Is this type of talk appropriate for America?

[AZRedhawk44]

Palin's a Governor.  She knows plenty about real nuts-and-bolts economics.

Obama is very knowledgeable about economics?  I have yet to hear Obama say anything about economics that made a whit of sense.

"It is in the economic area that the weakness of his choice is shown. Given McCain's lack of knowledge of economics and his reliance of old and failed Republican recipes, the fact that a VP lacking any competence in any of the issues that bother the average American has been chosen cries out to the very Heavens."

Since when has it been desireable for a President to be a head of Economy?

Seriously?

What happened to safeguarding "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and then leaving us to our own devices?  Why do we need a Wizard of EconimOz?

Why does the FedGov "need" to take over Fannie/Freddy?  Why does it care if the stock market tanks because Fanny/Freddy tank?  Where is the Constitutional delegation of power for the FedGov to take over Fanny/Freddy?  Where is the duty to do so?

(out of blatant self-interest as a new home-shopper, a tanked Fannie/Freddy will drive prices so far down that I could by a house from one of the ARM-idiots for pennies-on-pennies-on-the-dollar.  These people don't deserve houses and deserve to be slapped hard, IMO.  Great economic benefit to me for waiting 4-5 more years to buy a house rather than becoming an ARM-idiot myself.)

I don't care if McCain, Obama, Palin or anyone else is a Captain of Industry (tm).  I'd prefer they weren't, and didn't get involved at all.  Stand on the wall, looking outwards, and protect me from the savagery outside our borders.  Stay the heck out of business here.  Economic inexperience is a boon to me as a Presidential candidate.  As long as you know I want you out of economy/banking/investing/wallstreet/my piggy bank/my kid's lemonade stand.

Nobody in this country is experienced enough (not even DEA glock-cop) to handle the helm of the American Economy and the American Armed Forces.  Nobody.

I am so angered by the Fannie/Freddy situation and this trend of government-sponsored failure.   I think it stems from looking at the government as some sort of Insurance Agency rather than a last ditch disaster tool.

Sigh.  This thread felt more cohesive when I started it and now it degenerated to senseless-redhawk-rambling.  Do you understand what I'm getting at though?  Do you agree/disagree?

Is it all FDR's fault? 

Or is it all a master plan of Fistful and his time machine of madness?

[Scout26]

What we need is someone smart enough to stay (and keep Congress and the rest of the .gov) the hell out of the way of the American people so that the economy can prosper.  It's only when the .gov gets involved (Freddie and Fannie anyone??) that things go bad in a really big way.

[El Tejon]

(not even DEA glock-cop)

Did I just hear a call for Rasta Narc?

Hey. Mon.

[freedom lover]

I think the government should keep its nose out of the economy. Needless to say, I am a minarchist.

Or is it all a master plan of Fistful and his time machine of
madness?

I say he's in league with the aliens.

[Boomhauer]

I think the government should keep its nose out of the economy. Needless to say, I am a minarchist.

Or is it all a master plan of Fistful and his time machine of
madness?

I say he's in league with the aliens.

Get your conspiracies straight. When it comes to economic conspiracies, it's all about the Joos, man. The Joos, in league with Fistful.

Not aliens. They are too busy with the Elvis and JFK conspiracies.

[Perd Hapley]

AZRedhawk, you're only half-right.  Yes, the President needs to leave the free market alone.  But he needs to know enough economics to realize why gov intervention is bad for the economy. 

[drewtam]

Congress's powers are enumerated in Section Eight:

    Section 8: The Congress shall have power

    To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Seems to me that the veto power of the presidential office, and the legislative power of congress makes it imperative that they are familiar with economics.

I agree that Congress should keep its nose out of everyone's economic decisions. But they still retain serious powers over inflation, debt, bankruptcy, and intern'l treaties. To say the president doesn't need to be a good at economic is dangerous and silly.
Of course, McCain/Palin are much wiser a choice than the Obama/Biden socialist ticket.

[AZRedhawk44]

To our Constitutional quoter:

I see powers enumerated to tax, regulate and borrow money when providing for the common defense and general welfare.  "General welfare" can have speculative meaning, but I would argue that its meaning at the time of writing implied infrastructure needs like roads... not loans to industrial tycoons, cattle barons or shipping magnates of the time.  Certainly not to engage in the homestead lending industry.

I do NOT see powers to engage in the lending industry.

The closest parallel I can think of would be back in the Old West, when the gov't would encourage western settlement by promising 40 acres and a mule to each person who would work the land.  Difference here, is, gov't owned that land by proxy of military conquest.

In today's case with Fanny/Freddy, gov't doesn't own what it took over.  Fanny/Freddy ain't broke (yet).  They forcibly seized Fanny/Freddy by executive fiat (no shots fired, but whatever) and the Board of Directors and CEO and other key positions will be terminated shortly.  No vote was taken by stockholders.

Who the hell agreed to this?

And... there's talk of re-selling the company once it stabilizes.  What bank can afford to buy Fanny/Freddy?  F/F dwarfed all other lending institutions in total loans.  Who takes the profit from re-selling the company?  Uncle Sam?  A "contractor" of Uncle Sam?

What gives the gov't the power to TAKE OVER a company as big as Fanny/Freddy with not so much as a request from an interested party such as a minority stockholder?  CEO/Board didn't request it, that's for sure.

And why isn't anybody asking about this?  Where's the authority to do this come from?

[drewtam]

Hey, watch the friendly fire Redhawk.
I'm right there with ya on gov't getting its nose into hostile bank take overs and selling them for profit; and other foolhardy ideas on economics and social programs the federal leaders have.

But the point you started with in your original post is that the president doesn't need to be an economics smartypants. I disagree because Congress has significant powers over federal debt, inflation, bankruptcy, treaties, etc. Those powers make it necessary to pick a President and Congress that is economically and financially wise... unless we pass an amendment to relieve them of those duties.

[French G.]

Even if we say no intervention of the gov't in the economy there is a ton of interface between the government's legitimate pursuits and the free market. For one, monetary policy, we're not going back to pieces of eight no matter how much Ron Paul wants to so we are stuck with a government printing money.  Tax policy, foreign policy, defense spending etc have a huge economic impact. I want someone who has real experience making money. I was happy to hear McCain had 7 homes, wish he had 20, he probably has an understanding of how stupid the tax system is. The government will always make some interference in the economy. I just want someone who trys to make it minimal instead of constant manipulating(Greenspan) or constant pandering(Helicopter Ben Bernanke). I know they're both appointees but somebody thought they were a good idea.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"The closest parallel I can think of would be back in the Old West, when the gov't would encourage western settlement by promising 40 acres and a mule to each person who would work the land.  Difference here, is, gov't owned that land by proxy of military conquest."


my understanding of the 40 acres and a mule had nothin to do with westward conquest,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_acres_and_a_mule
'


'

[AZRedhawk44]

40 acres and a mule also featured prominently in the push across the great plains.  Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma.  At least if I'm remembering high school civics correctly.

And it's entirely possible I'm not.

But I remember something about 40 acres and a mule for anyone willing to settle in these plains states and work the land for x years.

[Werewolf]

Quote from: Some Israeli Newspaper

What we really need is for the rest of the world to STFU! AND Butt the hell out. All of 'em.

[Perd Hapley]

Like Wiki said, "forty acres and a mule" has to do with freed slaves.  It usually doesn't refer to the Homesteading Act, which granted larger plots of land (160 acres) and didn't include any promise of a mule, so far as I know.   

[AZRedhawk44]

Like Wiki said, "forty acres and a mule" has to do with freed slaves.  It usually doesn't refer to the Homesteading Act, which granted larger plots of land (160 acres) and didn't include any promise of a mule, so far as I know.   

I sit happily corrected. :-)

What's the going rate of exchange for arid undeveloped land, and mules?

[coppertales]

The problem with Congress is most of them are LAWYERS.  Nobama is a lawyer and it ain't in business law.  The prez has a cabinet to advise him with such things as economics, etc.  As for the fannie may and mac, I bet whoever is in charge of them gets a fat bonus for pulling off the govt bailout and doesn't loose their jobs, like you or me would for incompentence.  They knew the govt would bail them out so it was greed as normal there....chris3

[MechAg94]

I just want a President that it smart enough to know to keep his hands off the economy and get the govt out of the way as much as possible.  Most of them aren't that smart though. 

[macadore]

Bush I did the same thing in the late eighties. The people who lost their homes had their taxes raised to bail out the savings and loans that foreclosed on them. The savings and loans ended up with their houses and their money. The free market is a myth.

[FTA84]

Back to the original post.

The answer is the same as the reason for the electoral college.  What gets people to vote for a person may have little bearing on the responsibilities of the position that person is running for.  That is why more people vote for American Idol or other such nonsense then vote for POTUS.  It is the 'here and now problem'.

In general, people don't look to vote to keep what they have, they look to vote to get something.  Most people in America believe they have freedom and security (after all, it is better than the rest of the world), the right to the pursuit of happiness, ect.   So why voting for an economic guru? Well you feel you have the most basic rights, what is next, the answers.....MONEY.

Believe it or not, I think that people that the majority of people will vote for BHO / McCain based on taxes.  BHO runs on "the tax money for the war should be spent on you!" and McCain runs on the principles of a free ecomony.

[MicroBalrog]

Had the US presidency been restricted to its Constitutional size, maybe the original poster would have been right.

That is not the case.

The President controls, by executive order, a gigantic bureaucracy whose day-to-day regulations, actions, and edicts, affect the economy.

The President usually also has the power (de-facto, but not de-jure) to push, through friendly Congressmen, for  various bills, which also affect the economy. He can also veto 2.9 trillion-dollar budgets.

They call it The Imperial Presidency for a reason.