Job growth since Jan 2001 is short by 1.7 Million jobs to be equal with Jan 2001 Source Bureau of Labor Statistics

By my estimate, Silicon Valley alone had about 1.7 million bogus tech jobs in 2001. Having worked in Silicon Valley, in the tech industry, during the dot-com boom, I can confidently say this: in 2001 there were at least 1.7 million asshats who had recently moved to California because they'd heard that venture capitalists were throwing fat, sweaty wads of cash at anybody who could mis-spell "Java" on their resume. So that's about 1.7 million people in Northern California alone who should never have been employed in the first place. And as soon as the dot-com bubble burst, they weren't.

Okay, I'm probably exaggerating the number of dot-com asshats a little bit. But the moral is sound: employment figures for the period 1999-2001 are a bad basis for comparison. You want to make a point I can take seriously? Compare 2006 to 1996 and 1986. Compare employment growth for 2001-2006 to employment growth for 1991-1996. Leave the dot-com bubble period out of it.

Median Household Income in 2004 $44,839 compared with $46, 058 in 2000. Source Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What's that? Median Household Income for 2000? What did I just say about trying to pass of dot-com flukery as meaningful data. You need to control for unusual data spikes, not hold them out as your sole data point.

See also: 1.7 million overpaid and underqualified asshats inflating the MHI figures for 2000 beyond all normal levels.

Between 2000 and 2004, personal bankruptcies increases by 37.9%. Source American Bankruptcy Assoc.

1.7 million asshats suddenly learning a valuable life lesson about how being overpaid and underqualified isn't really a solid foundation to base a large line of credit and an extravagant lifestyle on.

Between 1993 and 2004 NAFTA caused the loss of 1,015,000 jobs. Source Economic Policy Institute.

It's called globalization and the free market. The fact is, even without the dot-com bust, the rest of the world lives much cheaper than we do. A global marketplace means a global competitive wage. Americans are guaranteed a pay cut and a reduction in lifestyle as a result of this global competition. I don't begrudge the Mexicans their better tomorrow, especially if it means renewed pressure on us fat and lazy Americans to step up. And I don't think there's much the politicians can do about it either. I certainly hope that's the case, anyway.

6 Million more Americans lost health insurance since 2000. Source U.S Census Bureau.

Yeah, health insurance is a problem. As soon as we can all agree on how it should be reformed, I'm sure we'll see some marked improvement in this area. Tell you what: I'll lobby my representatives to increase the priority of healthcare reform, if you tell yours to shut the fuck up and try working with the majority party for a change.

In 2004, the wealthiest 1% received an average tax cut of $40,990. The middle 20% received $980 and the bottom 20% averaged $230.

Since taxes are a percentage, not a dollar value, these numbers don't seem that odd to me. Besides, I don't care what the wealthiest 1% are doing. I'm sorry, but I don't.

American Tax Payers received $1.036 Trillion in Tax Cuts between 2001 and 2006. We borrowed $3.763 Trillion during that same period of time.

It's called an investment. The basic ecnomic theory being applied here is this: Over the long term, tax cuts will greatly increase productivity, at the expense of short-term revenues. A deficit and increased borrowing is exactly what I'd expect to see at this stage of the process.

That said, I do think this adminstration spends too much. I keep wishing for a perfect politician, but such things are like unicorns and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow: not meant to be. Meanwhile, I'm convinced that any other politicians would spend even more. What's better: a 1T tax cut and a 3T deficit, or a 0T tax cut and a 4T deficit?

Since 2001 2.9 Million children went without Math and reading help and 1.7 million without after school help because Bush did not request the funding he promised in his No Child Left Behind Act.

And damn him for not requesting the funding. Also, damn the state of Oregon, for repeatedly voting down a sales tax proposal, while constantly complaining that their education system is woefully underfunded. If I had my way, NCLB would come with no federal funding increases at all: Either your school district figures out how to educate your children to the Federal standard, or you have to stop suckling from the federal teat. Why should my tax dollars get spent on Oregon schoolchildren, when Oregonians themselves refuse to spend their own damn money on their own damn kids?

NCLB was poorly named, poorly implemented, and woefully misrepresented in the media. It was also strongly opposed by the teacher's unions--who, I've noticed, seem to be totally at a loss when it comes to thinking up their own methods for successfully educating children. Why do you expect the President to accomplish in eight years what hundreds of thousands of education professionals have been failing at for at least a generation?

Since 2001. Pell Grants lost ½ their value because the grants remained constant as tuitions increased.

Who keeps increasing tuition? Why? Is the Executive Branch now supposed to regulate university pricing? Does the Federal government even operate any universities? Shouldn't you be taking this one to the State governnments and universitiy administrators?

The 7.7 million student borrowers will be paying significantly higher costs due to the 2006 Budget cuts.

See, this is the way I like it. The federal government spends more money on federal programs (like national defense). The state governments spend more money on state programs (like universities). What we're seeing right now is the painful transition period. The federal sugar daddy has cut off the universities, but the reality hasn't sunk in yet, and they still think that if they bitch enough they won't have to solve their own problems for a change.

And you're enabling this bad behavior.

Now we have scene Corporate Profits increase, we have scene the Stock Market go up and watched GDP and CEO compensation increase since 2001. If you are receiving dividends and are a top CEO you are very pleased. For the other 90 plus percent- The HELL WITH YOU!

Aaaw. Poor me. Only one per cent of the masses are part of the top one per cent wealth bracket. How unfair! I want to be in the top one per cent, too. No, wait! I'm entitled to be in the top one per cent wealth bracket, and so is everybody else! Clearly, there must be something wrong with the economy!

Seriously, though, so what? Some guy, through some combination of hard work and good luck, is much better of than I am. I honestly don't fucking care. Arguments based on envy, irrational jealousy, and wilful ignorance of how the world really works just. Don't. Interest. Me.

So. Is that all you've got? Fronting a statistical spike as a typical data set? Blaming the federal government for state government policies? Encouraging the deadly sin of Envy as part of a plan to trick your audience into a false understanding of the world they live in?

There are many people whose complaints about the economy and the fiscal policies of the current administration I take seriously. You are not one of those people. I hope I've made it clear why that is.

Job growth since Jan 2001 is short by 1.7 Million jobs to be equal with Jan 2001 Source Bureau of Labor Statistics

By my estimate, Silicon Valley alone had about 1.7 million bogus tech jobs in 2001. Having worked in Silicon Valley, in the tech industry, during the dot-com boom, I can confidently say this: in 2001 there were at least 1.7 million asshats who had recently moved to California because they'd heard that venture capitalists were throwing fat, sweaty wads of cash at anybody who could mis-spell "Java" on their resume. So that's about 1.7 million people in Northern California alone who should never have been employed in the first place. And as soon as the dot-com bubble burst, they weren't.

Okay, I'm probably exaggerating the number of dot-com asshats a little bit. But the moral is sound: employment figures for the period 1999-2001 are a bad basis for comparison. You want to make a point I can take seriously? Compare 2006 to 1996 and 1986. Compare employment growth for 2001-2006 to employment growth for 1991-1996. Leave the dot-com bubble period out of it.

Median Household Income in 2004 $44,839 compared with $46, 058 in 2000. Source Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What's that? Median Household Income for 2000? What did I just say about trying to pass of dot-com flukery as meaningful data. You need to control for unusual data spikes, not hold them out as your sole data point.

See also: 1.7 million overpaid and underqualified asshats inflating the MHI figures for 2000 beyond all normal levels.

Between 2000 and 2004, personal bankruptcies increases by 37.9%. Source American Bankruptcy Assoc.

1.7 million asshats suddenly learning a valuable life lesson about how being overpaid and underqualified isn't really a solid foundation to base a large line of credit and an extravagant lifestyle on.

Between 1993 and 2004 NAFTA caused the loss of 1,015,000 jobs. Source Economic Policy Institute.

It's called globalization and the free market. The fact is, even without the dot-com bust, the rest of the world lives much cheaper than we do. A global marketplace means a global competitive wage. Americans are guaranteed a pay cut and a reduction in lifestyle as a result of this global competition. I don't begrudge the Mexicans their better tomorrow, especially if it means renewed pressure on us fat and lazy Americans to step up. And I don't think there's much the politicians can do about it either. I certainly hope that's the case, anyway.

6 Million more Americans lost health insurance since 2000. Source U.S Census Bureau.

Yeah, health insurance is a problem. As soon as we can all agree on how it should be reformed, I'm sure we'll see some marked improvement in this area. Tell you what: I'll lobby my representatives to increase the priority of healthcare reform, if you tell yours to shut the fuck up and try working with the majority party for a change.

In 2004, the wealthiest 1% received an average tax cut of $40,990. The middle 20% received $980 and the bottom 20% averaged $230.

Since taxes are a percentage, not a dollar value, these numbers don't seem that odd to me. Besides, I don't care what the wealthiest 1% are doing. I'm sorry, but I don't.

American Tax Payers received $1.036 Trillion in Tax Cuts between 2001 and 2006. We borrowed $3.763 Trillion during that same period of time.

It's called an investment. The basic ecnomic theory being applied here is this: Over the long term, tax cuts will greatly increase productivity, at the expense of short-term revenues. A deficit and increased borrowing is exactly what I'd expect to see at this stage of the process.

That said, I do think this adminstration spends too much. I keep wishing for a perfect politician, but such things are like unicorns and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow: not meant to be. Meanwhile, I'm convinced that any other politicians would spend even more. What's better: a 1T tax cut and a 3T deficit, or a 0T tax cut and a 4T deficit?

Since 2001 2.9 Million children went without Math and reading help and 1.7 million without after school help because Bush did not request the funding he promised in his No Child Left Behind Act.

And damn him for not requesting the funding. Also, damn the state of Oregon, for repeatedly voting down a sales tax proposal, while constantly complaining that their education system is woefully underfunded. If I had my way, NCLB would come with no federal funding increases at all: Either your school district figures out how to educate your children to the Federal standard, or you have to stop suckling from the federal teat. Why should my tax dollars get spent on Oregon schoolchildren, when Oregonians themselves refuse to spend their own damn money on their own damn kids?

NCLB was poorly named, poorly implemented, and woefully misrepresented in the media. It was also strongly opposed by the teacher's unions--who, I've noticed, seem to be totally at a loss when it comes to thinking up their own methods for successfully educating children. Why do you expect the President to accomplish in eight years what hundreds of thousands of education professionals have been failing at for at least a generation?

Since 2001. Pell Grants lost ½ their value because the grants remained constant as tuitions increased.

Who keeps increasing tuition? Why? Is the Executive Branch now supposed to regulate university pricing? Does the Federal government even operate any universities? Shouldn't you be taking this one to the State governnments and universitiy administrators?

The 7.7 million student borrowers will be paying significantly higher costs due to the 2006 Budget cuts.

See, this is the way I like it. The federal government spends more money on federal programs (like national defense). The state governments spend more money on state programs (like universities). What we're seeing right now is the painful transition period. The federal sugar daddy has cut off the universities, but the reality hasn't sunk in yet, and they still think that if they bitch enough they won't have to solve their own problems for a change.

And you're enabling this bad behavior.

Now we have scene Corporate Profits increase, we have scene the Stock Market go up and watched GDP and CEO compensation increase since 2001. If you are receiving dividends and are a top CEO you are very pleased. For the other 90 plus percent- The HELL WITH YOU!

Aaaw. Poor me. Only one per cent of the masses are part of the top one per cent wealth bracket. How unfair! I want to be in the top one per cent, too. No, wait! I'm entitled to be in the top one per cent wealth bracket, and so is everybody else! Clearly, there must be something wrong with the economy!

Seriously, though, so what? Some guy, through some combination of hard work and good luck, is much better of than I am. I honestly don't fucking care. Arguments based on envy, irrational jealousy, and wilful ignorance of how the world really works just. Don't. Interest. Me.

So. Is that all you've got? Fronting a statistical spike as a typical data set? Blaming the federal government for state government policies? Encouraging the deadly sin of Envy as part of a plan to trick your audience into a false understanding of the world they live in?

There are many people whose complaints about the economy and the fiscal policies of the current administration I take seriously. You are not one of those people. I hope I've made it clear why that is.

Ugh. Multi-post error!

I'm so sorry. I'll fix it as soon as the site lets me.

Meanwhile, I BLAME BUSH.

Per US Census:

Real median household income remained unchanged between 2003 and 2004 at $44,389

The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained stable, at 15.7 percent in 2004. The number of people with health insurance increased by 2.0 million to 245.3 million between 2003 and 2004

Bureau of Economic Analysis:

In December 2005, real disposable personal income increased 0.4 percent at a seasonally adjusted monthly rate.

USDA:

Net farm income is forecast to be $56.2 billion in 2006, down from 2005 by $16.4 billion but slightly above its 10-year average of $55.7 billion.

One can selectively pick and choose statistics to support any position. It doesn't actually prove anything.

Trickle-down effect. Started in the 80s, paid off in the 90s.

Now it's been started again in the 2000s. It'll pay off in the 2010s.

Obviously, the solution isn't to attack Bush, but to elect at least one more term of Republicans.

Also, here's a question for you: what economic policy started in the 90s "paid off" with increased economic hardship across the board in the 2000s? What administration/party/faction/ideology was responsible for that policy?

The policy that has caused significant problems was the lack of looking at the need for intelligence and national defense. The genesis of that goes back to the end of the cold war. It continued in the 1990's and culminated in 9/11 which has had a big impact on our economy and the need to play catch up ball in Intelligence and defense-- Homeland and National.

In a like manor the thing that held the greatest potential benefit to our economy was balancing the budget in 2000. That also started with the tax increase in the Reagan and Bush 41 terms and the reduced military spending that culminated in the balanced budget. However the reduced military spending had the negative impact as I indicated above.

The One policy started in the 1990's that has and will create the most damage to our economy is NAFTA. The loss of good paying jobs and the growing trade deficit are major problems. That was started by Clinton and failed for eight years. Then Bush expanded that FAILED policy and gave final approval to China and now Central America. We do not have FREE TRADE. Other countries are FREE to dump their low cost goods in America and we are prevented from selling our goods in other countries. China is the most dangerous country because they not only have much lower wages, but government subsidy and they manipulate the exchange rates to favor selling their goods in the U S and discouraging the sale of our goods in China. The Stay the course policy we are on will be a DISASTER!!!!!

They are one in the same. The reason the vast majority reject what Bush is doing is because his policies are not producing the results that help the majority. Policies that continue the loss of good paying jobs and show a doubling of the trade deficit. Policies that have not moved us closer to energy independence and have resulted in higher energy cost increases that impact all Americans. The continued loss of health insurance. The debt and the rising interest taxpayers must pay because Bush refuses to balance the budget. The harm his stem cell policy is having on helping research to find cures for disease. The continual morass in Iraq week after week. The list is endless. Every major issue is the same thing. None of the Bush policies has helped make ANYTHING better and most issues are much worse then in Jan 2001. The average person sees the wealthy getting wealthier. They see CEO compensation go through the roof and watch oil companies make unbelievable profits while they struggle to heat their homes and drive their cars. They see GM and Fore laying off workers and the Air lines going into bankruptcy. More and more companies are abandoning their pension plans and more companies are unable to fulfill the promises to their former employees to pay their health care and retirement. WHERE IS THE GOOD NEWS FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON? That is the reason WHY the vast majority have turned away from the solutions Bush and the GOP are implementing. Bush thinks if he tells us using different words or before a new audience we will say, WE AGREE with you. They do not agree because they see that the policies we have been following ARE NOT MAKING THEIR LIFE BETTER. IT IS GETTING WORSE for MOST the middle and low income families in America!