Right, but Fishu is saying Bush is making it worse... can this even be proven?
So far, what we have seen is several tax breaks, stimulating the failing airline companies in several different ways so as to not create more job loss in that field, researching a new fuel source which creates new jobs because this field was until recently not as well funded, and the creation of a new homeland security department that while it was in direct relation to the recently exposed threat the US faces on it's own soil - it still created new jobs both in that department and in departments from which some employees were removed for the homeland security department.
This is being done in the face of millions of lay offs in the airline industry and the millions of unemployed, or poorly employed, IT specialists and other employees of defunct dot com businesses, and the reluctance on the behalf of the entire american population to invest and spend money because the economic future is - as of right now - unsure.
What I'm getting at is, I'm certain no administration would be having a positive influence on the economy on the rate many people think it should happen - as in going from a wallowing economy to a blooming/booming one. Simply put, that toejam just ain't gonna fly.
The US economy was in "The Great Depression" for several years, and despite the fact that there was atleast one great president/admin in power at the time- it took a world war, and the vast production lines that would require, to pull the US out.
So, in conclusion, presidents can have influence on an economic recession... but what kind of influence has Bush really had? As of yet, I have seen no evidence provided to support the claim that he's had a negative impact on an already faltering economy.
-SW