[okie01]

But all this is irrelevant. The article is simple as could be; All job creation since Bush took office can be fairly attributed to increased government spending.

If you believe their figures and definitions, that is.

I'm inclined to believe this bunch has cooked the books to produce figures which support their hypothesis. The sources and bases for their data -- and how that same data would look on a skewed timescale -- would be illuminating.

You know what they say about "statistics". This case is probably an object demonstration of the point.

[lesser_satan]

Check out the caption below the graph:

*Jobs for the rest of FY2006 based on the 12-month growth rate from December 2004 to December 2005
Source: Author's analysis of CRS, Defense Department, and OMB data.

What sophistry. He's basing his ersatz "analysis" on Dec'04 to Dec'05, when a significant chunk of coastline was annihilated by a hurricane. What drivel. Also, what exactly does FY2006 mean? Fiscal Year, but for whom? When does it start and end?