There's always ways of skewing numbers to make things look worse. When unemployment is low we complain about "THERE'S NO NEW JOBS!!!!" Then when we create jobs at the upper end, people complain about the poor entry level people that can't find work. Then when we create entry level positions, people like Col Gene start their socialist-superhero crap and start complaining that the "weekly wages" are less even though the hourly wages are actually going up almost every month.

When GDP goes up, they complain that not enough of it is being exported. They can't explain how they'll force China to behave without harming US exports further, though. They complain about fuel costs and again don't offer anything in the way of a suggestion as to how to stop China from doubling their oil intake every few years.

People see through this after a while, Col. The Chicken Littles have been whining about a dismal economy just around the corner for years, and yet the economy is fine. The problems we have most certainly can't be signed away with the swish of a pen, and MOST CERTAINLY WOULD BE MADE FAR, FAR WORSE BY REMOVING CAPITAL FROM THE ECONOMY THROUGH IDIOTIC TAX HIKES TO SUPPORT CORRUPT CONGRESSMEN.

People who care offer tangible evidence of something not being done. People who just want to make political points just pick half the truth and skew it as hard as they can. People like the Col come off as fascists because they are trying to pose the idea that the President can with an iron hand just force things to change. The Col knows Bush can't do that, but it doesn't serve his irrational hatred to admit it.

The study for the U S Conference of Mayors DOES document that the newly created jobs do pay significantly less (21% less on the Average) with fewer benefits then the jobs that were lost between 2001-2003. The exact source is U.S. Metro Economics 2004-2005 Report which was released in Jan 2006.

I did not complain about the current unemployment rate but documented that in 2000 it was lower.

The 70% approval of the way Bush is handling the economy is from ALL polls not any single poll. The consumer confidence is a separate group and has shown the feelings of consumers that DRIVE the economic activity with their buying.

What about ALL the other factors I have included? I see you are silent!

Col, let's elect democrats. They will let the illegals in and we will have a whole new class of welfare recipients and unemployed workers. Go Democrats!

Let's split the control between the GOP and the Democrats. That way we will not get policies that ONLY play to one side!

A new set of numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics actually shows solid growth in employment in relatively higher -paying occupations including construction workers, health-care professionals, business managers, and teachers, and virtually no growth at all in relatively lower-paying occupations including office clerks and assembly-line workers. It's the most detailed breakdown yet -- looking at 154 different job and industry groupings. These statistics are a FactCheck.org exclusive -- supplied to us by BLS at our request and not previously published. Another statistic often overlooked by Bush critics is that average earnings of rank-and-file private-sector workers have increased since Bush took office, though modestly. Even after adjusting for inflation -- including the rising price of gasoline --those earnings are up just over 1% since January 2001, despite the recession and the initially slow recovery.

I did not complain about the current unemployment rate but documented that in 2000 it was lower.

A couple points lower col. So what. It's still very low, and if people would get up and work instead of relying on government, it would be much lower.

The 70% approval of the way Bush is handling the economy is from ALL polls not any single poll. The consumer confidence is a separate group and has shown the feelings of consumers that DRIVE the economic activity with their buying.

Most polls are slanted col. Do you understand that the polls commonly oversample democrats? Bush was elected and re-elected. Democrats offer nothing to this country except more welfare and more taxes.

What about ALL the other factors I have included? I see you are silent!

Do not tell anybody about being silent. You frequently abandon your own posts because you can't handle what is being preseted to you. HERE ARE TWO THINGS YOU HAVE BEEN SILENT ABOUT.

Are you a socialist?

What percentage of income should the "evil rich" be taxed?

Why you can't you just answer these simple questions without your typical anti-Bush bs?

Let's split the control between the GOP and the Democrats. That way we will not get policies that ONLY play to one side!

That's not the way the country works. I notice that you are silent about the democrats plan for a new class of welfare recipients.

The study for the U S Conference of Mayors DOES document that the newly created jobs do pay significantly less (21% less on the Average) with fewer benefits then the jobs that were lost between 2001-2003. The exact source is U.S. Metro Economics 2004-2005 Report which was released in Jan 2006. I did not complain about the current unemployment rate but documented that in 2000 it was lower. The 70% approval of the way Bush is handling the economy is from ALL polls not any single poll. The consumer confidence is a separate group and has shown the feelings of consumers that DRIVE the economic activity with their buying. What about ALL the other factors I have included? I see you are silent!

No we aren't silent. We're just sick to death of giving you info that DOES NOT support your position, that proves you are wrong and having "you" tell us we are either lying or stupid! So go sit in the corner and pull your pud as per usual.

“That's not the way the country works. I notice that you are silent about the democrats plan for a new class of welfare recipients.”

THAT is the way the country works. We should have policies that meet the needs of the MAJORITY not just the right or left. When the power is split, there must be compromise. It worked for Reagan and Clinton.

I have said MANY times I do not agree with NEW welfare programs. What I have said we MUST FULLY PAY for what we currently have on our plate!

The truth is that the factors I have sighted in this Blog and my responses are 100% accurate and you do not HAVE any way to refute them.

THAT is the way the country works. We should have policies that meet the needs of the MAJORITY not just the right or left. When the power is split, there must be compromise. It worked for Reagan and Clinton

There is nothing that says the country can't be run by one party. If you think it should be split, which I don't believe, because you would prefer it to be all liberal and democratic then change the system. The DNC itself says this country is conservative and moderate. Democrats are neither.

I have said MANY times I do not agree with NEW welfare programs. What I have said we MUST FULLY PAY for what we currently have on our plate!

Then why do you support democrats. They are the kings of welfare and helping keep people poor.

The truth is that the factors I have sighted in this Blog and my responses are 100% accurate and you do not HAVE any way to refute them.

Wow. Talk about arrogant. You might be accurate in your own mind, but not with anybody else. You think because you use some data from a government website that you know everything? How much of your life have you wasted on that worthless book?

I didn't ignore any of your points, Col. You simply don't want to address my responses. During the 90's wages skyrocketed because of the tech boom, and those levels were unsustainable. You keep blathering on about low wage jobs, but in the beginning of Bush's office people were whining about how because of the tech boom low wage jobs were scarce.

You see, when the unemployment rate was as low as you cited, people were screaming about how the economy wasn't showing balanced growth and no entry-level jobs were being created. Where will all these pimply-faced high schoolers work?!?!? Low wage employment in America is drying up!!! Now that we are creating low-wage jobs, your ilk shifts to the "THE AVERAGE WAGE IS DROPPING!!!"

You build little, conflicted economic puzzles and then demand OTHER people solve them when you have no solutions yourself. "OUR TRADE DEFICIT IS KILLING US!!!!" you say. Then you complain about our jobs not paying enough. Explain, if you would, how you would pay more to our low-end employees and still remain competitive in a world where most manufacturing is done for less than a buck an hour.

Take a long, hard look at France and see what people with your economic perspective do to a nation.

IslandDog

Yes it can be run by one party and you get the one sided policies we have seen during the past 5 1/2 years which DO not reflect were the MAJORITY want the country to go. A split requires some compromise and the end result are policies that more nearly reflect where the MAJORITY want to be!!!

The GOP has out done the Democrats in overall spending increases, Pork and passed the largest NEW ENTITLEMENT program (Prescription Drug Plan) without providing with a way to pay for it! The GOP make the Democrats look like SMALL POTATOES when it comes to spending! The Democrats were always called the "Tax and Spend" party The Republicans are the "Charge and Spend" party and that is worse because it requires the tax payers to fork over even MORE tax DOLLARS to pay the interest on the added debt! Of those two ways to spend, I will take the TAX and SPEND and avoid the interest which simply makes the future SPENDING even higher! Neither Party is willing to spend less except for the conservatives that want to cut programs that help people that need to help in our society. The people Bush talked about 10 Days after Katrina.

THE MAJOR DROP IN CONSUMER CONFIDENCE OR THE 70% OF Americans do not APPROVE OF THE WAY BUSH IS HANDLING THE ECONOMY.

The 70% approval of the way Bush is handling the economy is from ALL polls not any single poll. The consumer confidence is a separate group and has shown the feelings of consumers that DRIVE the economic activity with their buying.

Consumer confidence is such an esoteric, amorphous concept that it has no bearing on the actual economy. You can't quote polls to cover the relative strength of this economy. Because the economy is strong, on many levels. It's not perfect, but it's very very good.

Yes, even the pundits are scratching their heads: why do people believe this economy is suffering when unemployment is LOW (really low), corporate spending is high (which means goods and services flying off shelves), and the Dow is above 10,000? The economy is not suffering. It's the incessant drumbeat of Bush bashers like you who want everyone to think that the economy sucks and it's all GWB's fault.

The ONLY thing that enables people to continue spending is either higher REAL wages or Credit. There has been NO REAL wage growth and the level of personal Debt is at an all time high. As interest rates increase, the ability of the average consumer to borrow more and thus keep spending will be impacted in a negative way. That will show up in the earnings in business and future GDP growth!

The ONLY thing that enables people to continue spending is either higher REAL wages or Credit. There has been NO REAL wage growth and the level of personal Debt is at an all time high.

100% of the people in my household make more money than they did in 2001. Gonna quote that statistic? Sample size: 6. Margin of error, 0%, since all members of my household were polled.

You just came back at me with talk of "real wage growth", and I agree that real wage growth is key for individuals getting out of debt, meeting their obligations, etc. If you're so caught up with real wage growth, then why do you turn around and use consumer confidence levels as hard factual truth about the state of the economy? 'Cause they ain't the same thing, not at all.

The vast majority after inflation are NOT making more in fact they are making less in the past two years and the SAME as 5 years ago. I am glad for you but your experience is NOT what the majority of families are experiencing! That is why the economic growth under the current economic policy is not helping the vast majority of working people in this country!

You are so full of it col. How many people in this country have you personally interviewed and found out their real status. All you are doing is quoting a piece of data and saying everybody is now poor. What a pathetic tactic that is.

"That is why the economic growth under the current economic policy is not helping the vast majority of working people in this country!"

Any unbiased sceptic can see that no matter what the economy does, the Col will have a complaint.

If the economy is booming it is accompanied by inflation, which the Col cites as doom. If the fed raises interest rates to slow the economy down, he calls it a downturn and points to high interest rates as a sign of the apocolypse.

If wages are high, there are fewer low-end jobs, unemployment rises... doom. More low-end jobs are created, unemployment falls, but the Col is mad because average wages are lower. According to him families aren't making as much, which is idiotic because the people making lower wages were usually new hires didn't have a job at all before, or were living unemployed.

He doesn't understand the concept of "average". If you have an economy where the average wage is $17.00 an hour, and you create a ton of $8.00 an hour jobs, the average wage will be far less, but that doesn't mean that people's wages were cut. That just means you have a ton of new entry level positions and therefore more jobs for the unemployed. As for his nonsense about inflation, the cost of living isn't validating his panic about wages.

He refuses to offer a shred of a perspective on what can be done, only that we should tax more. Ignorant leftist dogma that was exploded decades ago, and because of which France now feels constant threat and chaos. Let him explain how higher taxes will create higher wages, or how higher wages will help the trade deficit.

He can't. He's about complaining about invented problems, not solving real ones. No different than his Dem counterparts in Congress.

IslandDog

Where did I say everyone was poor? You are so full of BS. Please read what I wrote not what you say I wrote.

BakerStreet

I understand Average and Median etc. That does not alter the fact that wages in real terms after taxes and inflation ARE NOT UP since Bush took office. If you look at the five years BEFORE Bush, you would see that SAME AVERAGE was up a significant amount. The facts are simple-- For the top 5-10% things are GOOD. If you are senior executive with a large corporation you are doing well. If you get a large amount of you income from investments rather then wages you are fine. If you are the other 90% the economy is not BOOMING and for many they are going backward. They are in greater Debt then ever, have fewer benefits and are NOT SAVING anything!

You know the difference, obviously, you just choose to ignore the difference when drafting propaganda. The problem with your little theory, though, is that most in that 90% don't know what in the hell you are talking about. I am in the lower reaches of your percentile, and my friends are living no worse and often better than they were under clinton.

I *know* that Bush's tax policies have helped me, because I feel the extra jingle in my pocket. That's why I think you are a liar when you say that the top 1% are the only ones that benefit, because I and many at the other end of the scale have. I don't know *anyone* who lives off investments, and I don't know anyone that is worse off now.

The credit thing is a national plague, but it doesn't have a single thing to do with Bush. It was at epidemic levels under Clinton. Rising interest rates are exactly what people like that need, so that they are dissuaded from betting their lives on their next paycheck, and have incentive to put their savings away instead to benefit from such.

Again, I have challenged you over and over to explain what Bush can do about these problems. All you seem to have are complaints, with no valid proof tracing them back to your villain. IF you want these warnings to be taken seriously, show us how Bush is to blame, and what he should be doing about wages, the deficit, etc.

Claiming that raising taxes is the key to a better economy is daft, though, considering those taxes will make every single problem you are talking about worse. The government's bottom line isn't the economy. You are pleading for the one at the expense of the other.

Bakerstreet

The key to the future solvency and the Budget is controlling the Debt. The interest that we will be REQUIRED to pay because of the Tax and Spend policy Bush has followed will plague this country for decades. The interest in the budget will take the money that will be needed for many other things by the people in this country. When Bush took office the annual interest was $230 Billion. When he leaves it will be approaching $500 billion EVERTY YEAR. Between Bush and Reagan, they took the annual interest taxpayers must pay from $90 Billion in 1980 to $500 Billion in 2010! I glad you think that is not a problem.

LOL... I didn't ask you about the budget, Col.

I asked you about the issues you are talking about on THIS blog. What do you propose to do to correct the lower average wage, the trade deficit, etc.? Nice dodge, but you can't possibly be claiming that raising taxes will raise the average wage or help with the trade deficit, are you?

In reality, higher taxes will leave less profits and less chance of new jobs, fewer benefits, and much less chance that our prices will be low enough to compete with nations like China. If you want for this blog to be even slightly persuasive to anyone but a Bush-hater like yourself, you should offer them solid reasons why Bush is to blame for all this, instead of just using the word "policies" like that means something.

Surely you wouldn't be maybe stretching things a bit, like you did with the average wages. Surely you don't already know that anything you can point to could be traced by even an unbiased person to problems that were there before Bush took office, and which no President has the ability to wave their hand and fix?

Bakerstreet

You are the one that brought up the deficit on your last post. The thing that will impact profits is spending not providing the wealthiest 1% more money by eliminating the estate tax. We would get more economic bang by balancing the budget, reducing the annual interest and use that money to meet the needs of this country.

Bush has created the Annual Deficit. When he took office we had a balanced budget which he immediately turned into a deficit by cutting taxes and increasing spending. This is the same thing Reagan did with the very same result. Bush did not learn. He also did not listen to his father who called the economics of Reagan and the same policy we are following today- Voodoo economics which is good description of the tax ands spend policies Bush and the GOP are following!!

"We would get more economic bang by balancing the budget, reducing the annual interest and use that money to meet the needs of this country."

Wait... wait, wait.

Don't rush through it. Please explain to me how a balanced governmental budget helps raise wages and balance the trade deficit? Pretend I am stupid, and just talk me through how raising taxes to balance the government's budget will lead to higher wages, more benefits, and more equitable trade with other countries.


Above, in your own blog, you blame Bush's policies for those problems. Please, if you will, point out what Bush has done to cause them and what Bush could do to fix them. I think anyone would have to be deranged to think that the estate tax helps when it draws capital out of the hands of the people who pay wages and set our prices.

I don't believe you've offered any suggestion about what to do about the economy, you just point to balancing the federal budget. Please, tell us what Bush should have been doing to create a higher average "weekly" wage, etc.

"You are the one that brought up the deficit on your last post."

Only because on one blog you are stating problems that you are trying to worsen on another.

You claim that the budget should be balanced by taxing the wealthy. Less profit means lower wages, fewer benefits, and higher prices that make us less competitive internationally, worsening the trade deficit. Which do you want, to better the economy, or feed the leech that is bleeding it?

Col Gene -

My income in actual (gross) dollars is the same as it was in 1980. But the current value of a 1980 dollar is about $2. So, I'm effectively earning half what I was making 26 years ago. And my standard of living has never been better.

You've yet to see the forest for the trees.

Bakerstreet

The impact of the continued deficit is that we must increase the amount of tax dollars that go to the ever increasing interest payments. Those interest payments go to two groups-- American investors which are heavily made up of the high income Americans and only a small amount of that interest ends up as spending by the wealthy recipients. 40% of the interest is paid to foreign bond holders and that money leaves the country entirely and detracts from our economy. It is not spent in America and thus does not stimulate American economic activity. In addition as the interest sours, it will either require higher taxes to pay the added interest or will take money from things that we will need to fund. Things like Social Security, Medicare, Homeland defense etc. By eliminating the revenue from the Estate Tax we added to the deficit and ADD to the interest we must pay on the increased debt.

IT IS REMARKABLE HOW YOU BUSHIES CAN IGNORE WHAT BUSH AND THE GOP FISCAL POLICY IS DOING TO THE FISCAL AFFAIRS OF OUR COUNTRY! Every year the taxpayers MUST pay hundreds of Billions more in interest because we would not pay for what we spent! In 1980 before Reagan the taxpayers were spending about $90 Billion per year on interest. After the two applications of Supply Side (Voodoo) Economics that interest is heading to $500 Billion EVERY YEAR. That is MORE then we spend on National Defense excluding the Iraq War! That interest NEVER ENDS until the debt is repaid which under the Bush Fiscal Policy will NEVER happen. In fact his goal is to only reduce the Annual Budget deficit to 1/2 its current level so that the $500 Billion in interest will get even bigger AFTER he retires to Texas. The interest in just TWO YEARS would save $1 Trillion dollars which is estimated to be enough to rebuild the entire aging Infrastructure in this country. $500 Billion per year would SOLVE the funding issues for BOTH Medicare and Social Security for the Baby Boomers with money to spare. Everything facing us will be far more difficult because Reagan and Bush refused to act responsibly-- Simply PAY for whet we agreed to SPEND each year.

If the amounts were small it would be a philosophical issue. Because of the enormous size they are a VERY practical and will pose devastating consequences for the future of our country !!!!!!!!!!