LOL.  Straight out of the DNC talking points.

As it's been shown to you before, this "bill" increases coverage to people other than children, illegal immigrants, and people who make enough to afford their own insurance. 

I see you don't mention how the povety rates have gone down.




Once again, this includes illegal immigrants, and people who choose not have insurance, or can afford it on their own.

Since you got pummeled in your other thread, I see it was time to start another useless "it's Bush's fault" thread.  LOL!

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Wednesday, August 29, 2007
"Number of people without health coverage jumped from 44.8 Million in 2005 to 47 Million in 2006.

One out of every nine children has no health care and Bush threatens to VETO a bill to add health coverage to another 3.3 Million Children.


. Straight out of the DNC talking points."

Straight out of the U.S. Census Bureau Report! The DNC must be using the U.S. Government data!

Number of people without health coverage jumped from 44.8 Million in 2005 to 47 Million in 2006.


Once again, this includes illegal immigrants, and people who choose not have insurance, or can afford it on their own.

Since you got pummeled in your other thread, I see it was time to start another useless "it's Bush's fault" thread. !

The Illegal immigrants were counted in the 2005 data as well. The reason for much of the increase in the people without coverage is that companies are CUTTING Health benefits and the NEW JOBS that Bush brags about do not have health benefits.

Where is that documented at?  Regardless, if the company doesn't have benefits, it's your choice also to work there.  But that doesn't matter.....lets blame Bush!

FACTS DON'T MATTER AS LONG AS WE CAN BLAME BUSH

I could not find anything on the report about wages. I guess I don't understand it to well but I only saw the word wage once and it wasn't even about the wages just a reference.



Well considering it was below 50,000 in 1999-2000, the difference is not much. Sure, it would have been better to be above it but considering what happened after 9/11 and based on the chart, it's going up as oppose to down so I'm not sure how this is a failure except maybe that it's not above 1999-2000 as oppose to much worse than it.



I'll never understand anyone's stance on this when so many people have already explained this and these numbers do not specify those who really don't have it for bad reasons. Sorry, this number can mean anything without details therefor is not a failure till proved with detail and as far as I've seen it's not a failure.



The veto can be blamed on the Democrats, they chose to change the bill to benefit adults, childless adults, people who's income can reach $80,000. This program was meant to help children, not adults or people with $80,000 incomes. I'm curious if you are willing to explain to me why it's OK to take a bill like this that would have benefited millions of children and change it in this matter as the Democrats have and ruin the chances or these kids getting this great program knowing fully that Bush would veto it because it creates a universal healthcare plan that Bush and many of us Americans do not want? Please Col, if you can be an adult for a moment and convince me of this I will yield to the idea and agree with it. Otherwise the real criminals here are the Democrats for doing this to the children.

I can agree with providing healthcare to children of parents who can't afford it. But only the children.



OK, 8 years that would put Clinton on this as well. Why did you not mention him? Just curious, you like pointing fingers at guilty parties, why not add Clinton as well? This is sad to me, not only is our education down it's actually worse than some other countries who's poverty rates are horrifying. hell, I've heard Cuba's education system is better than ours.

While I can agree with some of your points Col, you seem to make too much of a big deal out of things and won't point to some of the more positive stuff such as a strong economy that continues to grow as oppose to still being a bit below or the lower poverty rate you completely ignored. hell you didn't even scream over the other 12.6 that are still under this category. But as I mentioned before, you strive for you "Borg collective" dreamworld of perfection and nothing will ever satisfy you.

I'll give you a 2 1/2 stars out of 5 for this article.

More people owning homes = fewer people per home = miniscule decrease in median "family" income. Leave it to Gene to try to make good news sound bad.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Wednesday, August 29, 2007
FACTS DON'T MATTER AS LONG AS WE CAN BLAME BUSH


I guess you do not think the facts are favorable. You must be saying that the average family who has LESS income in 2006 then they had in 1999 is negative. Those are the facts.

I have asked the Census Bureau where I can find the Median Family Income change for 1999 to 2006 for the top 10% and top 1% of the population. I have also asked that same question for the bottom 20%. If they provide the answer I will post the data. My guess is that the Median Family Income for the top 1% and top 10% will show a large increase from 1999 to 2006. I also bet the bottom 20% will show a LARGE drop.

The point is that ONLY the wealthy have benefited from the economic policies of the past 6 years!

Gene is just a lunatic footsoldier in the class war.

Since you only answered one part of the question, how about the rest?  The plan that you are taking DNC talking points from includes money for illegal immigrants, people that are not children, and people who make more than enough to afford their own insurance.




Stop blaming the government for peoples failure and poor planning.  You have such a hatred for anyone who makes something of themselves instead of leeching off the system and doing nothing to better themselves except blaming Bush, and blaming the government for not supporting them enough.

no the point is that you haven't benefited from the economic policies of the past 6 years.


everyone on here except dreginal have explained to you how much better they are now than 6 years ago.


dreginal is paying 1 million in taxes every year. i don't know if that is personal taxes only or not. it doesn't matter.

i am not doing better because i really don't care.

who are you to tell someone that they don't need that much money.

they hire maids, gardeners, chauffeurs, cooks, pool maintenance.

if they didn't have all that EXTRA money where would all of these people work.

It's always an excuse, it's always the responsiblity of the government.  That is when a republican is in charge.  Typpical liberal excuses.