First off, I hope that this post does not cause me to wind up on some watch list for questioning the importance of the President. While we are on the subject though, it is certainly an interesting debate whether it matters who the President is. Millions of Americans across the country spend hours watching political debates and casting their votes. Is all of this time spent for little reason? The folks over at Freakonomics tackle this question and their conclusions are pretty interesting. Take a look at the sites below and answer the questions that follow.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/08/13/how-much-does-the-president-really-matter/
http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/11/04/freakonomics-radio-how-much-does-the-president-really-matter/
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html
- Identify the argument presented in the articles that you most agree with and explain your rationale.
- Identify an argument presented in the articles that you disagree with and explain your rationale.
- Besides the economy, where else in our society do we see strong Presidential influence?
40 comments:
Christian G
In my personal opinion, the president doesn't matter as much as majority of the population believes. Sure, they have the power to appoint people into positions of government and they can pass or veto any law, but that is only a fraction of government, and most people believe the president is responsible for most if not all of the government. Furthermore, the congress is the group with the ability to choose how our budget is spent, they create the proposed laws and approve those appionted. If anything the president is a figure head to take the blame for everything that goes wrong. In actuallity, it's all of government's fault.
Justin L
1)"The president is a representative of the U.S" I agree with this because he is the only one all the other countries see. He must be presentable and represent the U.S in a formidable and honorable way. The president is most influential and every word he says will be accounted for.
2)"The president isn't really that important because he doesn't control much" I disagree with that because the president is the figurehead of the U.S and he elects supreme court justices,and comes up with laws. He is the overall "Man" that decides everything. That is why the president of the United States is labeled as the single most powerful person on earth.
3) Besides the economy, the president has a strong influence on the social and political world. He makes laws,and makes constant speeches about the U.S situation. He can choose to go to war or not,he chooses his cabinet and chooses his supreme court justices. I also agree that he is a leader, so as said in one video "If the president chooses to wear red,the 100 republicans will also wear red. He is very influential on all aspects and can change our lives with the say of a program, law or statement.
Erik H
1. I agree with the argument that the president's power and influence is a bit overblown. He may have a large amount of power, but he is not the government itself; the government does not mold to his desires, nor is it completely vice-versa. I believe most people simply assume that his power is omnipotent and absolute so they have someone to blame when things go wrong. Obama promised us change, but it isn't completely his fault that he wasn't able to wave his magic wand to make the economy all better miraculously. Even if McCain was elected in his place, the result would still be the same. People just assume that the president can do anything.
2. I disagree with the argument that people assume the president cannot control the economy to any extent. He may not exactly have the power to do anything incredibly specific, but he stil has his political pressure and influence. If the president wants something to go his way, he can usually pressure or even intimidate his way into victory.
3. We see a large cultural influence from the president as well as political influence. As a result of Bush Jr.'s poor presidency, there was a compilation album released ("Rock Againt Bush") that was pretty much trashing him. Similarly, Obama has had quite the cultural influence but with a more positive connotation. He has appeared in a Spider-Man comic, his election (and re-election) campaign has a unique art style and various merchandise to promote him. He also has various memes dedicated to either supporting or trashing him.
Andrew S.
1. I agree with the argument that the public overreacts to who the president is when considering how it will affect our economy. It does seem that many Americans place too large an emphasis on the power of the president. The president plays an influential role to be sure, but he does not posses the power to single-handedly fix the economy. Perhaps his largest power in regards to the economy is suggesting the government's budget every year and even then it's only a suggestion. The power of the purse ultimately lies with congress.
2. I disagree with the lack of emphasis that these articles place on the power of the president. I understand that their entire argument is based on this, but I feel that even if they try to stress a lack of power coming from the executive branch, they should probably note the importance of nominating supreme court judges. They do acknowledge that it is an important power but I think that they are severely understating its effect on our lives and our economy. The Supreme court has a large amount of power over all facets of American life since they are expected to interpret the laws that run this country. The President's power to pick someone who will serve the rest of his life on the supreme court is immense and worthy of greater acknowledgment.
3. We see a strong presidential influence in politics and in all matters relating to the military. While it may not be in line with the founder’s intentions, the president has amassed a great deal of political and militaristic power. It is also worth noting the social influence that the president has, as he is commonly referenced in pop culture, whether it be in a positive or a negative light.
1. The president does not have the economic power normally attributed to him by the public. He must rely on congress to pass laws, and any law regarding revenue must originate in the house. He does not have the ability to affect interest rates as the Federal Reserve now, he can merely set a tone for the country. His presence in and of itself is really the best way he can influence the economy.
2. The first article claims that a ceo has little impact on the success or failure of a firm, i would disagree. A CEO might not take direct action, but serves to set directives and goals for the department heads that work under him. He also directly interacts with the board of directors and stockholders, which affects the firms ability to raise revenue and form new deals. The CEO is a vital part of a company and directly impacts whether a corporation sinks or swims.
3. We see strong presidential influence in foreign relations. The president sets the terms and themes of diplomacy and can make executive agreements with other leaders. He is responsible for negotiating treaties, which are then approved by congress.
Alec S
A baseball manager has several responsibilities. He can indirectly and directly affect the outcome of a game based on his decisions. For one, deciding whether or not Mike Pelfrey should be replaced with a relief pitcher (more often than not) can crucially affect that outcome of any given game. The role of the president is very similar in this respect. Although the President doesn’t come into the game with the bases loaded and two out to save the day, the President can enact certain executive decisions to influence the economy one way or another, strictly indirectly.
1. The President does have an influence on the economy, but not as big as one may think. Stephen Dubner states that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint the outcomes and fluctuations of an economy on a single person. During the Clinton era, when asked who was responsible for the prosperous economy, people simply said “Greenspan”. I agree with Dubner in that there is no plausible way to give entire credit (or discredit) to a single person or entity when it comes to a multifaceted, complex economy. Since a single entity cannot be blamed or praised for the state of the economy, the President is not wholly responsible for specific fluctuations in the economy during their presidency; however, the President must be a smart baseball manager. The President is indirectly responsible for many determinants of the economy based on certain taxation reforms and how these dollars are allocated within the economy itself. During the Bush Administration we saw how poor economic legislation, coupled with regulation irresponsibility, tanked the economy. Was the most recent economic downturn directly President Bush’s fault? No, but he was certainly at least part of the blame.
2. As mentioned, although the President’s influence is not as vast as one may believe, the President still exerts some influence on the state of the economy. Continuing with my award winning baseball analogy, Terry Collins can relieve Mike Pelfrey with Jon Rauch or Bobby Parnell, and it is up to him to decide who will be the best fit for the given situation (unfortunately for the Mets, the results will always be appalling). Enacting positive tax policies can influence an economy greatly. For example, government spending (approved, in part, by some aspects of the President) can influence an economy by putting money in people’s hands and allowing the resources and capital to be distributed responsibly to influence an economy. These actions are not a large proportion of the economy, but are certainly an aspect of it.
3. The President represents many aspects of American politics and culture. The wills and the wishes of the President are heard and respected globally. Election of a President represents how the American people feel the state of the Union is heading and feels will be best fit to serve them in the present and future. In regards to foreign affairs, the President is directly responsible for negotiating treaties and deals with other nations. Again, with my fantastic baseball analogy, Terry Collins must give a press conference after every game to give his important word on the game’s events; much like a President must do when analyzing the state of the nation.
Thomas T.
1) I agree that the public seems to overestimate the power of the president. Although the president is very powerful in his own right, and serves as the figurehead to our country, he is just one part of our complex government ruled by a series of checks and balances, and the president cannot alone influence the country, as people seem to think. Today it seems like every one of President Obama’s policies has lead to some sort of public outcry, and possibly even some overblown comments about socialism and impeachment, but in reality it is far from Obama alone who influences the government and its economy. Obama has to rely on congress to pass any law, but congress does not have to rely on the president. While the president can choose to veto any law that comes up to his table, Congress can override this veto with a majority vote, and pass that law. And although Obama serves as a figurehead to the economy, it is the FED that plays a bigger influence in the economic state of the country, and whatever they say tends to come true. Furthermore, laws regarding revenue must originate in the house of representative. Although the president still has his own powers, and can serve as an influence in the state of the economy, he is far from the biggest influence on the US economy, but rather a part of a larger chain of power.
2) I disagree with the idea that the president does not control much, and because of this is not that important. The president has powers of appointment, including the power to appoint all federal judges, which is not something to be looked lightly upon, as this includes judges of the Supreme Court. The president can also appoint the top officials of federal agencies. The president also has the title commander in chief, and has a variety of executive powers and executive orders that do not require congressional approval in some cases, and consist of many broad powers. Overall the president’s powers can be very broad, and because of this the president has been growing in power over the years. It is because of this that the president is not someone to be looked lightly upon, and in fact someone to be seen as important in his own roles, in a much larger political machine.
3) Out side of the economy we see a stronger influence by the president, especially in foreign relations. Because the president is a figurehead of our country, he comes off as a major figure to be looked at in foreign countries, much like we might look at figures like Angela Merkel (Germany) in our own media. The president can set executive agreements with other countries leaders that does not require congressional approval, but the terms of this agreement end when the term of that leader ends, and the president still needs congressional approval for funds towards this executive agreement. The president however, still plays a major role in the current negotiations and feelings between our country and other foreign nations. He is also responsible for negotiating treaties that do that to be approved by congress, and will last for longer then the terms of that president’s presidency. The president also has media influence and reflects the overall values of American society at the time. A more conservative America will vote for a Conservative president, while a more Liberal America will vote for a more Liberal America. When a more conservative president wins the presidency in a overall more Liberal America, this could result in less confident citizens and a change in the economic state of the country, not necessarily because of that president or the president before’s actions but because of a change in expectations of the countries citizens, and whether or not they want to spend more, or spend less.
Kelly F
1)The argument that I agree the most with is that for every presidential action there are a million strong reactions waiting to occur and that he is not the only one making the decisions. It is difficult to predict what will happen after every single presidential decision, so decisions on the receiving end can affect what happens in the long run. Of course the president makes numerous decisions but so many of them have to take place with the advice and consent of Congress. It is untrue that the President has this absolute power because of the system of checks and balances that we have in place today.
2) I disagree with the fact that the President has little impact on the economy. Even though Congress has "power of the purse" the President can still impact budgetary decisions. After all, increases and decreases of government spending, being a large component of monetary policy, would affect economic conditions.
3) Besides the economy, the President has a large impact on international relations. The President is the one that interacts with world leaders and can even make executive agreements with them that are as good as law without the advice or consent of Congress.
Gary K
1. The argument that I most agree with is that presidents are blamed for the cause of the economy doing well or bad when they are in power. The economy goes in cycle's, and if the cycle will be bad for the president in power at that time, he is seen as responsible. Bill Clinton was president during a great time in the cycle, and he was seen as a great president.
2. I disagree with the statement made that the president does not matter. People see the president of the U.S as the most powerful person in the world. He has the power to cause social changes, political changes, and he can make new laws too. The President of the U.S is a very important job.
3. Besides the economy the president influences culture and society. JFK's wife had her hair in a certain style, and women at home copied that style and had their hair like she did. With Obama being the first African-American president, African American's immediately cheered on the streets. The president has a large influence on people.
1. The argument I agree with most is that the President is much more of a public figurehead instead of an actual playmaker. I think that people's reaction to what the President does or doesn't do is has much more of an influence than his actual actions. I think the best evidence to support this was brought up by Justin Wolfers. His point was that the economy reacted to the Presidents before they were even elected.
2. I don't agree with those who say that the President isn't as prevalent in our lives as we think. The way we react to what he says and does is one thing, but the articles failed to bring up the President's cabinet. The Federal Bureaucracy has more effect on our country than any business or law can have. The President appoints heads of departments based on how loyal they are to his beliefs and goals.
3. Besides the economy, the president has a strong influence on his cabinet and the military. Since I went over the former above, I'll discuss the later. The president is the commander in chief, he has supreme authority over our armed forces. An example of the power the president has is when President Obama ordered a drone attack on Anwar al-Awlaki, a United States citizen.
1. I agree that a new President can’t be elected into office and immediately start changing and fixing everything wrong with the country; it’s virtually impossible especially because views of positive change can differ according to the specific group of people or individuals. However, the President can change certain things with the hopes of creating a better economy, for an overall greater nation. These various changes would take time though, and would not happen exactly when the plans were implemented.
2. The statement I disagree most with is that the President has little affect on the lives of the people in the country. As the sole leader of the country, the President in fact does have a huge influence on the people. The President appoints Supreme Court leaders who then decide on laws and other crucial aspects of everyday life for the people of this country. A prime example of an indicator that shows how a President can have affects on a person is the unemployment rate. For example, if the President decides to spend money such as Obama has on his job plans package, individuals who weren’t working or working little could begin to work which would in turn lower the unemployment rate. This would have affects on other parts of the economy, all of which would have influence and effects on the people.
3. We see strong Presidential influence in many different sectors. Some including politics, military and foreign matters. Obama has and does campaigns, and social appearances in which we can view. Obama is obviously involved in the military, as he is the commander in chief, so many times that we hear military involvement in other countries or about operations they are associated with Obama. Obama makes treaties with other countries and his involvement in other countries is something many Americans monitor and pay close attention to. Thus we see Presidential influence other than in the economy.
1. I most agree with the argument that the president is a lot like a CEO or a baseball manager. Although it may seem like he or she has the most power, he doesn't have that much impact on the country and economy's performance, because it has so many things driving it that the government ultimately has little impact on it. Although Obama may control a lot, in the end he's just a "co-pilot on an airplane flown by autopilot"
2. I don't agree with the argument that the president doesn't control much. Usually legislation reflects the party of the president in power, and the judges that the president's appoint can also have a huge influence on what laws and regulations are passed. Also, the president may be able to veto bills that he does not agree with, further controlling the legislative process. Although ultimately this may have little influence on the economy, the authors of the article are wrong when they say that the president has little power over the policy of the country.
3. Legally and internationally the President can have a huge influence. The judges that the president appoints stay there for life, and can have a huge impact on what direction the country goes regarding federalism and social issues. Also internationally the president has a big influence. The Bush presidency and the Obama presidency are very different in regards to how we are perceived internationally, and what wars we may be undertaking (or withdrawing from).
Connor L
Identify the argument presented in the articles that you most agree with and explain your rationale.
The argument that I agree with is that the President of the United States has less of an economic pull on America than a CEO has on their company. If the President wanted to put a policy through or to change a part of the government, then they would have to go through countless amounts of paperwork and voting along with the vote of congress. Additionally the President would be criticized by the media before the bill or change even became approved. A CEO has countless amounts of options that they can go through and do simply with not much consulting or voting. If a CEO wanted to open up a new store in town x or y they would have the option and can go about it with almost no regulations.
Identify an argument presented in the articles that you disagree with and explain your rationale.
I disagree with the fact that the President has little to no economic pull in America. Although it may seem counteractive of my first response, I do believe the President has economic pull. Whether it be through the passing of laws regulating business practices such as environmental restrictions or the raising of minimum wage, the President still has somewhat of a pull even if his pull is not absolute. He may not be able to completely sway the economy, but he still has the power to manipulate it and mold it.
Besides the economy, where else in our society do we see strong Presidential influence?
The Presidential influence is the greatest in the military. The President can move troops without consulting congress or going around any other part of the government for a certain amount of days. Besides the economy the president has a heavy pull on the creation of laws and vetoing laws that were proposed by Congress. The President also plays a strong role as serving as the figure of the United States of America as well as an international peace figure. The President also nominates the Supreme Court Justices.
Neema P.
1. I agree with the claim that the president does not affect people on a daily basis (gas and food prices, interest rates and the housing market). These aspects that most effect everyday people are too specific and complex for the president to be able to control constantly, not to mention the roadblocks set up by the opposition that would slow everything down substantially. Rather, the president is only used to voice those type of decisions, while he focuses more on the big-picture, long-term decisions.
2. I do not agree with the quote by Bradbury that states, "I think people think that the President is a benevolent despot determining our fortunes when in reality I think the President is just sitting in the co-pilot seat of a plane that’s already on auto-pilot." Often times, the president is the leader that the people can look to for the final say or guidance, especially during trying times. You only need to look at influential presidents like FDR, JFK, Lincoln, etc. to see that they are the cohesive force in a country. Although the government is set up so that it can make decisions around the president, the president prevents everything from falling apart. Ideally, he doesn't just sit there and not do anything. A country needs a strong leader to tell the rest of the government and the people to move past differences and try to keep going forward.
3. We see strong influence from the president in many of the areas that fall in his jurisdiction, including foreign policy and military decisions. Especially in these areas, the president has control that isn't greatly deterred by the other branches of government.
1) I agree with the fact that people tend to think that a new president means a different economy. People place everything that goes on in the economy on the president's shoulder. If anything is to go wrong, the blame is to immediately be situated on the president. It is much like a baseball manager. While he may decide the player lineup and who gets to pitch, ultimately what he does won't have too much of an impact on the game. And if something goes wrong, the blame again goes to the manager.
2) I disagree with the fact that the article fails to emphasize the importance of the president. He may not have as much power as many people seem to think he does, but he still does a significant amount of work. For one, he motivates the people and motivates them on how the economy is doing. He also helps to propose laws and tries to get them passes with the help of congress. And he also nominates supreme court judges which can impact the decision making on laws that might affect US citizens deeply.
3) We see strong presidential influences on politics across the world. He goes to other nations to talk to other world leaders and uses diplomacy to settle negotiations such as treaties or laws.
Allison B
1. 1. I agree with the argument that the president does not affect Americans as much as he is held to do so. Though the president is involved with the creation and regulation of government programs, markets such as housing and banking as well as private businesses are ultimately directed by society and the businesses that are involved. Something as so great and complex as the nation’s economy could not possibly fall to the responsibility of one person. However, I do agree that the presidents involvement holds part of the responsibility for the nation’s economic state. The president needs to manage the economy cautiously while paying great attention to the recent trends in the economy before indirectly influencing the economy through taxation and signing acts; much like how a baseball manager would select a relief pitcher according to how each the players warmed up.
2. 2. I disagree with the argument that the president does not affect much of the economic state nor control much overall. Although his influence is highly overestimated, the president attains much power to greatly influence the American public. The Commander and Chief clause in Article II section II of the US Constitution is incredibly vague and thus allows the president to have immense power during times of war, essentially giving the president almost free reign in foreign affairs. Also, the president has the power to appoint federal judges which also present him with the opportunity to have a majority in the Supreme Court by nominating those who hold the same view as him.
3. 3. Presidential influences can be seen in many aspects of other than the economy as well. As I had mentioned in my answer for question two, the president has much control and influence involving foreign affairs. The power to make treaties – despite the fact that it is necessary to be approved by Congress before becoming legitimate treaties – gives the president various opportunities to set trends in diplomacy as well as receive and understanding of what direction other nations are headed.
1) I agree with the argument that the president is viewed as a much more powerful figure than he actually is. This is a difficult realization to swallow, but it does make a lot of sense. We, as citizens, simply cannot put our faith in one person to "fix" our economy. No human has the power to singlehandedly turn an economy around completely. For example, we currently have a republican congress which can override a lot of the president's decisions if they disagree.
2) Even though the president may not be as powerful as perceived to be and may not be able to completely turn the entire economy around, he still can have a major influence on it. For example, the president can decide (with congress' approval) to pass a law that can help to shape the economy. He is also the one who controls the enforcement of laws. However, if congress disapproves, they can ultimately overpower the president.
3) We see strong presidential influence in wars. The president is the commander-in-chief of the United States Military and has a great amount of power over it.
Ryan T
1. The policies the President is able to pass isn't determined by his own ability alone - the ability and willingness of the other branches of the government have just as much of a say in the policies as the President does. All laws start in Congress, which can make it difficult on the President if Congress doesn't see eye-to-eye with him. The Supreme Court can declare parts of the President's policy unconstitutional, as they did with part of FDR's New Deal during the Great Depression. All in all, the President's own ability may not to be blame. While an exceptional President should be able to persuade others to come to his side of the table, no President has ever been able to win all his battles.
2. I disagree with the statement that the President’s power is not as important as one may think. Even with the War Powers Act, it would be very awkward for Congress to force American troops out of a conflict after 60 days. This gives the President a vast control over the military. The past several Presidents have seen a massive increase in the power of the Executive Branch.
3. The President does have a very wide-reaching influence. He can appoint judges to the Supreme Court, meaning he has an indirect influence on the courts through appointing judges that agree with his philosophy.
1) Like most, this article made me realize that maybe the president is not as powerful as one may believe. Almost every action the presidents makes is checked my one of the other two branches, like the constitution intended. The president was not supposed to posses too much power out of fear of a rising monarchy. The founder fathers achieved this goal and other additions to the government has taken even more power from the president. The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury help to stabilize the economy which restricts the presidents power.
2) However, this article goes a little too far in that it implies the president has almost no power. The president does have the most power for one single man in that he controls his branch and his branch matches the power of the all 535 representatives in congress and 9 judges in the supreme court.
3) Most of the presidents influence is located outside of the country. The President is a figurehead for our country and controls politics around the world. I would argue that it is not so much the president as the party he is from or that controls the government at that time. If they have the ability to executive branch and congress, they can vote whomever they choose into power.
Ryan G
1) Like most, this article made me realize that maybe the president is not as powerful as one may believe. Almost every action the presidents makes is checked my one of the other two branches, like the constitution intended. The president was not supposed to posses too much power out of fear of a rising monarchy. The founder fathers achieved this goal and other additions to the government has taken even more power from the president. The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury help to stabilize the economy which restricts the presidents power.
2) However, this article goes a little too far in that it implies the president has almost no power. The president does have the most power for one single man in that he controls his branch and his branch matches the power of the all 535 representatives in congress and 9 judges in the supreme court.
3) Most of the presidents influence is located outside of the country. The President is a figurehead for our country and controls politics around the world. I would argue that it is not so much the president as the party he is from or that controls the government at that time. If they have the ability to executive branch and congress, they can vote whomever they choose into power.
Matt M.
1. I agree with the authors of freakonomics when they said that the president is more of a figurehead rather than an actual leader. The president is labeled as having the most power in the country, but he isn't doing everything. The president was compared a CEO and baseball manager. These are people whose success is measured by the success of others. They may implement new ideas, but are not necessarily the ones who make all of these ideas happen. A baseball manager has its players, a CEO has its employees, and the President has the rest of the government to help him prevail.
2. Although I agreed with the fact that the president does not do as much as he has power to do, he still does do a lot. I feel that like a baseball manager and CEO, a president implements many new ideas that help the country move forwards. Even though the president may be looked at as a figurehead, they do things such as maintain peace both domestically and internationally. This alone can be a difficult task, but also a very important one.
3. Other than in our own government system, we see the president having a big impact on the international level. The president has the power to decide whether peacekeeping is necessary in other countries too. International influence in part goes with the expanding of our economy because it can lead to expanded trade with other countries making the United States economy stronger. The president has a lot on his plate although he can be looked at as not as powerful as he is looked to be.
Tyler T
1. I agree with the comparison made between the president and a baseball team manager, showing how the president has a very limited influence on the economy. Although some may disagree, it doesn't seem as if a baseball team manager has much of an influence on the outcome of the game. Sure, he can give the players some encouraging talks, but is he really enhancing their abilities? The president may be able to make decisions regarding the economy, but in reality, the state of the economy is determined by so many independent factors that the president cannot influence.
2. However, I do disagree with the argument that the president has no influence on the economy. I think that the president has more of an influence than we all might think. The president can directly pass laws or veto laws. He also has a large influence due to the fact that we all look up to the president (I think). The president can potentially sway public opinion or even the confidence of the public within one speech. Many look to him as a voice of reason and will basically take into account anything he might suggest.
3. The president does have a large influence in an area other than the economy. This would have to be foreign affairs. When our president goes to visit another country, he is representing our country as a whole. If the president goes out of his way to respect the leaders of other countries and show interest in making treaties or other agreements, then our country might be looked upon more favorably.
1. I agree that the president is constantly blamed for the situation of the economy. The president has an extremely large amount of power, but he does not have complete control over the economy. He doesn't decide on the policies that are put into place to speed up or slow down the economy. It is also impossible for one person to have such a large impact on the economy due to our system of checks and balances. His decision to change something is not going to immediately make our economy spiral into a recession. Unfortunately, they will always be blamed.
2. I disagree with J.C. Bradbury in saying that the president has little to no power over the economy. He believes that the president is just there to tell the country that this is the governments decisions and that we are going to stick with this the decision. I disagree because there is a lot more to the presidents job that many people may not know about. He decides on many, many things and he has to take the blame for his decisions if they don't turn out well. However, I do not think that it matters who the president is. People are going to continue to believe in what they currently believe, no matter who the president may be.
3. The president has an influence over many things besides the economy. He enforces federal laws, develops federal policies and directs foreign policy. He is also the commander of the armed forces, so he has a large influence in the army. The president also has a large social and cultural impact on the United States. Recently Obama's campaigns and speeches have had a large impact on people. He put the words change and progress into peoples minds and made them believe that good things were in the near future. The president has an overwhelming impact in many different areas.
Anthony A.
1. I agree with the fact that the influence of the President in the economic facet of society is far overhyped. As mentioned in one of the articles, the public often finds the President highly culpable for economic conditions that he more or less inherits without any sort of jurisdiction over where in the business cycle it lands. As the media has recently become a bit more partisan, I believe we've seen a shift in accountability for celebrity, including the President, for most events of national concern, and Obama today gets a lot of flack for not taking action to fix the economy quickly. However, it's not really up to him to fix it, let alone quickly. Many people do acknowledge that if anyone really controls the economy, it is Ben Bernanke because he does have the power to change the actions of millions with regards to the economy, having an especially strong effect on consumer confidence and expectations with his announcements of the Fed's prognostications for the direction of the economy. Greenspan utilized the media very effectively during his tenure as Fed Chairman and while he was in power, most people listened to him speak more intently than the President himself when concerning economic matters.
2. I disagree with the argument that the President is merely a cheerleader in the economic state of the country. While his impact is very overstated, he doesn't have no power at all over what happens. He does have a big influence on the federal budget and how it is structured and enforced. The President meets with the Office of Management and Budget to propose a budget for the government that reflects his views of how money should be spent within the government and that goes to Congress for comparison with its proposed budget. There is a significant amount of economic influence in the monetary choices the federal government makes, and the President has some significant influence on both sides of fiscal policy even though Congress was granted the power of the purse by the Constitution. Bill Clinton had the most control over government spending for a short time during his presidency in which he was granted a line-item veto in the proposition of financial bills, allowing him to manipulate bills concerning spending or any other allocation of money in ways different than the original intentions of the bill's authors. That sort of power has a very direct influence on the economy and could easily be abused if it was still considered constitutional.
3. There is a strong presence in international affairs, as the President is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and can sign treaties pending Senate approval. His biggest influence is in the form of executive agreements, which allow him to enter negotiations with foreign leaders and make extremely impactful deals while circumventing any congressional approval. Executive agreements must be regarding with the full force and effect of law, something that puts a great deal of power in one person's hands.
1) The argument presented in the articles that I most agree with that of the fact that the President of the United States has a role that is significantly smaller that what most people believe it to be. The President has certain power in the realm of foreign affairs and in emotional support as with their leadership, but in the sectors that most people feel that the President does in fact have power (i.e. the economy), the President in fact does not hold great control. The economy is controlled in majority by the transactions performed within society. Therefore, unless the President can magically perform mind control over the citizens of the United States to purchase more products to boost the economy, he remains to be a cheerleader in such matters and can only praise productive actions and condemn negative actions.
2) An argument presented in the articles that I disagree with that of the fact that though the President does not have control of sectors in society such the economy, he still does have an integral role in society. With the example stated above with foreign affairs, the President does have much reign and an important reign at that. The President is the worldly representation of the United States. So say if,the US made too many jokes about the people of Britain's accents and they were going to retaliate by cutting off all trade with the US, the US would be significantly hurt. However, if the President intervenes by way of making amends with the Prime Minister, then trade would be saved and a mini financial crisis averted. In short, the Presidents power is limited, but concentrated at that.
3) Besides the economy, the President has a strong influence in foreign affairs, war, upholding society's social standards, maintaining the cultural integrity of the US and mentally and emotionally leading the country to move forward, deal with possible disaster and work as a unit to succeed.
I think the President matters quite a bit, although I do think that the public perception of him being essentially all-powerful is fallacious. The president sets many of the policies of the US and has a strong influence on its public image. A president can directly affect the way that other countries view us and controls our interactions with the dignitaries and heads of state of foreign nations. He proposes legislation to Congress, including the budget, and is therefore a powerful economic force.
However, the President isn't directly in control of federal spending - that privilege is reserved for Congress, specifically the House of Representatives. Currently, our president is a Democrat while the House is predominately Republican, and so it's very difficult for President Obama to pass his fiscal agenda through the legislature. Because of political inconveniences, it's essentially impossible for Presidents to utilize their full power at times.
I disagree with the notion, however, that the President is unimportant. He's easily one of the most powerful people on Earth, even in the economic sense, with very few people rivaling him in that capacity. Only Ben Bernanke and a select few others are even worthy of mention in discussions of who is the most important man in the world in terms of economic impact.
Our presidents have strong influences on a variety of elements of our society. They're responsible for sending our troops to war, conducting our foreign policy, proposing monumental legislation, and generally setting a tone for four years of American history.
I strongly believe with one of the major points cited by the Freakonomics economists. I believe the president can have very little effect of the country, yet the effect of the president is always subject to 1) The Current Economic Situation 2) The bias of the political parties. For example, a democrat (i.e. Mr Karmin) would most likely attribute our current 2% economic growth to the financial wizardry of Barack Obama, while a conservative would argue his actions were irrelevant to the change in the economy. So overall, when examining the effect the president has, one must except that the question is very subjective. I disagreed with their belief that baseball managers have little effect on games, when they create lineups, pick the right relievers, and know when to yank the pitcher. Yet, sadly, no manager can solve the Rubix cube that is the New York Mets.
Renee A.
1) I agree with the argument that the power of the president is overrated. People tend to expect more from the president than he is capable of and consider him to have a greater influence on both the economy and the government than any other aspect of government; however, the bulk of political power lies in congress, where bills are passed into legislation. By comparison to the power of congress, the president is merely a figurehead.
2) I disagree with the argument that the president has essentially no control over the economy. While it is true that a majority of economic power lies with the Federal Reserve, the president has the power to control government spending as well as taxes. With the national debt being astronomically high, decisions made in terms of fiscal policy are extremely important and the role of the president in these decisions should not be overlooked.
3) In addition to the president playing an important role in economics, he plays a vital role in the military. Because the president is commander in chief, all branches of the military must follow the orders of the president in terms of where troops should be stationed as well as what actions they should take, both within the United States as well as in foreign nations.
Jewshappy Sea. (Giuseppe C.)
1. I agree, except in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, that Presidents do not wield as much power as they are played out to hold. My family, for example, whom lives in South Yonkers, thinks that the President dictates the economy and how it functions. This, ladies and gentlemen, would be a prime example of Old World Tradition (Born in the USSR Swag-really though. They were.). They are misinformed. They also vote DemonCrap every election. Coincidence or correlation? ANYWAY, back to the point of this blog post. I agree, pretty much, that Presidents have minimum power over the economy’s performance. The Fed sets interests rates, Reserve Requirements, controls bonds, etc., so to blame the President, besides Hussein, naturally of course, would just be asinine. Presidents do, however, hold sway over foreign relations and signing off/on (On?) on major bills which can affect the economy.
2.I believe that the articles, for the most part, downplay the President’s role in the economy to too far of an extent. For example, Hussein would like to enact legislation that would redistribute wealth ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM ). This would create disincentives to keep money in the US, as hiding it in offshore accounts would actually help you save money. By keeping taxes high on the Wealthy, the Wealthy will no longer feel welcome in the US, so they may take their business somewhere else.Hello India <3. The policies that the President proposes could create optimism or pessimism depending on how Communist Democrat he’s feeling in that particular moment. Tim Bishop should just go an-...
3. Our Benevolent Stalbama has been able to withdraw our troops from Iraq and increase our involvement in Afghanistan. Additionally, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the United States has apologized to the World for all the vile, evil things America has ever done. The President is America’s Model and if he’s not looking good, smoking cigarettes and all, then America isn’t looking good. The appointing of SCOTUS Judges is the most important function of the POTUS, I believe, because even after the President leaves, his legacy remains with the Judges he appoints. The Judges could also form opinions sympathetic to what the POTUS would like.
Amanda C
1) I agree with the fact that the person on top receives the most amount of credit or blame for their organizations overall performance. Although they do hold a lot of the responsibility they are not solely responsible for bad outcomes. The President takes the blame for the things people do not like, but he does not make all of the decisions. People associate the President with making all the decisions and calling all of the shots for the country, but their is an entire government system behind him. Also, the president does not have the magic power. Although he is in a position of power, he doesn't have the power to recover the economy in a matter of two years. Mending the economy takes time.
2)Although the President does not run the country on his own, I disagree with the fact that he has little power. While he might not have the power to fix the economy immediately, he does have the power to make important decisions for the country. It was obviously decided over the course of history that a President was needed in order to keep the country in order. Therefore, the President does hold key powers and responsibilities.
3) We see strong Presidential influence in the foreign world. The President must keep friendly ties with other countries to ensure healthy trading and to form allies.
The Presidents power solely comes from the people. The citizens choose their presidents based on common values and ideas. I agree with the point “But for every Presidential action, there are a million strong reactions waiting to occur.” If an action by the president affects a certain crowd of people, they are going to react to the action more.
I disagree with the statement, "The president generally matters so much less than we think… especially when it comes to the economy." Although people can decide whether they want to listen to the president or not, the president still has the power to control the economy.
Besides the economy, the president can control where and when we go to war. He has the power to declare war. The president can send troops into countries when needed. Although many people don’t agree with the presidents decisions about sending troops and declaring war because there would be lives at stake.
Amy S.
1. I agree with the argument that the public thinks the President is more powerful than he actually is. If you were to ask an ordinary citizen how much power the President has, I would predict that he or she would place the President’s role above that of Congress, which is clearly false. While the President is the “figurehead” of this country, his voice is definitely not the only one that matters. The President merely suggests laws to be passed and Congress must go through a lengthy process to pass that law. While some might argue that he has a large influence on the economy, Congress ultimately has the power of the purse and chooses what laws are passed. Just as the Yahoo! article states, “one must keep in mind that the Oval Office makes up just one part of the large governing pie.”
2. One of the main problems that I see with these articles is that they do undermine the powers the President does have. While he might not have the most economic influence, he does present a budget, as well as try to come to deals with Congress on getting bills passed that relate to the economy. It is senseless to say that it doesn’t matter who the President is, as I describe below many other ways the President has a large influence on the country, even beyond his years in office.
3. Besides, the economy, it is important to note that the president has power in many other places. He is the one who appoints federal judges, who arguably have an even bigger and longer-lasting influence than the president since they serve on the court for life. The political point of view of the president will be represented as well, with whichever judge he chooses to serve on the court for years to come. Additionally, the president is the commander in chief of all armed forces of the United States. He is the one who leads us into conflicts, which can turn into wars. He is also involved in foreign relations, and deals with foreign leaders, to make treaties and such.
Geoff 4
1.Identify the argument presented in the articles that you most agree with and explain your rationale.
I agree that the president is more of an idol or symbol as oppose to a universal decision maker. The fact that when Kerry was thought to be president stock prices dropped shows how the idea of presidency is solely influential. I think the popularity of presidents is more closely assosciated with the economic conditions set during the presidency whether it is the president's fault or not. After all, it takes much more then one person to efficiently operate the United States.
2.Identify an argument presented in the articles that you disagree with and explain your rationale.
I disagree that the president's role is so unimportant as the article makes it to be. Although the president may be more of a symbol than a controlling leader, the symbol of the president is important. Although George Washington may be remembered more for his heroic leading in the Revolution then the policy's enacted during his presidency, his place as president influenced and motivated people. Some presidents, such as FDR, Truman , and Theodore Roosevelt have had significant impact with the policies they enacted during their presidencies.
3.Besides the economy, where else in our society do we see strong Presidential influence?
Besides the economy, we see strong presidential influence in politics. Whichever political party the president is in will reflect the influence of some laws being made. We also see presidential influence in the choosing of supreme court justices.
Craig M.
1.) I agree with the reference referred to about baseball managers. Like baseball managers, the president doesn’t have a large impact on the economy by his one action. A manager can’t play for the players and get them to work hard, like the president cant stimulate the entire economy. I also agree that they deserve more credit than earned and receive more blame than they should. When a sports team is winning, the coach or manager receives high praise. When they lose they are run out of town by the fans. Similar to the Knicks situation. When “Linsainty” swept our city, everyone jumped on the Mike D’Antoni bandwagon. He was tagged as a great coach for finding such great talent in Lin. They went on a winning streak and everyone said his job was safe, he deserves to be back next year. And two weeks later he’s forced out of his job, and resigns. This is similar to the President. When theirs turmoil in our economy, the people want the president gone, they blame him for everything and when the economy’s great, everyone wants him up for reelection.
2.) I disagree with the fact that they state the president isn’t that important and that he can be perceived as a figure head in some cases. I think the president’s actions, may not be directly, have a large effect on our economy. This was proven in people’s confidence in the president. A president may not be able to have a direct effect on fixing our current state, but shown by the 2004 election that the stock market went up when Bush was elected proved that by peoples perspective of our president can have a large impact.
3.) The president controls all laws passed in our country. They have a lot of power in what bills and laws go into effect. The president also oversees the entire military and can choose to invade or declare war on another country.
1. In my opinion, the president stands as more of a figure head for the United States. He must put force on congress to pass his laws. He also does not have the ability to affect interest rates in any way as the Federal Reserve does. Also, since the president is seen as such a powerful figure, they do get the head of the blame or praise of how the economy is doing during their presidency. Although, the fault can be placed on congress butting political heads with party separation, the American people will still place any type of blame on the president due to his seemingly powerful position.
2. The first article claims that a CEO has a small percentage of the overall impact of the success or failure of a firm. I would disagree. A CEO delegates work to be completed and serves to set high goals for those whom work under him. Therefore, the success or failure of a company can be attributed by their CEO and his ability to woo stock holders and investors.
3. A president in my opinion is seen in the strongest influence with regards to influence in foreign relations. The president sets our countries terms with various nations and also is powerful in the fact that they can make executive agreements with other influential leaders. They are also responsible for negotiating treaties, which are then approved by congress.
1) I agree that the president does not affect people on a daily basis. As in he doesn't have any effect on the price we pay for gas, food, electricity or the housing market. The price of everyday objects are too far removed from the economic control the president does have for him to be able to keep the everyday prices in check. Instead of worrying about prices day by day, the president uses the power he has over the economy to focus on long-term growth and health.
2) I disagree with the claim that the President has little to no impact on the economy. Even though Congress has "power of the purse" the President can still impact budgetary decisions. The president decides where all the money in the budget goes and the increases and decreases in government spending impact the economy just as much as deciding what the budget should be.
3) The president is also influential in the foreign sector of the government or international relations because he decides how the United States is going to respond to the issues of other countries and governments.
It's hard to accept the fact that the president has little influence over the Economy, for reasons which the provided articles fail to address.
The President, as the lead administrative figure sets the tone for the Country as a whole. It is true that the President has little direct control over the economy, but his office does release the OMB statement which is meant to guide congress in a certain direction. The president influences the direction that congress takes in its policy toward the economy.Any decision that congress makes will be a reaction to or against the policy proposals of the President. The leadership abilities of the President affect the confidence of the public and industry, which in turn affects the stock market.
Post a Comment