| noname2200 said: I've always thought holding a president responsible for an economy's failure or success is largely akin to older cultures lynching the village leader for a poor harvest or worshiping him for a great one. But maybe that's just me. |
While it is not really in their "job description", the President of the United States has a lot of power to influence the house and the senate (as well as many pseudo governmental bodies like the Federal Reserve) and can have a very large impact on the economy. There are factors outside of their control, and their impact is not immediate, but they actually do have a lot of economic power.
The stimulus (for example) was completely misguided. Had the focus been on building (or repairing) infastructure that would enable future job creation it would (likely) have long term positive impacts in the economy; for example, building the next generation internet backbone that connects all states (potentially leading to the United States being able to provide more internet connections at higher speeds than anywhere else in the world) would have been a better use of money than spending it on "green energy" companies that would soon go bankrupt.
