Question

Political flavor, but also deals with the economy and people's way of thinking about stuff, so move this if you want mods.

For the people that look at the economic news (specifically things like the 10+% unemployment numbers), and say that it's still Bush's fault: We are now almost a year into Obama's presidency, so at what point do the decisions he has made start affecting the economy? Or will his decisions not have had time to affect the economy until the economy is obviously turning around and people are again being hired?

I'm looking for something somewhat concrete here, because if we wait for an economy to turn around completely, and then scream "See, I told you his plans would work", that's kind of having it both ways. Anytime it tanks, it's someone else's policies, but if it's good, it's my guy's policies.

Our Prezzy isn't interested in fixing anything. He's here to break it.

We would be seeing pretty much the same thing if Obama did nothing, if McCain was elected and passed a different "stimulus" or if he had done nothing.

Little bumps up or down, here or there. But the overall direction is going where it's going. The only time government makes a bigger impact is with policies that are felt years or decades later when the market tanks by trying to force it to follow a path other than supply and demand.

We would be seeing pretty much the same thing if Obama did nothing, if McCain was elected and passed a different "stimulus" or if he had done nothing.

Little bumps up or down, here or there. But the overall direction is going where it's going. The only time government makes a bigger impact is with policies that are felt years or decades later when the market tanks by trying to force it to follow a path other than supply and demand.

And yet every election a presidential candidate runs on the current economic conditions, as though the sitting president likely did anything to the current status, or the next one will have any immediate impact.

Why don't people call bullshit on this?