"On the economy we've got boom times, and in spite of MSM propaganda to the contrary, it is finally sinking in to everyone's mind - everyone but those on the Bush-hating left - that the economy has turned in a phenomenal performance and looks to do even better in 2006."

Wages are falling guy. Is that the best that you can say? so much for the bush boom.

Mark, good points. Could the dems have made anymore gaffes last week. On Martin Luther King, Jr., birthday, we have hillery clinton before an african american audience, states that the house of representatives is run like a "plantation" and "you know what I mean". So not only does she pull out the race card while demeaning the sin of slavery comparing it to congress, but she insults her audience. Her audience was full of educated african americans. Why does she assume that they know what its like to live on a plantation. I guess for the very reason that howard dean believes that all waiters and busboys are black. Americas worst mayor, Mayor Nagin of New Orleans says that New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again. And then adds some rascist nonsense about adding milk to chocolate and making a terrific drink. Can you imagine what would have happened if a republican has made these rascist statements. I think it is about time that republicans be loud and proud of their civil right bona fides and expose the lying nonsense that the dems are the civil rights party. This myth has been pushed by the dem MSM too long. It was the GOP that freed the slaves and fought for their rights afterwards against the pro slave dems. It was President Eisenhower (R) that passed the first civil rights legislation. It was the GOP in congress that got the civil rights acts of the 1960's passed over dem objection, namely al gores father. It is the GOP that is trying to create a color blind society by fighting against affirmative discrimination, and is trying to get minorities trapped in dead end schools into good schools through the use of vouchers, against dem objection. Every founder of the KKK was a democrat. Every plantation owner was a democrat. It was the democrats who blocked black school children from entering desegregated schools. It was the democrats who set the hoses and dogs on african americans. I am tired of the dems and the liberal MSM, pushing this myth about the dems being the party of minorities. President Bush has already done more for minorities than clinton did in his entire presidency. One of the main reasons that african americans vote 90 percent democrat, is because most are not aware of the above facts. They are not aware because of lib MSM pushing their myth. It was the liberals, against the objection of every conservative on the US Supreme Court in the Kelo case that just took away everyones private property rights. What do you have if not private property rights. Now, if the government wants to punish anyone (historically minorities), they can take their home under the basis of increased tax revenue. Now that the liberal media is exposed and no longer has the same influence, it is about time the GOP and alternative media tells the truth about civil rights.

Oh James. Someone needs a history and political science lesson. See, while you are right that it was the "democratic party" horrible things i.e segregation, slavery, opposed civil rights legislation, every so often there is what is called a "re-alignment" of parties. Thus, if you look at history, it was Southern Democrats who did those horrible things. From 1950-1970, those Southern Democrats became, gasp, Republicans; mostly during JFK's presidency. So, people like Strom Thurmond who used to be a democratic, switched parties to become, gasp, a Republican. Today's Republican party finds its base in the South, which means, gasp, that it is representing those same people who used to be plantation owners and the members of the KKK. I mean, didn't it seem odd to you that 50 years ago Democrats used to win the South but now they do not? Again, its called a re-alingment.

shortz,

Maybe your wages are falling, but everyone I know is making more money than they did a couple years ago. Perhaps you should work a little harder?

AMG,

Actually, southern Democrats first went to Democrat George Wallace who ran as an independent athwart the Democratic Party...it was only in 1972, faced with the prospect of McGovern, that the electorate in the voted GOP...but even then, it wasn't a done deal until the 1990's, about 30 years after the Civil Rights Act

AMG,
that it is representing those same people who used to be plantation owners and the members of the KKK. How do you explain away Senator Robert KKK Byrd (d)? Hmmm...Crickets chirping.

shortz,
I'm with Mark on this. I don't know anyone who is not making more money now (except for UAW and UAL union members, $50hr for tightening a lug nut or throwing a suitcase couldn't last forever)...and how about black homeownership, it is at all time highs. Take off the moonbat glasses.

Karl Rove (he who reads B4B) keep up the good work. I can't wait for the next Rovian plot to unfold...oh yeah, Supreme Court Justice Alito. Damn your good!

All in all, I see the GOP in the driver's seat for 2006.

I hope and pray that you're correct on this, Mark. I get discouraged when I look at Rasmussen--the only polls I semi-trust--and see donks gaining ground or leading in races they wouldn't have had a chance in previously. We've got work to do; a great portion of this country has forgotten 9/11 and that the donks are weak on terror, weak on law enforcement, and weak on morality. Hell, lets admit it; a great portion of this country is weak--the New DemocRAT Party.

Folks, you need to learn to laugh at Shortzie and his talking points. This twit has been operating under the same M.O. for months, and has yet to provide any proof for his blather except "because Howard Al-Dean" says so. Don't waste your time proving him wrong; he's a programmed robot, and not worthy of your conideration.

Karl, we love ya!!!

"Maybe your wages are falling, but everyone I know is making more money than they did a couple years ago. Perhaps you should work a little harder?"

Are you this dense? 'everyone one I know'? 'Maybe your wages'? Are you a child?

"The 3.4 percent jump in the consumer price index outpaced average wage gains, resulting in a 0.4 percent drop in the purchasing power of the average weekly paycheck.It was the third consecutive year in which weekly wages fell, reflecting higher inflation, the modest pace of pay increases and the impact of rising health insurance costs on take-home pay. The "core" inflation rate, which excludes food and fuel, was up 2.2 percent in 2005."

Link

AMG,

If you look at this map
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
then you'll see that Republicans have quite a widespread and popular base across the nation. Exceptions seem to be large urban areas with lots of immigrants and the poor.

"Southern Democrats who did those horrible things"
and
"Republican party finds its base in the South, which means, gasp, that it is representing those same people who used to be plantation owners and the members of the KKK."

It is you who needs a lesson. Slavery has been widespread in the nation, including MA (first state to recognize slavery as legal), NY (slave population equal to that of Charleston, SC during 1700s), NJ (one of the densest slave populations in 1700s), RI (shipping center for "triangle of trade" which brought slaves to US), etc. Slavery lasted longer in the South because that is where demand for ag labor was strongest. Lincoln only freed slaves below the Mason-Dixon, and later in the Civil War he made blacks go to war before he drafted any whites for war for fear of reprisal. The war was a power grab by two sections of the country to see who would control Congress and therefore power, not about the welfare of slaves. As quoted from the book, "War Torn Journal of a Georgia Girl", "slavery was the cause of the Civil War but not its object".

My point is that one region of the country should not and cannot look down their noses at another from a moral high ground as their history will embarrass them.

I've read that between 3.5%-7% of whites owned slaves in the South. Wonder what the other 90% of the South were fighting for? It was true rebellion from about half of the country for balance of power, not some provencial riot in search of looting such as LA. Please read the fascinating history of your country before you put your foot in mouth.

There is no substance to the arguments against the Democrats. There is no political argument from Republicans, intolerance has boiled down to sandbox name-calling.

Civil rights do not include mass Republican oppression through legislation.

AMG, I couldn't disagree with you more. Thanks for proving my point by perpetuating this myth that the south and west are all rascists, and not as "enlightened" as the north and north west. Even howard dean things everyone in the south drives a pick up truck with confederate flags on the window. Why is there massive immigration to the south and west, especially amongst minorities, especially african americans if you are correct. People in the south and west are republican, not because they are rascist, but because the dem party is nuts and they recognized that along time ago. Thats why I, growing up as a liberal in NJ, left that party along time ago. People are not republican because they are rascists, but because they think its wrong for 4,000 babies to be killed every day, wrong that the liberals just took away our property rights, they see liberals as incredibly weak on national security, they like their taxes lowered, less government, and they think its okay to say the word "God" in the pledge without the world coming to an end. The history of american rascism belongs to the democratic party, not the Republicans. Dems want to give a fish to minorities. Republicans want to teach minorities how to fish. New Orleans was a perfect example of a democratic ghetto caused by years of failed liberal "feel good" do nothing policies in Louisianna and New Orleans, controlled by the dems for decades. The same nonsense applies to the issue of affirmative discrimination. Republicans want to get minorities into better schools through vouchers and give them a better education. Liberals want to keep minorities in lously schools, so they can't read when they graduate and pass them into college with a victim sign on their back, where they will fail or drop out, because they can't read, write or add. But to liberals it is right because it "feels good". Republicans want to start minorities early in getting a good education and so they can compete with anyone on an equal footing. Florida, you know one of those rascist states, passed a school voucher program and saw great improvement in minority scores. The liberal state supreme court just said it was illegal. Dems turn minorities into "victims". I don't care if liberals think they are morally superior because they believe in affirmative action and republicans don't. Republicans believe in action and results. Liberals can keep acting like they care so much about minorities the first week of every November, while the GOP will take action to get real world improvement for minorities the rest of the year.

James, if you don't think the south is racists, spend some time in Mississippi, Alabama or the Carolinas.

Dems don't want to keep minorities in lousy schools. They want to use the money fix the schools in the first place. The GOP wants to close the department of education and privatise schooling, or give public money to private schools, many of which are religious schools. If Republicans really cared about starting minorities early, they wouldn't be killing the Head Start initiative.

Liberals believe a woman has control over her own body and her own future. They believe if you make some effort to understand what kind of environmet creates a terrorist you can stem the tide before you have to turn to the neo-con's way of waiting til someone becomes a terrorist so you can bomb the hell out of them.

I doubt many liberals think forcing a child to pledge their alliegance to a nation "under God" for 12 years is the end of the world, but they do think it's rather pedantic and discriminatory (and possibly illegal).

People in the South and West tend to vote Republican because they are of the mistaken belief that Republicans care about their morals, when in fact republicans merely use the issue of morals to get elected, wherein they quickly turn themselves into the party of big business, economic segregation and the corruption of power.

In terms of how long it took Republicans in power to become corrupt as comared to the Democrats, the republicans are indeed more efficient. Republicans really believe that a government should exist for no other reason to fund the military, and that every citizen is on their own, subject to Social Darwinism and the fate of God's Will. That is all.

James, if you don't think the south is racists, spend some time in Mississippi, Alabama or the Carolinas.

Dems don't want to keep minorities in lousy schools. They want to use the money fix the schools in the first place. The GOP wants to close the department of education and privatise schooling, or give public money to private schools, many of which are religious schools. If Republicans really cared about starting minorities early, they wouldn't be killing the Head Start initiative.

Liberals believe a woman has control over her own body and her own future. They believe if you make some effort to understand what kind of environmet creates a terrorist you can stem the tide before you have to turn to the neo-con's way of waiting til someone becomes a terrorist so you can bomb the hell out of them.

I doubt many liberals think forcing a child to pledge their alliegance to a nation "under God" for 12 years is the end of the world, but they do think it's rather pedantic and discriminatory (and possibly illegal).

People in the South and West tend to vote Republican because they are of the mistaken belief that Republicans care about their morals, when in fact republicans merely use the issue of morals to get elected, wherein they quickly turn themselves into the party of big business, economic segregation and the corruption of power.

In terms of how long it took Republicans in power to become corrupt as comared to the Democrats, the republicans are indeed more efficient. Republicans really believe that a government should exist for no other reason to fund the military, and that every citizen is on their own, subject to Social Darwinism and the fate of God's Will. That is all.

"All in all, I see the GOP in the driver's seat for 2006."

If only we'd managed to get strong candidates to run against the vulnerable Dem senators...

I think you're right about the overall political climate, but every race comes down to two candidates. We're still going to lose a couple of senate seats and several house seats, because of how the situation looked six months ago when we were recruiting candidates.

shortz,

Interesting - but you should never get your economic reporting from an MSM outfit...they will deliberately mis-state it in order to make President Bush look as bad as possible.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average hourly compensation ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION rose from $17.14 to $18.09 between 2001 and 2004. Given the fact that we had to take care of Clinton's dot-com bust, Clinton's recession, Clinton's corporate accounting scandals and 9/11, I think we've done pretty good.

Rennie P, If you want to see rascism you will find it in NJ, NY, CT, PA, RI and VT. There are bigots in the north, south, east and west in this country. But keep pertetuating the myth. If it makes you "feel good" believing that the north is less rascist than other parts of the country, go for it. I don't think it will slow down the migration of african americans to the south and west, especially since that is the fastest growing part of the country. As far as education, you know that institution that billions upon billions of dollars have been spent, with horrible results. There are so many failed schools failing to teach. We have done the money thing and it hasn't worked. I know that is the dem solution because it "feels good" to throw more money at the problem. Finally, with President Bushs No Child Left Behind Act, we have seen improvement in minority scores for the first time. As I mentioned, vouchers have already proven to be effective. However, libs don't like it because to them we are giving up on the public schools. Well, guess what, these failed schools gave up on themselves a long time ago. But I know libs never let facts get in the way of a good misleading campaign slogan. Regarding abortion, its funny how those who argue for the right to kill a baby, are already born. If they were on the other end of that argument, they might take a different position, before their brains are sucked out or limbs torn off. Regarding corruption, I am well aware of it coming from the sopranos state of NJ. We have had to endure torricelli's resignation, mcgreeveys resignation and in a couple of years, corzines resignation. See, NJ is almost as corrupt as that other dem paradise, louisianna. I am sorry if you and yours have a problem with God. Get over it. The last time I looked, The US Constitution states that every citizen has the right to worship or not to worship as they see fit.

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average hourly compensation ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION rose from $17.14 to $18.09 between 2001 and 2004. "

Is that what your friends are making? I kid. I kid.

For one, there is a difference between wages and compensation -- wages being closer to measuring hte lower ends of the economic spectrum, and average compensation being susceptible to swings non-wage upper level compensation.

Do you have a link for that? because the BLS listed real weekly earnings as having fallen in hte last year -- link.

RenneP,
Have YOU spent time in the South? I was born in NC and spent my first 25 years there. Racist? Yes. Anymore so than the North? No. We all have prejudices just like yours stereotyping the South.

You continue, "Dems don't want to keep minorities in lousy schools. They want to use the money fix the schools in the first place. The GOP wants to close the department of education and privatise schooling, or give public money to private schools, many of which are religious schools."

Nobody wants to keep minorities in lousy schools. Hence the push toward privatization. An education starts at home, and it's time for liberals to realize that the state cannot fix every problem by throwing good money after bad, rather the parents need to provide a better environment for learning via discipline and example. I sure wouldn't care about whether my child went to a religious school as long as they got the best education.

Renne again, "People in the South and West tend to vote Republican because they are of the mistaken belief that Republicans care about their morals"

I thought it was because we were all racist bastards??? Which is it?

Lastly you say, "Republicans really believe that a government should exist for no other reason to fund the military, and that every citizen is on their own, subject to Social Darwinism and the fate of God's Will."

It just so happens that rewarding those that work hard and invest in themselves works better than giving handouts. Sorry if you don't understand.

I will break with partisanship here and say that the president has little to do with the economic outcome of a country. The main responsibility of the president is to retain a favorable environment for business investment (lower taxes, less entitlements and pork, reduction of tariffs and quotas) which is what drives economic growth. You may be shocked to learn how much Margaret Thatcher showed how free markets improved the lives of most of the world. Even socialist countries took notes and tried to implement these simple ideas. Libs, get this through the brain, there should never be such a thing as a free lunch. We all benefit from this philosophy.

"I sure wouldn't care about whether my child went to a religious school as long as they got the best education."

You might not, but I sure would. That's not a sacrifice I would put my child through.

"I thought it was because we were all racist bastards??? Which is it?"

I never said you were racist bastards (not all of you anyway). However, responding to Jame's post, Southern areas that tend to vote Republicans also tend to be very racists. Yes, I've spent time there, and no I can't speak for the West.

"the state cannot fix every problem by throwing good money after bad, rather the parents need to provide a better environment for learning via discipline and example"

Agreed at the throwing money part, but some parents do the best they can, or work two jobs and never see their children. Liberals believe the state CAN be a helping hand for those Americans who aren't able to pull themselves up.

Not everyone who works hard, is rewarded. Some people work very hard and simply fail, or are screwed. Liberals believe Government can be more, an instrument of good, where no one gets left behind (not my line, but I sure do like it!). That a government shouldn't just stand by and watch it's citizens suffer only to offer then no other assistance but to chide them when they do. Perhaps you don't understand that.

Oh, and James, bla bla bla. You've drank the kool-aid dear. Every evil is the fault of liberals. bla bla bla. Even with the GOP in power, still every ill is the fault of liberals. Next you'll be going after the teachers and the schoolboards. You're a political zombie, James, and no one can tell you anything because you believe you already know everything. Sad.

"I sure wouldn't care about whether my child went to a religious school as long as they got the best education."

You might not, but I sure would. That's not a sacrifice I would put my child through.

"I thought it was because we were all racist bastards??? Which is it?"

I never said you were racist bastards (not all of you anyway). However, responding to Jame's post, Southern areas that tend to vote Republicans also tend to be very racists. Yes, I've spent time there, and no I can't speak for the West.

"the state cannot fix every problem by throwing good money after bad, rather the parents need to provide a better environment for learning via discipline and example"

Agreed at the throwing money part, but some parents do the best they can, or work two jobs and never see their children. Liberals believe the state CAN be a helping hand for those Americans who aren't able to pull themselves up.

Not everyone who works hard, is rewarded. Some people work very hard and simply fail, or are screwed. Liberals believe Government can be more, an instrument of good, where no one gets left behind (not my line, but I sure do like it!). That a government shouldn't just stand by and watch it's citizens suffer only to offer then no other assistance but to chide them when they do. Perhaps you don't understand that.

Oh, and James, bla bla bla. You've drank the kool-aid dear. Every evil is the fault of liberals. bla bla bla. Even with the GOP in power, still every ill is the fault of liberals. Next you'll be going after the teachers and the schoolboards. You're a political zombie, James, and no one can tell you anything because you believe you already know everything. Sad.

Mark that is ridiculous. Everyone you know is making more money than before? Is that supposed to be your analysis on the economy? With all due respect, just because you support your party doesn't mean you can't acknowledge that there are some flaws in the way our economy is being handled. Also, you are not doing your readers justice by just writing off the "mainstream media" as simply purveyers of leftist propaganda when it comes to figures on the economy. All the data is a matter of public record... the different media outlets aren't all in "collusion" to misrepresent the economy to make the White House look bad. In fact, it is in their best interest (sell more papers) to to try to prove each other wrong if there is overt bias. Sure you can spin anything, but the only people who have a vested interest in spinning this information are politicians and the Kool-Aid drinkers who blindly follow them. Blaming the media for biased reporting on the economy is almost Michael Moore-like in its paranoid delusional attempt to support one's ideology. Please don't go there.

Just a few thoughts:

a) Median HH income has declined since 2001

b) Number of people living in poverty has increased by over 3 million since 2000.

c) largest deficit in history... (forcing Congress to raise the debt ceiling three times in the last three years). It's hard to teach our children fical responsibility when our government can't even do it.

d) Government spending (non-defense) has increased 33% since Clinton left office (more in the last 4 years than any time since LBJ)

These are not signs of a booming economy, no matter how rosy you and the other Kool Aid drinkers want to make it look. Still, this doesn't mean that it is a total disaster either (as witnessed by some recent job growth), but you don't do our country justice by ignoring weaknesses and brashly saying that "the economy is booming." We should always strive to improve the economy such as reducing spending when we are in a deficit.

I guess this is what happens when the same party rules both the Executive and Legislative branches. I liked it better when there was some serious debate and negotiation over legislation that might unnecessarily drive us further into debt or spend our tax dollars unnecessarily. President Bush hasn't vetoed one spending bill yet (and please don't say it has been because they were fiscally responsible to begin with) and has consistently proposed higher budgets every year since 2002.

I propose to your fellow conservatives to do as follows if they want to see more conservative behavior in Congress: continue to support your Republican representatives, but consider voting for a Democrat for President if you want your leaders to act more conservatively. Or vice a versa. I think our country is better served when the two parties have to compete and negotiate to get things done. No party should have blank checks to do as they please. As we say in business, competition is good. I will be the first to say that if the situation were reversed (Democrats running both branches) results could be just as unsatisfactory.

Rennie P, talking about kool aid drinkers. I never said every problem is the cause of liberals. If it makes you feel better to think that all republicans or just everyone in the south and west are racists, go for it. Whatever, keeps you going. If you opened your eyes and observed what is really going on and not getting your own perspective from mental giants like al franken on airhead america, you would see that the money thing has been tried in education and it has failed. I don't want to give lousy teachers more money or lifetime tenure. The only positive about hurricane katrina was that it exposed in a nutshell what liberalism had done to New Orleans, decades of dem rule in Louisianna creating dem ghettos.

shortz,

I guess it depends on how you want to look at it - according to your link, average weekly earnings, seasonally adjusted, rose 3.1% in December of 2005 as compared to December of 2004...then the BLS goes into something called CPI-W, which seems to be a CPI only for wage earners (which is absurd, but that is government work for ya).

At any rate, almost all of inflation in 2005 was due to gasoline prices...and that reflects a mere speculative bubble in oil futures which will likely collapse some time soon ($69 a barrel oil is patently absurd...but if the price remains above $60 for much longer, a whole bunch of oil supplies will come on line which are not profitable when, say, oil is consistently at $40 a barrel or less).

All I can say is that I went from a $$240,000 house to a $393,000 house, a 5 year old Ford to a brand new Chevy, a beat up old TV to a big screen...and I'm just a workaday office guy, not management and not in any highly specialised technical field. If you are poorer in 2005 than you were in 2004, then check in the mirror for the source of the trouble.

Bye,

Actually, it has declined in real terms from its peak in 1999....you know, back when Clinton was doing his magic...unfortunately, by the time President Bush's economic program was implemented, Clintonomic incomes had already been declining for two years...add in 9/11, and we had quite a hole to climb out of.

Income stability was reached in 2004 - in that year mediah HH income was the same as it was in 2003, so we stopped losing ground only a year after we implemented Bush's economic policies.

It is too early for us to have data for 2005, but my bet is that we'll see an increase in median HH income in 2005 over 2004...this prediction is pretty solid on my part because the way Americans acted in 2005 indicates a higher level of wealth and a greater confidence in the economy than they had in 2004 or earlier.

Hmmm...the economy is booming, hmmm....
Mark, it depends on what area of the country you live in, can you not see that? Plus, with the cost of living in some areas, a $250,000 house in say, Orange County California is the same quality as a $40,000 house in say, rural Nebraska. Some McDonald's in some areas of the country pay $10 and hour starting salary where most places they pay only $5 an hour. You see, the cost of living is VERY important. It is all relative to what section of the country you are in. In my area, around Pittsburgh, this "booming" economy you are talking about is a multitude of river towns, once very prosperous, are falling into slums and people are out of work everywhere. After the death of the steel mills, there are few opportunities here, and many people do not have the money or the means to move elsewhere to work. See, a phrase you may not be familiar with is "It takes money to make money." Many people here DO NOT HAVE the money to even try to leave for a better future. Can you say this is an example of such a "booming" economy? The point is that, yes, there will always be poorer areas, but Conservatives always seem to look at select areas of the country and say the economy is booming. Maybe in New York City, but not in Pittsburgh, which is almost in bankruptcy, and certainly not in certain rural areas of say, West Virginia. You have to look at the WHOLE picture. Your "modest" $360,000 house is a dream compared to some people I know who grew up in trailers with no heat and no water and no opportunity. Look at ALL the facts before you slam liberals for wondering if the ecomony is doing as hot as you claim it is. Walk the walk before you talk the talk. Why not give up that brand new Chevy and live just a week as poor as some of the people in some areas of the country, and then see if you change your tune...

"I guess it depends on how you want to look at it"

I want to look at real earnings.

"- according to your link, average weekly earnings, seasonally adjusted, rose 3.1% in December of 2005 as compared to December of 2004...then the BLS goes into something called CPI-W, which seems to be a CPI only for wage earners (which is absurd, but that is government work for ya)"

Why is it absurd to look at the prices that wage earners face when looking at the purchasing power of their wages?

"At any rate, almost all of inflation in 2005 was due to gasoline prices"

Where does it say that?

" If you are poorer in 2005 than you were in 2004, then check in the mirror for the source of the trouble."

The statistics not working, you return to childhood. So nice around here in the ostrich farm.

RenneP, you're killing me with misinformation. Government safety nets already exist in this country for people who need temporary help (unemployment insurance, food stamps, housing subsidies, medicaid, and govt loans), not to mention private charities through churches, etc. (oh I forgot, you couldn't subject yourself or your children in need to religious-based relief).

Renne: "I never said you were racist bastards (not all of you anyway)."
Oh okay, I feel so much better now knowing that you aren't biased towards either Republicans or the South (sarcasm here).

Renne: "However, responding to Jame's post, Southern areas that tend to vote Republicans also tend to be very racists. Yes, I've spent time there, and no I can't speak for the West."
Show me the source, study, methodology and data for your comment. How much time have you spent there? A week on vacation? My guess is you're blowing smoke.

Liberals in America. Take a good look around you. You're living in paradise compared to the rest of the world. Now get back to work.

Mark:

Blaming Clinton for the recession is just as silly as blaming Bush for our unemployment figures. As someone said earlier in the thread, the President does not have the magical powers that we ascribe to him when it comes to the economy. Nonetheless, what our representatives in Congress vote on can have and does have an effect. Also, our non-elected chairman of the Federal Bank, Alan Greenspan (who is retiring this month) can also play with our economy a bit.

Although things do seem to be looking up in 06 (consumer confidence on the rise, unemployment coming down slightly etc), my biggest concern with our economy is the millions of people added to the number of people living in poverty in the last few years (we're at the highest point since the 70's). This is unacceptable and NOT good for the economy in the long run. As I have mentioned in previous threads, the business of corporate America (aka the clients my company services), is wholly dependent on whether or not people can purchase goods and services from them. GM, Ford, P&G--all depend on whether or not people can afford their products. I don't think you can argue that when more people are in poverty, they buy less stuff. This is my concern because my livelihood, that of my employees and that of a wide network of vendors and their employees, all depend on consumer spending power. The stock market does as well. Companies can increase capital expenditures all they want (build more factories), but if the demand for their products declines, those factories will be running at half capacity. Watch our factories closing and see what effect this will have on our economy.

Another area we should all be concerned about is the astronomical debt we have. We have raised the debt ceiling 3 times and we will be bumping up against it again very soon (in February). This has the effect of increasing inflation (which is on the rise, incidentally) and weakening our dollar as well as weakening investor confidence. We cannot continue to let Congress and the White House increase spending EVERY YEAR as they have, while cutting taxes, while being engaged in an expensive overseas conflict. Like my business' line of credit, I can get the bank to raise my limit only so many times before I have to tighten my budget and finally pay off the debts. Luckily, my business is not like our federal government in that when I have debts, I try to cut them down before I think about increasing my budget more than the year before.

So while we should be encouraged at recent figures (you can thank your MSM for reporting them accurately) the increasing levels of poverty in this country and our increased indebtedness should be cause for concern. Instead of misleading your readers by saying that we have a "booming economy," Mark, I believe you should be cautiously optimistic and state that our economy is showing encouraging signs (and you can even add "despite the naysayers" if that makes you feel better). No one is served by being blindly partisan in reporting economic figures, not liberals, not conservatives, not moderates.

Rennie P.
Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; is the second, then you are an oasis in a desert. (G.k. 1925)
Familiar statement isn't it? And you are fast becoming the first of the two.

Rennie P.
Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; is the second, then you are an oasis in a desert. (G.k. 1925)
Familiar statement isn't it? And you are fast becoming the first of the two.

Rennie P.
Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; is the second, then you are an oasis in a desert. (G.k. 1925)
Familiar statement isn't it? And you are fast becoming the first of the two.