But you can't discount or ignore them. You are generalizing the idea. How do you know how many people would rather not have company insurance? You don't know that, you can not prove it.



I thought you said not all 2.2 million were Americans. Last I checked illegals were not legal citizens of the US. And again you ignore the part where some also chose not to have insurance and you also ignore that some of these people work for companies that don't offer insurance. I worked 12 month from July 2006 till May of 2007 with no insurance cause I was from a temp agency. It was not because it was taken away from me. You also ignore those who have part time jobs that do not offer insurance and those with personal businesses who don't have insurance because they can afford doctors themselves. You only see the foam on top of the beer and ignore the beer itself underneath it.



Wrong, I already gave you several reason for people not having insurance other than losing it. Ever wonder Col, do you think the Census Bureau follows every single American in the US from Jan 1st 2005 till Jan 1st 2006 day after day after day for 365 days a year? Or does it ever occur to you that chances are many or most of these 2.2 million and maybe even many or most of the other 40,000 plus Americans without insurance might have gotten insurance by the time this report was released? As you like to say, regardless of what you say, you can not prove or this prove this.



No one ever said it was a good thing, why do you put words in peoples mouths? Why do you make up peoples opinions? You are not a fair, just and sincere.



Yea, leave it to you to use dictionary definitions to manage economy and finances. If you wanna get technical here then you would be considered a traitor:

From Websters Dictionary TRAITOR-one who commits treason
From Websters Dictionary TREASON-the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.

To argue Col gene is not a "TRAITOR" is ludicrous.

i know what the word needs mean.

NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION who are you to tell someone that you don't know what they do or don't NEED. who died and made you god.

It has NOTHING to do with me telling anyone anything. It has to do with what NEED MEANS. NO multi millionaire could possibly meet the definition of NEED—to be necessary, to be compelled or required, a condition requiring relief, a condition of poverty. Thus to argue that a person like Cheney who had an income last year of almost two million dollars NEEDS a tax cut is totally absurd and completely indefensible given the definition of NEED. He may WANT the Tax Cut but he does not NEED the tax cut!

again you don't answer the question. do you know that gates donates 300 million a year. and with an increase in cash he might be able to donate more. do you know that gates kids only get 300 million when he dies. everything else goes to charity.


now, how do you know that dreginal doesn't take care of 50 people that you know nothing about. how do you know if dreginal doesn't have a horrible disease or something else. you don't know. you cannot say what anybody needs unless you are them.

for instance i only need 1000 a month to live on. i only get 623 a month to live on. disabilities.


sorry dreginal but your the closest person i know of that is rich.

Poor people don't NEED color TV's.

Poor people don't NEED to have cable.

Poor people don't NEED 2 or more cars.

Notice how "need" is only applied to rich people that gene is obviously jealous of.

https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=259&aid=161318#1292716

Really? That's kinda funny because it's the need that drives them to make more money. Again you are basing economics and finances on a dictionary term and like I said if you wanna get technical you fall under the term traitor as I stated above.

Island Dog made a great example:



I will add to this

Multi Millionaires NEED money to make money
Multi Millionaires NEED money to run their businesses
Multi Millionaires NEED money to create more jobs
Multi Millionaires NEED money to pay their employees

Want more? Give all the excuses you want. You wanna convince people that just because they have money that they don't need any more. That's not up to you to decided. I wouldn't have this job I have today if Rinker wasn't making a lot of money. And working in the Accounting Dept makes me realize just how much they need the money.

Gene is a clueless class warrior, nothing more. Actually, a classless class warrior.  

Maybe his name is gene cause he was missing one and decided to add it to his name.

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007
Poor people don't NEED color TV's.

Poor people don't NEED to have cable.

Poor people don't NEED 2 or more cars.

Notice how "need" is only applied to rich people that gene is obviously jealous of.

AND WEALTHY PEOPLE DID NOT NEED A TAX CUT!

Reply By: CharlesCS1 Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007
Gene is a clueless class warrior, nothing more. Actually, a classless class warrior.


Maybe his name is gene cause he was missing one and decided to add it to his name.

YOU are JUST DUMB!!!

So I take it you agree then that anyone who has those things are not considered poor?

Just wanted to put my two cents worth in about the US census. True the US census publishesa report every tex years. However, the census bureau has people working constantly collecting data on people residing - legal, illegal, naturalized and born in the US.

I work for the State I live in and do the research for the Status of Women. This means I visit all Federal and State data sites. The information is correct as stated. Since healthcare is a big issue for women - the rising cost of healthcare is making it very difficult for the average person to purchase good healthcare insurance. Most small to mid-size companies cannot afford to cost share healthcare coverage anymore and most opt out not because they don't want health coverage, they just can't afford it. If you don't believe me check out the cost of insurance for a family of four. Put yourself in the place of the employer and then as the employee (young person just starting out) average median income of $40,000 a year.

Also, yes we do have few people living in total poverty, but we also have a large gap between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". The middle is shrinking and this will cause greater problems in the future.

First the Census Bureau has just released the data on the Economy and health Care in America. Here are the results from the past 6 years:

Average Annual wage after Inflation is down for both men and women workers.

Median Family Income after Inflation is below the level at the start of 2000.

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.


SAT scores in Math and Reading are down for the 8th year in a row.

most of these are not children.






according to the company that does this test they say it is a good thing. don't remember why.

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007
AND WEALTHY PEOPLE DID NOT NEED A TAX CUT!


So I take it you agree then that anyone who has those things is not considered poor?
NO People are poor when they can not afford food, clothing, health care, transportation and place to live. Some people make bad choices when they purchase some things they may not need. That does not mean they are NOT POOR.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007
3.3 Million Children.


most of these are not children.
YOU ARE FULL OF BS!

Today the Editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer documented that Bush is up to his old tricks-- Cherry Picking information to make him look good. Just like with the intelligence on WMD in Iraq, yesterday Bush was beaming like a new Father when he announced the Census data that shows Median Family Income was UP in 2006 over 2005. That is true and is the ONLY part of the Census Report that Bush acknowledged. The fact that the Median Family Income in 2006 is still BELOW the Median Family Income when he took office was not mentioned. Bush also ignored the Census data that showed that Average Annual Income for both male and female workers was DOWN in 2006 for the third year in a row. HOW then is Median Family Income up? The Average American worker worked MORE hours in 2006 then in 2005 but their actual pay rate was DOWN.
Bush also passed over the Census data that showed one of the largest numbers of people who lost their health coverage. 2.2 Million People lost health coverage in 2006! Yes George is “Staying the Course and Cherry Picking” that data that he wants and ignoring anything that shows the truth about the performance of his policies! That truth is that the Average American is WORSE off financially today then when Bush took office!

and this makes him different from you how.

=Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, August 31, 2007
“Cherry Picking information to make him look good


and this makes him different from you how.”


I list ALL the information. I listed that the Median income was up but I also showed that it was below what it was in 2000. Bush only said it was up between 2005 and 2006. Bush ignored the fact it was still below what it was when he took office. I showed that Individual Annual Income was down for the third year in a row. Bush ignored this. I showed what happened to health coverage. Bush ignored this. For the President to mislead the American people is not justified. He should tell it like it is THE GOOD AND THE NOT SO GOOD. NOT BUSH!

Notice how Gene pretends the dot.com bubble & 9/11 didn't occur when he's jaw-flapping about the economy. Never mentions the economy when he's jaw-flapping about 9/11 or Iraq. To him, everything happens in isolation, which just shows you what a deranged lunatic he really is.

Cookie to danielost.

Reply By: Daiwa Posted: Friday, August 31, 2007
Notice how Gene pretends the dot.com bubble & 9/11 didn't occur when he's jaw-flapping about the economy. Never mentions the economy when he's jaw-flapping about 9/11 or Iraq. To him, everything happens in isolation, which just shows you what a deranged lunatic he really is.


I did nothing of the sort. The Dot Com Bubble has NOTHING to do with the current state of the economy.

DId you not write that the president should have listened to the CIA and act on the information he was given? Then when he does just that you cry and whine that the information was bogus and cherry picked. Proof positive that you are a political hack that is only interested in bashing Mr. Bush. You negate your arguments with hypocrocy.

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Saturday, September 01, 2007
“Cherry Picking information to make him look good. Just like with the intelligence on WMD in Iraq, yesterday Bush was beaming like a new Father when he announced the Census data that shows Median Family Income was UP in 2006 over 2005.


Did you not write that the president should have listened to the CIA and act on the information he was given? Then when he does just that you cry and whine that the information was bogus and cherry picked. Proof positive that you are a political hack that is only interested in bashing Mr. Bush. You negate your arguments with hypocrisy.”


Better look again at what I said. Bush ONLY used one fact from the Census report-- That Average Family Income was up in 2006. That same report said even after that increase Average Family Income it was lower then in 2000. Bush also ignored the Census data that showed that Average Annual Income was DOWN for both Male and Female workers for the THIRD year in a Row. Bush also ignored the Census data that showed 2.2 Million Americans lost health coverage in 2006. YOU are the HYPOCRIT. As I said, Bush used ONE element from the Census report and ignores THREE others. Bush Cherry Picked one fact from the Census report and IGNORED all the other facts because they did not show he was helping the average American!

'Scuse me? Your the one who is bleating about the year 2000. Eh, at least you're blatantly open about your ignorance of economics.

Reply By: Daiwa Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2007
I did nothing of the sort. The Dot Com Bubble has NOTHING to do with the current state of the economy.


'Scuse me? Your the one who is bleating about the year 2000. Eh, at least you're blatantly open about your ignorance of economics.

What I said is that the Census data that Bush Ignored shows that the Median Family Income in 2006 was below the 2000 amount. Thus even with the terrible RECESSION that Bush claims was in place when he took office, Americans were better off in 2000 during the "Clinton Recession" then after over 6 years of the "Bush Economic Growth"!

lets see 8% unemployment is better than 4% unemployment.