"What the president does CAN have an effect on the economy, but more often than not its effect is overstated."
What about the U.S. Farm Bill (2001 or 2002 not sure). It was during the Bush admin anyhow.
Yes, your right on minor issues such as the consumer spending index for spring accompanied by a little elevator music on CNN - but when it comes to Agricultural subsides within apparently free trade agreements or GATTS - (long story) which in-effect make the US farming sector less efficient while killing the African economies... then the jerks in the city wonder why they pay more for Kellogg’s Corn flakes or 2c more to pump gas (reduced GDP means general commodity imports cost more from the middle east too) - then the governments suddenly and rightly to blame for stupid policy to impress the red necks.
Sure the investors can play with their shares, but at the end of the day the government is the boss of your taxes - and this wealth accounts for a massive portion of American GDP (as government expenditure), if this budget goes into deficit then rather than being honest and raising taxes, the government just implements inflationary measures... and this is the very stuff of market collapse... as in 87.
"No, actually they didn't. The amount of terms a president could have was unlimited for quite awhile, until later legislation limited it to one."
mmm...Sorry, I am a foreigner after all! I thought I was not too shabby when it came to the flat facts of American history. Especially, since it receives no treatment in our educational institutions.
This is quite interesting - as the section on "American Presidency" (which is quite detailed in the encyclopaedia) stated that a President may only take office for a maximum of two terms... This was demonstrated by the Reagan (1981-1989) - Bush (1989 -1993) governments.
So, why did they limit the office to two terms by 4 years...? Franklin D. Roosevelt was a good president. Or was it that they didn't want Truman to follow suit?
