Playing devil's advocate/idiot; I will pose a question. Is it the president that defines the economy or is it the economy that defines a president. Was Ronald Reagan just at the right time or was it just the time was right for Ronald Reagan? Seems we have not really had quite the boom since he (Reagan) was in office. Though I do commend Bush (the younger one) in dealing with a problem that had no solution (9-11). Just as there will be poor always, there will always be evil. You really can't declare war on evil. Of course then again, that is a lovely Pandora's box to define evil. I think the economy will ebb and flow with little help from the president. There is the issue of tax burden, which is about the only thing the president can do to change the economy. Even so, corporations and rich people make a lot of money, so do you even the tax burden with a set percentage, or do you give beaks to the higher earners? I mean any way you set it; wealthy people pay more. Is it just an ebb and flow with the president getting the credit or is the president deserving of that credit?
Lawn Care Professional with an interest in:
Music, Fender Guitars, Space, Computers, Cats, Cooking, Turf, Grass, Wine, slow cars and yes even fishing...
and a large list of other subjects.
Though I am a pirate I do have a career