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.