Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: profile_14 who wrote (85646)	10/17/2000 3:39:43 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

While I would prefer a Congress and President that worked in tandem...history shows having different parties controlling different levers of powers leads to better economic performance (if you judge based on those measures...). It has become abundantly clear over the last 25 years that the President has little to no power over the economy, that Congress has considerably more, but that the Fed Chairman has the most effect. The Chairman sets the tone over a rough 6-12 month timeframe, while Congress' machinations play a role over a longer term. The President's role, primarily, is to provide "vision" and guidance and set a preferred tone when it comes to economic performance. The fact of the matter is, however, that while he creates the budget...whatever he sent in is not what Congress sends back. And usually he will just rubber stamp what he gets. Clinton's (and the Republican) posturing over the "shut down" of the government was nothing more than a litmus test to see who the public would support. It is easier for the public to support a single man as opposed to a faceless group of men...hence Clinton's perceived victory. In the end, he got very little in the way of victory out of the actual budget process except for the knowledge that the people preferred him to a group of men. But that information went a long way......