I’ve noticed you don’t know what hyperlinks look like, Raj. Maybe you should find out and look at them first.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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?

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.

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.

… 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!

#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.