Cooter said:
Yes, Bush & Clinton deserve some credit for their policies which helped promote growth. The problem with Bush, however, is that he is a disingenuous piece of crap. Bush's tax cuts were meant to stimulate the economy, but he then later pushed for them to be permanent, despite the fact that the revenue projections he estimated were still based on their expiration. But that's a side issue.
My main contention is that Repubs are inherently disingenuous whenever they attempt to lay blame / praise on a President's impact on the economy. The President (i) proposes a Fed budget, (ii) signs into law the eventually negotiated Fed budget, (iii) appoints a Fed chairman who implements Federal monetary policy, (iv) appoints regulatory commissioners whom decide the level and nature of national business and trade regulation, etc...
The reality is that the President DOES have a lot to do with the economy. People do tend to exaggerate it, but not any more I would argue than those who argue the President doesn't have anything to do with the economy. The only people who seriously argue the Prez has no impact are Econ wankers who don't follow politics or government enough to know what they are talking about.
