I didn't say "inflation" now did I? I said "high inflation". HIGH inflationary rates are a BAD BAD thing. Ask any accountant (I know this, I have a degree in accounting as well as my JD.) Ordinary inflation is expected and adjusted for over long periods of time. Frequent adjustments to the lending rates means that inflation is not in check. Which is one of the signals of a poor economy since a stable economy grows at a low rate of inflation and lending rates don't need adjustment as often or in large amouts. 1/4 point rate increases every few months for over the course of the last 2 years is not a sign of stability. It's a sign of instability.
Wrong. The Fed is adjusting the overnight rate because of inflation PER GREENSPAN'S TESTIMONY. If you're going to argue what the Fed does, it pays to listen to the testimony when the Fed Chairman talks about what they're doing and why. Coming up with pretty phrases like "moderated entity" are meaningless even though they sound like you know something. Smoke & mirrors when you are trying to discuss factual issues aren't the best method for a convincing argument.
Monthly unemployment rates are only valuable for determining if an adjustment in the lending rates is warranted (along with other data). Yearly unemployment rates show the long term trend that occurs as a result of adjustments and inflation. Monthly rates are too volatile from too many variables to use for this type of thing.
But, by your own linky to the Misery index, you PROVE that GB's tax plans, budgetary plan, and financial "fixes" aren't working and are actually contributing to the economy problem. Check your chart - it shows that for the last 4 yrs on the chart, unemployment has been higher than when he took office. I wonder how you explain how Clinton could cause unemployment to go up several years AFTER he left office? The answer is simple, he couldn't unless either his sucessor is incompetent and continues the financial planning of his predecessor OR the sucessor is incompetent period.
An unemployment rate in excess of 5 1/2% is NOT "low" nor does the chart lend credence to your claim that it's "stable". A low rate would be 3.5% to 4%. A stable rate would be around 4-4.5%. The index show that high rates are those in excess of 5%. Your own "debunking" proof tends to unravel your argument and rationale.
A low rate goes along with a stable economy. For example: The 1960's were a time when the economy was stable, food prices were fair, home prices affordable, and life was liveable (outside of the Vietnam issue). The index shows that unemployment during that time was less than 5% for 6 of the 10 yrs. 60% of the time the rate was under 5%. Pretty stable time given the temultuous political & social climate. However, when you consider that 3 of the last 4 yrs on the index (2000-2004) have ALL been in excess of 5% and we already know that 2005 will be in excess also, this lends credence to the proposition that today is NOT "stable and low" when it comes to unemployment. Again, your own proof refutes you.
Lets see, Reagan was a Republican wasn't he? So was GHW Bush. And they BOTH had high unemployment rates along with huge inflation issues. So does G-dub. I wonder if there's a connection in there somplace??? Maybe their economic plans have a recurring flaw? Looking at the index we can see that during those times when Clinton held office the unemployment rates actually went down and STAYED down. Again, coincidence? I think not and your "proof" corroborates the proposition that the current admin is not creating a good healthy economy and in fact they are doing the opposite.
While I admit that the current economy is not as bad as it was in the early 80's, it's STILL bad. Adoring praise for your political candidate of choice does not change that fact. Neither does it put food in the mouths of the hungry nor a roof over their heads.
and I now want to add this for those remaining "radical gwb regardless republicans":barf: 
that occured during his first term. The only people realizing an "improvement" from gwb are his rich and upper level croonies. 
Also, anyone who thinks the President of the United STates does not have a profound impact and influence on any aspect of amrican life and policies is perhaps a shovel or two shy of a wheel barrow load.