As the economy continues to hum along, with new jobs created and unemployment as low as, if not lower than, it was in the 1980s and 1990s, the New York Times reports: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.” Steep rise in revenue from the wealthy? Hmm. . . . that doesn’t seem to square with what the president’s critics have been saying about the tax cuts he signed.
I mean, let’s see, the president got most of his tax cut package through Congress and then signed the bills into law and now look — the New York Times reports a “steep rise in tax revenues” from the wealthy. Something’s wrong here. Were the president’s critics wrong to contend that the president’s tax cuts primarily benefited the wealthy?
Or maybe it was something else. . . .
I’ve got it! The president’s package only cut taxes on wealthy conservatives. Meanwhile dark genius Karl Rove has been staffing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with his minions and has been using secret protocols in the tax code to levy higher taxes on wealthy liberals. Yes, that must be it. Another Rovean plot. That man’s a genius!
Higher tax revenues coming from wealthy liberals means they’ll have less money to give to congressional Democrats, the various Democratic committees and left-wing 527s, making Republican victory much easier in this fall’s elections! Thanks, Karl!
Your sarcasm is a bit too subtle, and misses the important issue that the NYT et al have always and will always miss: Higher tax revenues have ALWAYS occured when taxes are cut. There’s nothing “unexpected” about it. Less transfer of wealth to the government always means more private sector productivity which always leads to more taxes paid. Happens every time. It’s not expected by the NYT et al because they … well … they’re not paying attention?
A change that requires you to pay 10% of your taxes instead of 15% is a tax cut. Bush cut tax RATES, while your story is about tax REVENUES. You understand there is a difference, don’t you?
I don’t suppose you would care to do an HONEST comparison, and discuss apples and apples for once, would you?
JDoors–
That depends on how long you want to wait, doesn’t it? In FY2001, 2002, and 2003, tax revenues FELL each year from the previous year. Why do tax cuts get the credit for increased revenues four years later, when you weren’t willing to give them the blame for lower revenues in the intervening three?
The fact is that higher revenues did NOT occur after the rates were cut. Revenues fell after the rates were cut, and continued to fall for three consecutive years. Three years is more than enough time to call a causal connection into question. Using your logic, just about ANY fiscal policy can be given the credit or blame for ANY outcome… just wait long enough and then claim a connection. Where is the proof that a cut in tax rates is NOT responsible for lower revenues in the subsequent three years, but somehow responsible for higher revenues in the fourth?
More to the point, revenues as a percentage of GDP are still well below 1999 levels (17.5 vs. 20). So the rates haven’t really resulted in higher revenues relative to the size of the economy. The government is still getting less revenue than it would have under the old rates. That is a tax cut (moreover, coupled with the Republican Congress spending like drunken sailors and Bush’s failure to veto a single appropriations bill, it is a recipe for an additional $2 TRILLION in debt).
Compared to 1999, revenues are still down. In fact, the last time revenues relative to GDP were this low was in 1993… when a tax INCREASE allowed Clinton to submit four balanced budgets in a row to the Congress. Considering that the Republicans are now spending 10% more than they were in 1999, it boggles the mind to think how you can consider this policy to be fiscally responsible.
Anonymous: Lower taxes equals higher revenue, that’s the entire point. Do you understand there’s a connection? If my pay goes up my spending may go up too. Income and expenses are apples and oranges, but that does not mean there’s no correlation between the two. The tax rate is not the same as tax revenue, but there is a correlation. (AGJ, I told you you were too subtle … )
jdoors- I’m not an economist but didn’t clinton have pretty high taxes AND revenues, particularly in 98 and 99?
Well, just got back from looking up tax revenues and they have increased every year since the Bush cuts were enacted, including record receipts after one year. Anon: Interesting that you’d tip over the apple cart after complaining about an apples and oranges comparison: “As a percent of … ” etc. We could get into a statistical battle but I’ll just leave it at: I’m happy I’m paying less taxes and I’m happy the government is receiving higher (than expected, according to the NYT) revenue. Les, I’d have to go back to looking up the actual numbers and to be honest, I’m not that into it right now. Sorry.
Well said, J Doors. 🙂
A well-said untruth JDoors. Let’s look at the data from the Congressional Budget Office (I notice that you continue to post evidence-free messages).
Source: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
Revenues in billions of dollars:
2000: 2,025.5
2001: 1,991.4
2002: 1,853.4
2003: 1,782.5
2004: 1,880.3
2005: 2,153.9
Revenues relative to the size of the economy:
2000: 20.9
2001: 19.8
2002: 17.9
2003: 16.5
2004: 16.3
2005: 17.5
By any measure you want to use, revenues DECLINED after the Bush tax cuts, the first of which took effect in early 2001. 2001 was less than 2000. 2002 was less than 2001. And so on and so on. And they kept declining, both in dollar amount and relative to the rest of the economy, for several years in a row. Your statement, unsupported by any facts or figures or sources, is simply false. (Perhaps GPW should have done that bit of fact-checking BEFORE he agreed with you. Was GPW just agreeing with you because he liked your conclusion, rather than that he had checked your facts and found them to be accurate? Or is “well said” the customary response to someone posting fake facts on one’s blog?)
What was the source you used when you were “looking up the tax revenues”, JDoors? You don’t say. Please give us your source, and explain why the Congressional Budget Office is producing such wildly contradictory figures.
And, considering the above facts, I can see why you aren’t into looking at the ACTUAL numbers… they are pretty damning, aren’t they? Why go look at “the actual figures” when you can just make a false assertion of fact without any proof whatsoever and get praised for it, eh?
I always wondered what would happen if…..
100% of the super “rich” got tired of paying the highest tax rates in America. (The top 1% of Americans pay 34% of the federal taxes)
What if Columbia or Granada said…”hey come on over here, we’ll only charge you 10% taxes.” And the super rich just left.(Like thousands of Brits did in the 70’s) Thesuccessful in America usually pony up but it must kill them to not only get no thanks but to be reviled by the MSM.
When my friends bitch about the “rich” I now quickly say, yeah okay let’s jus take em out and shoot em, get it over with. Problem is replacing the 34% of their tax revenues.
Tom ranted…
Wingnuts are self centered idiots. Only concerned about themselves and those who can afford the dues to the local country club. That bottom 50%, the ones that are in real trouble, you couldn’t care less about. Your too busy buying that 10,000 sq.foot home behind that gated community. Pathetic!! Gay man here. Patriot you make me sick!
This is a joke post, right? RIGHT?
Please????
Otherwise, I’ll just be forced to assume that Trotsky is using Tom to communicate to the proletariat from beyond the grave.
Have a great day, people.
Eric in Hollywood
Two words for the economics-illiterate:
Laffer curve.
RWP–
Two more: Pecorino and Samuelson.
Both of them proven wrong by reality. Keynes belongs in the garbage, next to that copy of Marx.
Still no comment from the Peanut Gallery about the Congressional Budget Office figures…
Just to let you all know, Anonymous is not I, but I appreciate the fact that someone else is willing to comment with evidence here. Unlike most people. Including more than a few of the posters on the posts on the main page.
This is garbage, at least in the US, where supply side economists have been in charge of the economy. Poverty levels have remained stable around 4.7% for the last twenty years.
Further, the average American living below the poverty line has a TV, a vehicle, air conditioning, a VCR, and a larger living area than the average Euroweenie.
Tom (above) — KUDOS! Agree with all posts!!!
#18 RightWRONGprof, I don’t know where you get your statistics, but the census bureau reports a much higher percentage of people living at or below poverty level. Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau, the nation’s official poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003. Thats a helluva lot higher than 4.7% (wtf??). The number of people with health insurance increased by 1.0 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, and the number without such coverage rose by 1.4 million to 45.0 million. The percentage of the nation’s population without coverage grew from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 15.6 percent in 2003. And it’s getting worse. If there WAS in increase in the number of people with health insurance, it’s because they got it through their employers. Most people, other than sr’s on medicare have health insurance only if it’s tied to their employers. This is a F*****D up system!!! We’re the only developed, industrialized nation in the world, other than South Africa, who does not provide universal health care for ALL its citizens.
To have the optimum happy, productive, low-crime society that we’d all love to have, there MUST be a better social safety net, one much better than what we have now. If we had universal healthcare and a better unemployment insurance program, as a society, we’d be much better off (even if we had to pay a little more in taxes to maintain it). Even middle–upper middle class families are having a tough time paying for health insurance premiums now because of skyrocketing rates (which the government could easily regualte, but does NOThing about). Being in HR, I talk with these people ALL the time. One of the main reasons they are looking to switch jobs is to find better/cheaper health insurance (these are people already making good money, not the lower income people). This never used to be an issue.
Not everyone has the opportunity to complete college and get those high paying jobs. Life deals us some shitty hands sometimes, regardless of the choices we make. Do you GOPers really think that the same people who clean your homes/offices, landscape your lawns, clean up shit and lift on disabled people/seniors in hospitals and nursing homes (some of whom may be one of your parents, or grand parents), wait tables in the restaurants you dine in (and/or sling your fast food hash), work in the stores you shop in, drive the cabs you ride in for their entire working lives will have a nice, hefty nest egg to draw from when they retire? And even those few who do manage to put something away — would they be able to afford astronomical healthcare premiums without medicade/medicare by that time. Do you even begIN to appreciate the work that these people do for the shit minimum wages the make? Apparently not. What happened to the ‘compassionate’ in ‘compassionate conservative??’ Kinda went away after the election, didn’t it?
Unless there are some drastic changes, like enacting an effective universal healthcare policy, and much better unemployment insurance/disablility income policies, and much better funding for our public health (more specifically, MEntal health), it will get to the point where we won’t be able to walk into/out of our homes or office buildings, stores, or any other public buildings without 150+ hungry homeless people begging for handouts (as opposed to the one or two one might see nowadays). Many of these will be sick or disabled because they weren’t able to get the essential medical care they needed. Many of our public schools are already slums. Do want them to get even worse? Not every parent can afford to put their children into private schools. I acknowledge that some of our infrastructure problems are due to lax immigration policies, but it’s also due to our total lack of compassion and humanity for our fellow human beings (a trait which you republicans seem to bask in because you have such high moral standards, and ABSOLUTELY NO hatred for anyone), perpetuated by republicanGREED economic policies. A few more tax dollars which wouldn’t even put a dent in those multi-million dollar nest eggs AIN’t gonna kill ya. I’d happily pay higher taxes to live in a society with a strong social safety net for those who need it.
“the average American living below the poverty line has a TV, a vehicle, air conditioning, a VCR, and a larger living area than the average Euroweenie…”
… no health insurance, no guarantee of access to health care, a monstrous debt burden (both public and private), no savings, no pension, affordable public transportation, and no wars to suck up their blood and treasure. Oh, those poor Euroweenies! How do they ever get by? Sure they have universal healthcare, BUT THEY HAVE NO VCRs!!!!! Oh, the humanity!
Oops… edit to my last post. The census report wasn’t “released today” as it states. This was from an earlier census bureau report. I just forgot to edit that out.
Oh, and just a quick add-on to Tom’s #10 post:
The primary reason for the heavy debt load most families are carrying these days is due to the high costs of healthcare. Premiums are beyOND outrageous, but if there is any kind of catastrophe, requiring surgical procedures, or cancer treatments i.e. chemotherapy, or even just long term prescription meds for people with chronic conditions, the out of pocket costs are enormous nowadays. Do you GOPers really think this is hunky-dory? Really? Over the years, I’ve heard so many conservatives balk at any kind of tax increase for ANything….Until something catastrophic happens to them, or one of their beloved family members, and they have to seek help from a public healthcare system, or, God forbid, the SS system… Then they start singing a different tune.
By any measure you want to use, revenues DECLINED after the Bush tax cuts, the first of which took effect in early 2001. 2001 was less than 2000. 2002 was less than 2001. And so on and so on. And they kept declining, both in dollar amount and relative to the rest of the economy, for several years in a row.
Are you aware of the fact that the tax cuts did not all come in simultaneously?
Table 1a shows the general income and estate tax cuts. Under the 2001 tax cut, the highest income tax rates ultimately decline by different amounts. The top rate declines from 39.6% in 2000 to an eventual level of 35%. The 28%, 31%, and 36% rates ultimately fall by 3 percentage points. These reductions were scheduled to be gradual under the 2001 Act: all four rates were reduced by 0.5 percentage points on July 1, 2001, and January 1, 2002, and were scheduled to be reduced by an additional percentage point at the beginning of 2004. At the beginning of 2006, the top rate was scheduled to fall by 2.6 percentage points, while the next three rates were scheduled to fall by 1 percentage point. The 2003 tax cut accelerated the reductions scheduled for 2004 and 2006 to the beginning of 2003. The reduced rates are in effect through 2010.
Therefore, since the last major jump of these came into being in 2003, by your logic, revenues should have fallen between 2003 and 2004, and should be continuing to fall.
However, your own source demonstrates that they rose sharply, even after the enactment of this large cut in rates — and, most ironically, even though those cuts were on the HIGHEST tax brackets.
Perhaps one of these days, Anonymous, you will learn to analyze before you make pronouncements. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
It’s all in the statistic you choose to use. Those same CBO charts (http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical) also show the following: (Table 2) Revenue at 17.5% of GDP is in line with the historical average through the 60s and early 70s. The 19-20% range of the late Clinton years were aberrantly high.
Table 4 shows that the percentage of revenue from personal income taxes (now 7.5% of GDP) is toward the lower end of the spectrum since 1962, but is not unheard of. Same goes for the unually high percentages of the late Clinton years.
Combining the info from the CBO charts with the consumer price index (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost) is also informative.
Using 1967 = 100 as a baseline, the overall CPI as of Dec 2005 was 565.8. Stick in the numbers from the CBO charts:
Total revenue (Table 1) in 1967 was $148.8 billion x 5.658 = $841.9 billion in 2005 dollars, yet revenue in 2005 was $2,153.9. 2005 total revenue was 256% HIGHER than if it had grown merely at the rate of inflation since 1967. Comment: yet compare the relatively constant percentages of GDP above and consider how much more productive our economy is today than it was then.
Total outlays (Table 1) in 1967 were $157.5 billion x 5.658 = $891.14 billion in 2005 dollars, yet outlays in 2005 were $2,472.2 billion. 2005 total outlays were 277% HIGHER than if they had merely grown at the rate of inflation since 1967. Comment: yet compare with the GDP percentages above.
Debt (Table 1) in 1967 was $266.6 billion x 5.658 = $1,508.4 billion in 2005 dollars, yet debt in 2005 was $4,592.2 billion. 2005 Debt was 304% HIGHER than if it had merely grown at the rate of inflation since 1967. Conclusion: Take your pick – cut spending/raise taxes.
Discretionary spending (Table 5) in 1967 was $106.5 billion x 5.658 = $602.6 billion in 2005 dollars, yet discretionary spending in 2005 was $967.9 billion. 2005 discretionary spending was 161% HIGHER than if it had grown merely at the rate of inflation since 1967. Conclusion: Congress is a bunch of spendthrifts.
Mandatory Spending (Table 5) in 1967 was $50.9 billion x 5.658 = $288 billion in 2005 dollars, yet 2005 mandatory spending was $1,446.1 billion. 2005 Mandatory spending was 502% HIGHER than if it had grown merely at the rate of inflation since 1967. Conclusion: Entitlements are out of control – and this doesn’t include the prescription drug debacle.
There’s also population to consider (http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt):
1967 = 198,712,056
2006 = 299,193,263
I might try crunching some of those numbers after my head stops spinning.
Government spends more money on a problem. The problem gets bigger. Liberal response: gov’t needs more money! Does it ever occur to you that the government is inherently wasteful with the money that we’re siphoning out of the free market and actually contributing to the problems that you think GOPers don’t care about? Ever occur to you that people could have better-paying jobs and be able to afford healthcare if the cost wasn’t being driven up by excessive regulation and massive contributors to demand like subsidies that get abused due to poor oversight? I’m a conservative that cares and that’s why I want solutions that actually work. If we want needs met, we need to increase productivity. Slinging around a bunch of paper doesn’t do that. It just reduces the value of the paper.
Dalebert–
“Government spends more money on a problem. The problem gets bigger. Liberal response: gov’t needs more money!”
Conservative response: gov’t spends money it doesn’t have!
If this is the “liberal response”, then please explain the No Child Left Behind Act, the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, new money for rebuilding Iraq, new money for rebuilding Afghanistan, new money for rebuilding the Mississippi Gulf Coast, more money for border patrol, and so on and so on and so on. These are all REPUBLICAN attempts to throw money at problems… so why are you all hung up on liberals?
At least when liberals had influence over the federal budget, they were spending within their means. Clinton submitted four balanced budgets in a row. For almost thirty years, the GOP party platform included a call for a balanced budget amendment… but it mysteriously disappeared in 2004 and hasn’t been seen since. Why is that?
“I notice that you continue to post evidence-free messages.” You sir, are a master-baiter. I saw that from the start and you proved my instincts to be correct. Your posts before the one with this quote contained no evidence either, so how do you have the nerve to bait me with that question? Your follow-up post(s) contains more of the same. I’m sorry I didn’t make it clear enough, I am not going to be baited into a statistics shoot-out. Your post contains a good example of why that’s a waste of time: You brought up a statistic that wasn’t in the original article, revenue as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). I’m not looking up the numbers (much to your delight, I’m sure) but as an example, if the GDP rises much, much, faster than tax revenues (which it did) then your number, pulled out of thin air in this case, can be used to make things look negative (even if tax revenues are rising at a decent clip). You’re wasting everyone’s time with your permanent pessimism.
“Quite high-5ing each other and get real!!!”
Don’t even bother. It’s business as usual here in Patriotville. If the news, as reported, favors the Bush story, the Patriots don’t question it. If it doesn’t favor Bush, they analyze the messenger’s motives and dismiss the message. Facts matter nothing here. Census Bureau reports? Why that’s just, you know, STATISTICS.
I’ve learned to read this site as an example of what Suskind reported as the far right’s contempt for “reality-based thinking.” It can be quite entertaining. Just keep in mind that, Bush’s approval is in the toilet because most Americans have learned to be suspicious of anything he and his administration claim.
Of course that’s the mainstream media’s fault! He’s actually a briliant leader. Oh and of course it’s also true that the Patriots are OFTEN critical of Bush. Uh huh.
“the average American living below the poverty line has a TV, a vehicle, air conditioning, a VCR, and a larger living area than the average Euroweenie…”
All of which cost money that they could use to buy health insurance — and, in many cases, create additional and unnecessary debt.
It’s called a) setting priorities and b) living within your means.
Furthermore, if rich leftists think it’s so important for the poor to have health insurance, why don’t they buy it for them themselves? John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, and others are multimillionaires or multi-billionaires. Why do they try to tax others, instead of spending their own wealth on pet causes?
Answer that, Tom; since you leftists think the rich are evil, why don’t you demand that your multimillionaire Democrats give up all their money?
These are all REPUBLICAN attempts to throw money at problems… so why are you all hung up on liberals?
Because the common complaint from liberals on all of them was that not enough money was being spent and that they wanted to spend MORE.
If this is the “liberal response”, then please explain the No Child Left Behind Act, the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, new money for rebuilding Iraq, new money for rebuilding Afghanistan, new money for rebuilding the Mississippi Gulf Coast, more money for border patrol, and so on and so on and so on. These are all REPUBLICAN attempts to throw money at problems… so why are you all hung up on liberals?
Pisses you off that the liberals aren’t in power throwing the money around, eh?
At least when liberals had influence over the federal budget, they were spending within their means. Clinton submitted four balanced budgets in a row.
That’s easy to do when you include Socialist Stupidity and other numbers you’re not supposed to.
Look it up while you’re finding the balls to come up with a better identity.
#32 ThatGayConservative — July 12, 2006 @ 6:42 am – July 12, 2006
Someone wrote: At least when liberals had influence over the federal budget, they were spending within their means. Clinton submitted four balanced budgets in a row.
You wrote: That’s easy to do when you include Socialist Stupidity and other numbers you’re not supposed to.
You aren’t seriously contending that “unified budgeting” (i.e., including SS in with the general budge) began with Clinton, are you? Don’t be silly. It began with Johnson. And it was used to great effect by St. Ronald, he of Reagan’s 1983 SS commission, headed St. Alan, he of Greenspan, to effect massive SS tax increases thereby to offset the looming projected federal deficits that were projected due to Reagan’s income tax reductions.
Changes in 1983 for fiscal stability (scroll down)
I know that the nutty self-described “conservatives” nowadays want to blame everything on Clinton. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic.
Though I have no source to cite, I’ve seen a “chronic poverty” number similar to 4.7% before. It refers to that portion of the population perpetually in poverty. The remainder of the census bureau number are temporarily in poverty (new immigrant, job loss, sudden health problems, etc.) but don’t stay there very long. Both numbers are important to public policy considerations as the members of each group have considerably different needs.
Also, beware the number. The county I live in is listed at 15% below poverty level, well above the national average. Yet this county is widely recognized as the most affluent in the state. Why the discrepancy? We have 28,000 “poor” college students — individuals temporarily considered poor because they have little income, few assets and big debt, but who will likely have very comfortable incomes in just a few years. But they will be replaced by another group of “poor” students, keeping the statistic high.
I stand behind my comments. George Bush is a liberal too as proven by the examples that you gave. You think I’m not even more pissed than you about all that spending?
Air conditioning and adequate living space is “unnecessary debt”? Your heartless!!
Let me remind you of the original quote:
“the average American living below the poverty line has a TV, a vehicle, air conditioning, a VCR, and a larger living area than the average Euroweenie…”
Now, you explain to me how the socialist paradises you worship can get away with less living space, no VCR, and in several cases, no air conditioning without being called “heartless”, but Americans can’t.
By the way, the reason in a lot of cases that they don’t have them is that they are forced to pay a third to a half of their income in taxes to support their social welfare systems. It tends to limit one’s discretionary spending to the bare essentials.
The main difference between our system and Europe’s is that European countries legally force people to buy health insurance through higher taxes. In ours, the poor our generally not taxed; instead, they are allowed to keep more money so they can buy their own necessities, such as health insurance, instead of being dependent on government to provide them.
Instead, they go out and buy air conditioners, TVs, VCRs, and living spaces with more room than they need (which also proportionately increases their utility bills and other costs).
If healthcare is such a priority for these families, why don’t they forego things they don’t need and buy it instead? And if you want to provide free healthcare to these families by taking money from “the rich”, why don’t you start with multimillionaire and multibillionaire Democrats who allegedly support it?
This ignorant, immature and totally unsympathetic rant is so out there and unworkable it’s not worth commenting on.
That’s because you can’t, you coward.
Isn’t it amazing how leftists like you rail and fling hate against the wealthy, but then refuse to enforce it against your party’s own multimillionaires and multi-billionaires?
Because you’re hypocrites.
Here’s some more examples of leftist hypocrisy from Tom:
That bottom 50%, the ones that are in real trouble, you couldn’t care less about. Your too busy buying that 10,000 sq.foot home behind that gated community. Pathetic!! Gay man here. Patriot you make me sick!
You mean like the ones John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, and Ted Kennedy have?
But when it comes to attacking them, you just run away with your tail tucked between your legs — and start demanding that working-class Americans pay higher taxes so your Democrats can live their lives of luxury.
Make Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, and Soros live the lives of poverty and overtaxation you demand for everyone else first.
No it’s not. The data I just provided helps to prove that. I even provided sources. How bout that?
I dare you to put in the hyperlink to the site from which you pulled that. 🙂
Mainly, because I can shoot a lot of holes in your argument.
For example:
71% increase in health care premiums over 2000. The typical family health insurance premium is now $4532 a year more then in 2000. (Kaiser Family Foundation)
Tha’s pretty good, because, according to REAL Kaiser Family Foundation data, the “typical family health insurance premium” given to covered workers that said family actually PAID averaged, for all plans, $2,713.
Therefore, according to your data, in 2000, the average family health insurance premium was $-1819.
Care to reconcile that point?
#39 North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2006 @ 3:15 am – July 13, 2006
Given your inability to reconcile what you claimed over at IndeGayForm the Wall Street Journal supposedly reported, with the data from the survey on which the survey report was supposedly based, I wouldn’t believe much of anything that you posted regarding statistics.
LOL…says the man without references.
I’ve noticed you don’t know what hyperlinks look like, Raj. Maybe you should find out and look at them first.