Thanks Bush: Say Hello to Inflation

[Velociryx]

Saying that conservatives don't want their own bizzare version of the nanny state ignores such things as:

ALL the implications of the conservative-generated PatActs, not the least of which is the ability to snoop on (based on their rediculously broad definitions of the term) pretty much any body, and any time, for any LENGTH of time. Probable cause? Unnecessary. Just....say something "improper."

Homeland defense - ohhhhh yes. Let's add another layer of useless bureaucracy to waste money on!

War on Terror - Fighting ghosts and chasing shadows. Never let 'em rest right? The American people, that is. Every time things get cozy, we'll just issue an "orange warning" again to keep the edge on. We can keep THAT up for decades!

And to help KEEP everyone distracted, we'll start a few wars (two so far, chomping at the bit for a few more!) so we can screw the middle class with a regressive flat tax, screw the gays on general principle, ban abortions, and a few other items in the ol' goodie bag.

Say it hasn't been talked about? And with Republican control across the board, these are items made MORE likely to pass, not less.

But again, if you don't wanna talk about it till the 11th hour, we can wait. Your boy. Your party.

-=Vel=-

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Sikander
Dan S is correct in saying that the Congress is vastly more powerful in setting economic policy than the president. You can disagree with the president and refuse to vote for him just as you can disagree with your congressman. But it isn't in the end his call, the responsibility lies with congress. Just as many of you don't blame the CIA or the defense department for the war in Iraq despite their role in pushing the war / supplying bad intelligence. In the end it was Bush's call and his responsibility.

Again, you are wholly ignoring the vast political power the President wields. It is power that he can use to help bend congressmen to his position. Additionally, he can make Republican Congressmen look really bad and damage their chances of re-election if they don't go along with him.

This idea that the Congress acts almost wholly indepdently from the President in practice is just plain wrong, and it ignores the realities of what is going on in the political scene. The President *does* have a large say in what his Party is doing in Congress, and he does have influence even with non-party members. That's just how it works out in practice; it's just how it is.

Your example of Iraq is an excellent example of how Bush used his influence to get the Congress to give him the authority he wanted in Iraq.

-Drachasor

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Reasonable people are all too hard to find these days...

Indeed, troll boy.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Reasonable is my middle name, Brother Arrian!

-=Vel=-
(well, here lately, Tylox is my middle name...those are some groovy meds!)

[DanS]

This idea that the Congress acts almost wholly indepdently from the President in practice is just plain wrong, and it ignores the realities of what is going on in the political scene.

In fact, it's completely right. From what basis do you draw your conclusions? Personal experience working on the Hill?

[Drachasor]

I would add that my points haven't been about the religious right, just about how Bush has the influence to heavily push his agenda. This is an agenda that isn't good for the economy, but he could well get a lot of it passed, even though many fiscally responsible Republicans don't like it. This is because of the influence the President has.

As for the Religious Right, well, I disagree with their stances on many things, as they do seem to want near State-endorsement of their religion. I believe everyone should be allowed to practice whatever beliefs they have so long as they harm no one. Additionally, government employed people in positions of power and authority should refrain from endorsing any religion whilst they are acting in an official capacity. This means no teacher-led prayer in schools, for example.

Anyhoo, that is a bit off-topic, but I would say Bush must cater to the Religious Right a lot more than the average President because without them he would have lost the election. He catered to them so heavily during the campaign and he will be holding up a large part of his promises. From everything I can see, anyhow.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by DanS

Originally posted by Drachasor
This idea that the Congress acts almost wholly indepdently from the President in practice is just plain wrong, and it ignores the realities of what is going on in the political scene.

In fact, it's completely right. From what basis do you draw your conclusions? Personal experience working on the Hill?

My observations over my lifetime, everything I have read, how the media works and who they cover, etc, etc.

You are simply ignoring how the system works in practice so that you can preach your idealized view of how the government works. It is a simple fact that the part of the President finds it very difficult to not go along with what the President wants. There are exceptions, but that's the rule.

Anyone that knows anything about how the President works his agenda in the media and by having his people work with Congressmen, would know that he wields no small amount of influence. To pretend otherwise is to delude yourself so you can believe something you like more, but that something isn't the truth. That something, in fact, clouds the truth from your view.

-Drachasor

[DanS]

My observations over my lifetime, everything I have read, how the media works and who they cover, etc, etc.

In other words, it's an educated guess, which is in this case incorrect.

This group of Republicans is unusually cohesive, which likely gives you a distorted view of the norm. This president is the first in 150 years to not veto a bill during his term, after all. But even with this group, the president only presents a first draft, if that. He might be called in at the end to try to close the deal, but that is not the norm among presidents.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by DanS
In other words, it's an educated guess, which is in this case incorrect.

And you say that because it disagrees with your position? I'll go into more detail and give examples if I must, but I am curious as to what support you have for your view.

-Drachasor

[Drake Tungsten]

Indeed, troll boy.

Trolling's the only option left when the whole board's gone mad...

[DanS]

but I am curious as to what support you have for your view

Take intelligence reform. Bush says it needs to be done and his guys present some ideas to the congress. Bush asks prominent legislators from both parties to handle the legislation and to try to get a signable bill passed. The House and Senate work on bills individually. They have several rounds of mark-ups in committee -- a process in which Bush's guys are not directly involved.

Bush's guys normally just track the bills and provide input when asked. If the House or Senate get seriously off track, Bush may threaten a veto. The House and Senate each have their own hearings on the matter. The administration might be asked to give testimony, but it's a much broader list of folks consulted. The bill is then passed to the floor, where there are debates and amendments on each version (more happens in the Senate at this stage most often).

At the end, the House and Senate pass their own versions of the bills. In this case, the versions are almost directly opposed to one another. The conference committee may call upon Bush's guys to help work a compromise between the House and Senate to see if a bill can be passed. But then again, they might not ask him, since the prominent legislators from each side are negotiating just fine.

The idea that Bush's guys are directing anything but the broadest outlines on this is misunderstanding the process. Bush just doesn't have the staff to go into much detail on a day-to-day basis. That's the congress's job and he has precious little control over the sausage-making.

That's the way the constitution is written. And believe it or not, that's exactly what happens.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods, not by the rise the price of one commodity out of many. The fact that that commodity is purchased from abroad might actually be deflationary as it sucks money out of the US economy, decreasing the amount of money chasing goods in the US.

The Fed can fight inflation by raising interest rates which helps to choke off the rate money expands. The government can help by reducing the deficit.

Money doesn't just disappear when it leaves the US. It makes it's way back. What do you think people do with them after they export to us?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Money doesn't just disappear when it leaves the US. It makes it's way back. What do you think people do with them after they export to us?

True. However, a least for a while the money is not chasing goods inside United States. The foreigners may be using the money to buy oil or purchase US securities. If they buy US goods, they of course increase demand inside United States and help affect inflation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
True. However, a least for a while the money is not chasing goods inside United States. The foreigners may be using the money to buy oil or purchase US securities. If they buy US goods, they of course increase demand inside United States and help affect inflation.

They don't use more dollars to buy oil because there are more dollars. The supply of dollars has not effect on this. When they buy US securities the dollars return the same way they do when they buy US goods.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

This group of Republicans is unusually cohesive

You just disproved your own point that Bush shouldn't be held responsible for whats happening now.