please explain and provide factual evidence.
2007-11-02 16:40:50 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Ron Paul, the less government -- the better off we all are.
2007-11-02 16:43:24 · answer #1 · answered by Steve C 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a major thing that Americans should realize, but don't.
The entire economy of this country does NOT rest of the shoulders of one man, but on all of us. This is a democracy. A government by, of, and for- the people.
The president does not affect the economy as much as we all love to assume. It's our buying and working habits that shape the economy of our communities, and in general, the country.
Quit blaming the president.
If the president were to blame, the effects on the economy would NOT be immediate, but would be seen several years down the road, after he has left office. Also, the boom of the economy could be attributed to the republican congress just as easily as could be attributed to the big boss.
The president that improves the economy the most will be the one that wins the election, works WITH congress and the senate to enact laws - not just work to set em up and knock them all down with a veto. That will take a LOT of bipartisan politics and a blurring of distinct party lines -- compromise.
Thanks. That's my two cents.
2007-11-02 16:51:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
invoice Clinton did no longer harm our militia. the autumn of the united statesS.R uncovered the certainty that there became no longer a want for a overstaffed combating tension. the militia build DOWN started whilst George Herbert Walker Bush became in place of work and persevered in the process the Clinton years. The financial equipment became in lots worse shape in the process the great melancholy. led to by the inventory marketplace crash of 1927. That became 5 years in the past FDR took place of work. Clinton have been given a booming financial equipment located in his lap because of the 300 and sixty 5 days 2000 threat of a computing glitch that could desire to render many financial and private establishments impotent. Which one would be waiting to tutor around the financial equipment? the only that executes an govt order(s) a million. decrease the form of jobs and production centers transferred over sea's. 2. Make a genuine attempt to get the themes resolved in Iraq and Afghanistan. 3. enforce a genuine plan to wean the united statesFossil fuels because of the fact the dominant source for electric, production and transportation needs. This same guy or woman will then could desire to artwork with congress to return up with genuine legislations to do the above factors. by the way Cricket Obama purely had ONE vote interior the Illinois state legislature! It nevertheless takes extra advantageous than one and purely one vote to get costs surpassed in Illinois. as nicely, the GOVENOR could desire to then sign the invoice into regulation. Please use some elementary sense.
2016-12-15 14:49:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Republicans by default. They are more interested in the economy and less in social programs. Bush spends a lot of money on this war but it also created quite a bit of jobs. Clinton basically got lucky while he was in office. The Dot Com boom had nothing to do with his policies but it boosted the economy sky high.
2007-11-02 16:45:37 · answer #4 · answered by Scott M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ron Paul.
It's not that he would improve the economy the most, it's that he would depress the economy the least. All the other candidates are proposing vast new expenditures by government.
2007-11-02 16:44:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That will not be a criteria for me. I want to see our next president focus on securing our borders and solving the immigration problem here in the USA. The economy would get along just great if they would disband the Federal Reserve System and just let it operate.
2007-11-02 16:44:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that it should be Hillary clinton , becaue even though its great to get the war troops out as fast as we can you also have to wonder whats going to happen after we take them out. Hillary has all the answers and a good leading man behind her if she needs encouragement.In the begining i thought that Barak (Obama) was better but after watching some of the interviews hes done I just dont think hes ready to take care of this country.I just hope we dont another guy like Bush in there
2007-11-02 16:51:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you go back to their records, it looks as if NONE OF THEM cause their record is horrible when it comes to the economy. However assuming that Bill Clinton have a say if Hillary wins, than Hillary Clinton is the answer.
2007-11-02 16:45:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't see how a president nowadays can have much effect on an overall economy.
2007-11-02 16:45:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The one who lowers taxes the most and keeps the federal government out of our lives the most.
I'm guessing that's going to be a Republican.
History proves it. Look at the economic growth we've experienced since the Reagan years. Look at job growth THIS LAST MONTH. Record growth, thanks to lower taxes.
Look out if a Democrat wins and we get stuck with Charlie Rangel's largest tax increase in history.
2007-11-02 16:46:14 · answer #10 · answered by RedThread 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋