Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (50040)	8/15/2006 8:00:54 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

This is not rocket science.......why are you having such difficulty understanding it?" No, it's not, which is why your argument is so astoundingly idiotic. For one to gain "at the expense of" another implies that the other has lost something. That the lowest quintile of households saw their REAL INCOMES RISE BY 42% clearly shows that they have lost NOTHING. Let's try it this way........there are ten pieces of gum. The rich control 6 of those ten pieces. The poor and middle class control 4 pieces. The number of pieces increases to 20. The rich now control 14 pieces; the other two classes 6 pieces. All groups saw their pieces increase. However, the rich controlled 60% of the pieces when there were ten pieces but now that there are twenty pieces, they control 70%. While the poor and middle class saw their pieces increase, their share declined while the rich saw their share increase. Hence, the rich are benefiting at the expense of the other classes. Now was that so difficult? Next time try to do it on your own and save me the post. TIA.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (50040)	8/30/2006 5:30:09 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I wonder how many of the top 1% lost their health insurance during the past five years? If poor people are doing so well, why are they giving up their health insurance, o brilliant one? Just one more example of the rich getting richer at the expense of the middle and lower classes! Number of Americans without health insurance continues to grow By Tony Pugh McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON - One of the nation's most vexing public-health problems deepened last year as the number of Americans without health insurance jumped by 1.3 million to 46.6 million, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Children accounted for 8.3 million of the uninsured, up from 7.9 million in 2004. Nearly 1 in 5 impoverished children lacked coverage in 2005, and 22 percent of Hispanic children were uninsured. The new estimates, part of an annual census survey, mark the fifth straight year that the ranks of the uninsured have increased. The new data, which show that nearly 16 percent of Americans lack health coverage, caught many by surprise because unemployment rates were fairly stable last year. "I thought we'd have a little reprieve," said Dr. Catherine Hoffman, senior researcher at the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. "But the problem doesn't seem to be abating even though the economy seemed to have settled in 2005." The spike in uninsured children, from 10.8 percent in 2004 to 11.2 percent in 2005, is the first in nearly a decade, Hoffman said. Most experts cited the cost-driven decline of employer-based health coverage and private insurance for the overall increase. The report also had more upbeat news. After increasing for four straight years, the nation's poverty rate held steady at 12.6 percent in 2005. And the median household income - the point at which half of households earn more and half less - increased for the first time since 1999, by 1.1 percent to $46,326. But a closer look tells a more complex story. For the second straight year, full-time male employees saw their earnings decline in 2005, while their female counterparts took a similar hit for the third straight year. The median earnings for men fell 1.8 percent to $41,400. Women saw a 1.3 percent decline to $31,900. "It's a bizarre situation where the pie is growing pretty dramatically but most people's slices are getting smaller said Harry Holzer, a visiting fellow at the Urban Institute and former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor. That wasn't true, however, for high-income workers. The 20 percent of U.S. households with the highest income accounted for more than half the total U.S. household income in 2005. That disparity has widened over the last 10 years, "indicating a higher level of income inequality than in 1995," said David Johnson, the chief of housing and household economic statistics at the Census Bureau. "Also, the share of total income received by the highest 20 percent of households has increased, while the shares received by those in the lowest 60 percent have declined." The conflicting data reflect growing concern that despite 2 million new jobs in 2005 and consistent gains in productivity, real wages for working Americans haven't kept pace with inflation. Rising costs for food, energy and health care are eroding a greater share of wages for the middle class and working poor. Those concerns could weigh on voters in the fall. "Today's numbers are more proof that middle-class life is growing less affordable and less secure under this Republican Congress," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It is time to take this country in a new direction, with a Congress that responds to the challenges the American people face every day." The Bush administration and Republican congressional leaders focused on the report's positive data to deflect Democratic attacks and tout the economy's strength. "While we still have challenges ahead, our ability to bounce back is a testament to the strong work ethic of the American people, the resiliency of our economy and pro-growth economic policies, including tax relief," said Rob Portman, the director of the Office of Management and Budget at the White House. Said Carolyn Weyforth, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.: "Yes, there are some disconcerting numbers that Senator Frist feels that Congress must continue to address, but by no means do these numbers mean that the economy is anything but strong and continuing to grow." The accuracy of census poverty figures has come under scrutiny because they exclude family expenses such as out-of-pocket medical costs and child care. They also don't adjust for cost-of-living differences in urban and rural areas or consider the effects of federal anti-poverty programs such as food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit and housing subsidies. As a result, "there are a lot fewer poor families over time than the official measures indicate," said Bruce Meyer, a professor of public policy at the University of Chicago and an expert on welfare and unemployment policy. For a copy of the survey, go to www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf. ---http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15391773.htm