Posted On: 01/30/2016 2:39:00 PM
Post# of 65629
We need a good leader in office. The right side of the fence certainly has the best talent. The left side is very sad currently. Clinton is obviously incompetent, and I am so tired of individuals defending the emails via "private server". That was just plain stupid! The current administration has had the worst back office since ..?....ever? The prior had probably the best since Reagan(if not better). Unfortunately, individuals think that administrations have heavy influence over the economy. That is the Federal reserves main job(another discussion there..ha!) Usually an administration hinders the economy ..or relies too much on the FED.
One thing you can not deny Obama. Given the lack of the FED and the economy situation..he brought forth the first and major healthcare act to all(and it just sucks). But he somehow did it(manipulation) and the way he was able to do it.....was because of a major distraction being the collapse of the economy. It wasn't the past administration that created it.....it was the FED. So no....it wasn't Bush's fault. Clinton went along with the main culprit(as well as Bush). That culprit was the golden boy..........Alan Greenspan. Who was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
But the guise there is how those individuals are appointed:
"Under authority provided by the Banking Act of 1935, the president of the United States appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System who are confirmed by the Senate and serve for 14 years. The president selects the chairman and vice-chairman from among the sitting governors and these appointments are also subject to Senate confirmation."
To be legit.....the federal reserve appoints such. The president just signs it(in essence). So the boom and bust started with Reagan... eh? Bush junior got blamed for that. Just plain wrong.
Would Rand Paul be the best suited with regards to the economy and spending? Probably:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Rand_Paul_Bud...conomy.htm
Is he the best choice overall(ie defense)?......probably/maybe not.
One thing you can not deny Obama. Given the lack of the FED and the economy situation..he brought forth the first and major healthcare act to all(and it just sucks). But he somehow did it(manipulation) and the way he was able to do it.....was because of a major distraction being the collapse of the economy. It wasn't the past administration that created it.....it was the FED. So no....it wasn't Bush's fault. Clinton went along with the main culprit(as well as Bush). That culprit was the golden boy..........Alan Greenspan. Who was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
But the guise there is how those individuals are appointed:
"Under authority provided by the Banking Act of 1935, the president of the United States appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System who are confirmed by the Senate and serve for 14 years. The president selects the chairman and vice-chairman from among the sitting governors and these appointments are also subject to Senate confirmation."
To be legit.....the federal reserve appoints such. The president just signs it(in essence). So the boom and bust started with Reagan... eh? Bush junior got blamed for that. Just plain wrong.
Would Rand Paul be the best suited with regards to the economy and spending? Probably:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Rand_Paul_Bud...conomy.htm
Is he the best choice overall(ie defense)?......probably/maybe not.
(0)
(0)
