Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Everyone in the world loves to credit ot blame (mostly blame) the US President for major developments in the world.

Some classic examples are

Ronald Reagan is credited for winning the cold war when he was fortunate enough to be president at the end of a forty year period where the purpose of US policies was to undermine communism and world economic factors were set to speed the process along.

Bill Clinton is credited for the unprecidented economic expansion of the 90s yet he happened to be President during the peak of the technology boom which fueled said expansion and he largly had nothing to do with.

George W Bush is blamed or credited (depending on your point of view), for a costly quagmire in Iraq and a "war on terror" that is seemingly going nowhere yet he could have pulled off neither without the support of Congress which would likely have backed neither without the events of 09/11.

If you go back through history there are many such examples of world events, which would have happened no matter what, that the US President is either credited or blamed for and there is no doubt that the decisions this man makes do have a effect, the question is....how much of an effect?

Thoughts?

Although I disagree with a couple of your examples (I think that the president can exert tremendous influence on occasion), I do agree with your premise. Presidents are often held accountable for events over which they have little or no influence. The economy is the main place I see this. There are economic forces that take years to manifest, I would wager that the groundwork for much of the boom that occured in the '90's was laid during the reagan and bush 1 administrations. (not necessarily by the presidents of any administration)

If not the president, then who did those things? Well, Reagan winning the cold war is pretty dumb, I don't know where you got that, but they're credited/blamed because their jobs are about those things. Duh Oh wait, I'm sorry, it's not the president, it's shadowy figures that are ordering the president. How silly of me.

I do blame Reagan for globilisation though.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Everyone in the world loves to credit ot blame (mostly blame) the US President for major developments in the world.

Some classic examples are

Ronald Reagan is credited for winning the cold war when he was fortunate enough to be president at the end of a forty year period where the purpose of US policies was to undermine communism and world economic factors were set to speed the process along.

Bill Clinton is credited for the unprecidented economic expansion of the 90s yet he happened to be President during the peak of the technology boom which fueled said expansion and he largly had nothing to do with.

George W Bush is blamed or credited (depending on your point of view), for a costly quagmire in Iraq and a "war on terror" that is seemingly going nowhere yet he could have pulled off neither without the support of Congress which would likely have backed neither without the events of 09/11.

If you go back through history there are many such examples of world events, which would have happened no matter what, that the US President is either credited or blamed for and there is no doubt that the decisions this man makes do have a effect, the question is....how much of an effect?

Thoughts?

Executive branch policies do set the tone for how the country is being run. Remember, they call it the "Executive" branch for a reason. It is the managerial branch of the US government, seeing as how it executes, administers, and enforces the laws passed by congress.

Many of these laws can be vetoed by the President, and it is often times difficult for Congress to pass a law after it has been vetoed. Top this off with the fact that the President has the ability to appoint members of the Supreme Court which can deem laws that Congress passes as being unconstitutional, and it's quite easy for even the laman to understand that he and his cabinet carry much influence over the decisions being made for the US.

As for your other arguments...

The claim that Reagan's administration is generally responsible for ending the Cold War is a somewhat accurate. Was his administration the only reason why it ended? Of course not. But his cabinet did effectively open up many doors of communication between the former USSR and the US during this time, which did indeed expedite the process of ending it.

Clinton may have been president during the tech boom, but you forget
so was George Bush(Sr). Most of the policies that his administration had in place during this time, lead to the same type of sh*t we're currently going through right now during this Iraq war. (i.e., Skyrocketing deficits, another Iraq War, high gas prices, tax cuts for the rich, tax increases for the working/middle class, pandering to big business and making it an employer's job market, etc)

George W. Bush(Jr) is blamed for the current war in Iraq because he and his cabinet were the major initiators of it. They claimed they had a mountain of evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, and many of the American people(including those in Congress) believed him, without thoroughly going over the evidence being presented. Congress is indeed somewhat at fault for not scrutinizing the evidence more, still they too were mislead by this so called 'evidence.' Whether we all were purposely or inadvertently mislead by this 'evidence' is another story, however, the bottom line is that most of the responsibility for starting the war falls on the Bush Administration.

I definitely understand what you're saying, but you've picked some poor arguments to support this position. The function of the President is a very important and very powerful one, and the policies executed by his branch do lay the foundation for the overall direction that the country moves in.

Originally posted by Gay Guy


As for your other arguments...

The claim that Reagan's administration is generally responsible for ending the Cold War is a somewhat accurate. Was his administration the only reason why it ended? Of course not. But his cabinet did effectively open up many doors of communication between the former USSR and the US during this time, which did indeed expedite the process of ending it.


As someone who lived through that era I have to respectively disagree. Reagan regularly referred to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire" and started a massive military buildup because he felt war was inevitable. It was Gorbachev who extended an olive branch and opened up dialogue and it was the collapsing communist econimies along with growing global media outlets making it harder and harder for communist nations to remain their totalitatian grip. I voted for Reagan but don't believe he deserves credit for winning the cold war.




Clinton may have been president during the tech boom, but you forget
so was George Bush(Sr). Most of the policies that his administration had in place during this time, lead to the same type of sh*t we're currently going through right now during this Iraq war. (i.e., Skyrocketing deficits, another Iraq War, high gas prices, tax cuts for the rich, tax increases for the working/middle class, pandering to big business and making it an employer's job market, etc)

Bush SR was President in its very early stages. Clinton was president during it's peak years. Alan Greenspan, a man who had far more control over economic policy, was the Fed chairman for all of it. It may have been Bush Sr who advocated NAFTA and GATT but it was Clinton who made both reality and it was Clinton who gave China most favored Nation trading status giving us the economic situation we have today. All in all though, Clinton was President in the LATE 90s when the tech boom was at it's peak. What did he really have to do with it?




George W. Bush(Jr) is blamed for the current war in Iraq because he and his cabinet were the major initiators of it. They claimed they had a mountain of evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, and many of the American people(including those in Congress) believed him, without thoroughly going over the evidence being presented. Congress is indeed somewhat at fault for not scrutinizing the evidence more, still they too were mislead by this so called 'evidence.' Whether we all were purposely or inadvertently mislead by this 'evidence' is another story, however, the bottom line is that most of the responsibility for starting the war falls on the Bush Administration.

Yes, it was the Bush Jr administration (for the record I hate Shrub) who really pushed for the Iraq war but go back to my original post. Bush co need congress to make it a reality. Had 09/11 not happened I firmly believe Saddam Hussein (who had nothing to do with 09/11) would still be president of Iraq.




I definitely understand what you're saying, but you've picked some poor arguments to support this position. The function of the President is a very important and very powerful one, and the policies executed by his branch do lay the foundation for the overall direction that the country moves in.


I don't think my arguments are bad at all if you really look at them closely. It's the corporations who are lobbying hard for the current and expanding state of globalization.....Bush is just a lapdog. While historically the President may have indeed have been a, if not the, most powerful person on earth I believe those days are past and he is, and will continue to be more and more, a symbolic figurehead as corporations cement their control and nations and governments become increasingly irrelevant

Anyone that's been in business and worked on big deals knows the process takes 6 to 18 months! So alot of the economic development of Term is set in motion by the preceding term.

I will be interested to see how Bush Jr's terms will be seen in coming years.

Originally posted by Soleran
Anyone that's been in business and worked on big deals knows the process takes 6 to 18 months! So alot of the economic development of Term is set in motion by the preceding term.

I will be interested to see how Bush Jr's terms will be seen in coming years.

6 to 18 months my ass. The man had over a 100 billion dollar surplus and now after almost 8 years of him being President, we have over a 100 billion dollar deficit. Who's to blame? The Clinton Administration? Or Maybe it was Al Queda? Perhaps Saddam took all the money away? Yeah Right.. LMFAO

Keep in mind, he and his people ended up spending most if not all of the surplus within the first 18 months being President.

Come on now, Bush will be remembered as an abysmal failure in just about all aspects of his Presidency. This includes but is not limited to his administrations economic, social, and foreign policies for the US. If it weren't for this war, the economy would be in horrible shape. Hell, come to think of it, that was probably one of the main reasons why we went to war..

And that's the only thing he'll be remembered for, getting us involved in this pointless Iraq war. Honestly I don't hate the guy, it's just that he's so out of touch with the common man. He tries to come across as a blue collar dude with his country twang and cowboy mannerisms, but his actions demonstrate him as being nothing more than a blue blooded monarch, who considers himself and his people to be leagues above the average joe.

Any President who follows Bush will not have tough shoes to fill regarding any policy they implement, for all they need to do is a little bit better than him..which won't be that difficult.

Perhaps I should have specified, my initial comment wasn't meant to be tagged to my last comment, 2 seperate discussions.

I don't agree with his descisions or all his policies BUT since your crystal ball gives you such clarity continue to share your wisdom so I can invest in the proper stocks and leave my day job.

Originally posted by Soleran
I don't agree with his descisions or all his policies BUT since your crystal ball gives you such clarity continue to share your wisdom so I can invest in the proper stocks and leave my day job.


Nasdaq is down -2.29 today, and the yearly on the dow is up 30 cents. My advice is not to invest in the stockmarket. It's bullshit. Nothing but a game of chance. Only people who have insider knowledge can make any real money in it. It's like playing a game of poker/blackjack or buying a lottery ticket, except even lotto has better odds of you winning.

If you really want to make money, start saving up and buying real estate. Time and time again it has been proven that those who make the most money, are those who invest in real estate.

the president isn't as important as he was before. they seem to have less power every election and bush is more of a puppet on strings that is controlled and told by other government officials to what to do and not to do.

I blame congress for the deficit. The republicrats just think about staying in power, getting as much as they can for their constituents. Neither party is willing to sacrifice to cut the budget. even though revenues have increased over the past few years, spending has increased more. I suppose that the president could have controlled it a little if he'd been willing to be a little freer with the veto, but really, are you going to veto something you want because there's a little something you don't want attached?

America sound be run by me.

the president is important and powerful enough to lead people to question his importance despite the obvious.