what is the difference?
2007-01-24 06:05:19 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The thing is, the president who created the 17 million jobs is responsible for all things bad to happen after he left office, statute of limitations running out after 20 years.
By the same token, the subsequent president who can't create any jobs is retroactively responsible for all accomplishments and properity in the decade before he took office.
It's true, ask any Republican.
What's funny is that in the Clinton Era (17 million) - those were high paying, high skilled and manufacturing jobs. In the Bush era, we're talking about the low paying, low skill service jobs - and he still can't generate jobs.
Take away jobs that were generated by borrowed money government bloat under the Bush administration, and you have nothing to show.
2007-01-24 06:31:39 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its not about the jobs its how much they pay,if a president creates jobs at minimum wage for illegals so they qualify for welfare,not good,if a president creates jobs that legal citizens can work to support the economy,good.
2007-01-24 15:08:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Presidents can't "create jobs". Businesses create jobs. Lower taxes create a business friendly atmosphere.
2007-01-24 14:21:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
yeah 17 million new jobs at>
wendys
mcdonalds
carwashes
2007-01-24 14:14:13 · answer #4 · answered by tomtoride 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Asked and answered...honey!
BUSH is a moron and rather than create more jobs, he wants to start wars all over the world!
2007-01-24 14:09:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
14 million McDonalds workers!
2007-01-24 14:12:59 · answer #6 · answered by Wounded duckmate 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ask Marsha, she the cute and smart one.
Difference could have centered around the crash of the dot com bubble, in 2001.
2007-01-24 14:22:05 · answer #7 · answered by Sgt 524 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋