Marc Perkel Rantz

The president doesn't have a large impact on job creation. The president passes a economic package and that's it and that is all the influence a president has on the economy. Clinton got lucky and happen to be in office right as the economy was growing and right as we entered a recession he left. If you look at charts in the past you see the same thing with other presidents.

The president doesn't have a large impact on job creation. The president passes a economic package and that's it and that is all the influence a president has on the economy. Clinton got lucky and happen to be in office right as the economy was growing and right as we entered a recession he left. If you look at charts in the past you see the same thing with other presidents.

The president doesn't have a large impact on job creation. The president passes a economic package and that's it and that is all the influence a president has on the economy. Clinton got lucky and happen to be in office right as the economy was growing and right as we entered a recession he left. If you look at charts in the past you see the same thing with other presidents.

This John has the idea of the current administration, tell a lie enough , maybe people will believe it. The economic policy of a President can affect the economy. Maybe timing can affect it, but both Bush presidents has similar policies with similiar results. Think about it, and stop repeating yourself. The truth or an honest opinion has to be said only once, lies to work must be repeated

I would like to find out Bush's comparison with former presidents dealing with inflation, recession, national debt, and gov't spending.

First off, this isn't real. The only way this can be accurate if it was job creation at the world trade center. Come on! 2001 comes and we lose jobs instantly. I took at least a year for it to get really bad, so why the sudden drop in your graph? I lost my job, a lot of people I know lost theirs, but it wasn't in the same freakin day. I'm going to go do some research and give you a real graph with real numbers and references.

In general, I agree with other posters, the president doesn't make much of a difference- but he does make SOME. The US Economy is a BIG ship. It takes a long time to "steer" it. But basic fiscal priorities of presidents have SOME impact- especially LATER in the FIRST term. By this standard, Bush is doing OK- but he has a lot of ground to make up on Clinton.

I think Bush looks a LOT worse when it comes to the defecit. Like Reagan, he is a "supply side" conservative- meaning that when the economy starts to tank, his first response is to cut taxes- a tactic that is guaranteed to produce huge defecits. Unfortunately, it does not seem to produce much other benefits over other policies.

I agree with the graph and i have seen similar ones to this one so i think there is alot of factual representation to this graph. The reason we see a significant deficit in our economy, is due to places we, or rather i say the President is spending our money. He focuses on international affairs rather than domestic issues. With over 150 million dollars being spent on the war, not to mention over 1350 dead Americans, our people in the united states suffer from poverty and job losses. I would think he would be concerned with the hungry mouths to feed here in America before we focuses on helping other countries out that have endured the same treatment for many generations. Don't get me wrong i am for helping other countries prgoress, but not when it cause our own economy to experince a sharp declension. In addition, outsourcing has become a overwhelming success for rich corporatons (Republicans), but has plagued the regular working class, which is the majority, in America. And Bush and his gov't has supported and funded these companies by influenicing them and giving them a tax cut. Who really is Bush for Americans or Americants?