complex as we leave the Industrial Age heading for the Information Age. Moreover, Federal Taxation gives easily far to too much money to a highly select band of 0.01Percenters who swallow the lion's share. Which is why personal taxation must be confiscatory above a certain amount. My "certain amount" is 10/15 megabucks a year beyond which taxation - no exceptions - become confiscated. And all the income-levels in between should be logarithmic in a steady upward fashion. Most importantly, this silly sympathy for "passing it over to the next generation" is also a non-starter. Aside from academic/social donations, the same tax-rule should apply. The kids will get their "death-benefits" by inheriting the company not wealth - and they can then pay income-taxes upon all gains. A market-economy has become - in the space of just half a century - one of the most intricate. There is nothing simple. But taxation MUST BE MADE SIMPLE. No jungle of "deductions". Leading to a Net Worth percentage breakdown The result would be a real benefit to the nation's Discretionary Spending (provided that non-discretionary spending was capped legally). And it should concentrate expenditure NOT ON THE DOD as it does today but on National Healthcare Services and Free or Nearly-Free Post-secondary Education. Period!
What's it all coming to? My sojourn on the Internet to get a handle on the answer brought me to this graphic: Hey, boyz-'n-girlz, we are in the Everything Bubble!!! Before you jump ship, be sure to check your life-vest ... ! ;^) PS: Do note above that the GDP-Index is in red and the Net Worth Index line is blue.
You seem intelligent so ask you ..... When reading your posts, I believe I am reading from the rights of kings. This has to be what George washington faced. Citizens explaining the rights of kings.
You hope! You got that right! Neither do I particularly give a damn ... Blather becomes you so. I'm still waiting for a "match" that is done with considered thought. All the rest quoted above is blather-in-a-blog ....
The number of laws has nothing to do with it. It is the purpose and content of the laws that matter. And, in the US, only two purposes are of absolute necessity - that of National Healthcare and Post-secondary Education. Both at acceptable costs. (Which would put the US finally at a level of that of the European Union.) And neither of the above mentioned are happening any time soon ...