What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
142 Comments
- Machiavelli, on 10/12/2007, -33/+60>> not to mention, he's a moron
Does everyone who opposes President Bush offer such insightful commentary and relevant debate?
If you don't like what he has done and want to say so, that's fine. However, just adding insults does not help create an useful discussion. - giantAppleCore, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33I'm a democrat, and I dislike Bush, but the AP article on this points out that this is the first time this has happened since Clinton, (percentage wise, though this graph uses population instead of percentage, lies, damn lies, and statistics) and the poverty level hasn't increased percentage wise, it just hasn't gone down.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/aug2006/povertyhealthinsurance.php
Don't lie to push your agenda, you don't have to, there are more than enough real mistakes to point out, instead of fabricating ones. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28I've said that for 5 years... now i'm running out of breath...
if after 5 years people don't understand when you say "I believe George Bush is incompetent and will lead us to war on false pretences as well as bring the nation into enormous debt and throw countless Americans into poverty" maybe it's time to dumb it down a little and simply yell "Bush is a moron" - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -22/+37@Machiavelli: When he runs the most powerful country in the world, the fact that he is a ***** idiot is a perfectly valid criticism.
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -13/+26It's not the government's job to feed or insure people.
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -17/+30Firstly, the population of the USA has increased since 2000, so absolute numbers could (they don't, just saying) indicate a reduction in the percentage of said people.
Point is percentages are what matter here, not absolute numbers.
Secondly, quite a few Illegal Immigrants have entered the USA since 2000, considering the huge, vast majority of those work for little money and have no health insurance per se. Illegals are a big part of these absolute numbers.
Somebody here said that its about humans, so percentages don't matter. That's just a ***** ridiculous statement. So, if we reduced the percentage of (insert pet cause here) from 40% of all Americans to 1% of all Americans in X years, but the absolute number has increased you'll call that a failure? Really man, the law of diminishing returns does apply to humans at times. Shall we spend $100 million dollars to keep a 100 year old criminal alive for an extra 6 months with extraordinary care? Hey man, he's a human, right? - jsd8cc, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23I agree, but what do you expect from thinkprogress.org? I'm not a Bush supporter, but submitting articles from unabashedly anti-Bush "news" sites is just ridiculous.
Is there a non-partisan place to view the economic records of the current and previous presidents? - muaddib420, on 10/12/2007, -51/+62not to mention, he's a moron
- spoid_, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I really wish people wouldn't equate health insurance with access to affordable health care.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Well, that's nice in theory... but let's say we founded a country with 10 people, and 2 of them were poor. Then a hundred years later, we had 1 million people, and 10,000 of them were poor. The poverty rate went down from 20% to 1%. By your logic, we just added 9,998 poor people.
I will quickly add that I hate Bush and everything he stands for and everyone that stands behind him. I just feel that the left in this country has a disturbing and undermining tendency to overstate the case against Bush with a bunch of half-truths, when no overstatement or exaggeration is necessary. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19"Does everyone who opposes President Bush offer such insightful commentary and relevant debate? "
I'm still waiting to hear a conservative craft an argument against Michael Moore that doesn't consist of "He's a fat moron."
There are plenty of perfectly good arguments against him, all going to waste. - moluv, on 10/12/2007, -6/+152 things i would like to see here
1) information prior to 2000
2)percentages
without that information this article means nothing - thecolor11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@AhronZombi
What you don't understand is that insurance is about managing risk. You pay the insurance company to assume the risk of you having an accident. The risk is then distributed among the many policy holders. That way when you have an accident, a large number of people are paying instead of just you. - bperrin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11- cash your paycheck approx 22% skimmed for taxes
- 6% sales tax for purchases after that.
- wanna go hunting? hunting license tax.
- wanna dog to hunt with? dog license tax.
- gas up, gasoline tax.
- driving to hunt camp, speeding tax!
- seat belt tax...
- drop off property tax for camp.
- pay building permit taxes to build on your own property.
- frustrated smoker, cigarette tax.
- die, death tax with inheritance tax.
Don't tell me its all Bush or the government. WE are doing this to ourselves. We could get rid of a lot of our taxes and big government if we wanted to, but we don't. We are pushing ourselves down into poverty. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I seem to remember that the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to adequately maintain the levees had the most impact on Katrina.
While I love blaming Bush for many things, as far as Katrina goes, he can only be blamed for the *response,* which was abysmal for a government, for a legion of contractors who get overpaid billions just to respond to these crises, and abysmal for the "non-profit" organizations like the Red Cross who spend more money fundraising than they do on (relief) services.
The Army Corps failure is the fault of a great many administrations who have insisted on cutting its funding and training so that we can have a whole bunch of high-tech war gadgets with no enemies on which to use them. - sawyer3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9well what do ya know? ... another critical of bush article marked as inaccurate. go figure.
bush is still a fascist. - sebnukem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The ultimate conclusion of the Digg.com phenomenon is:
Bush May Be Inaccurate - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"He has had to sit through the worst attack on US soil"
You know the Brits razed Washington in 1814, right? There was this whole war fought on our soil.
"the worst natural disaster in the history of the US."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_Earthquake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galveston_Hurricane_of_1900 - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Dude, why buy insurance when you can have a 60" WEGA!
- ibeetle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Tonight (8/29) on NBC Nightly News with Brian Willams; he told Brian Willams, in an interview from New Orleans (in regards to what was his legacy) that history would not compare this administration with the actions of the president (huh?) Does he think of his presidency as in the third person? And does he think that the White Hose and the Office of the President are two different entities?
He went on to say that he had low expectations in regards to New Orleans. That is right, low expectations. In other words he does not expect New Orleans to ever be rebuilt.
Lastly he told Mr. Willams, in regards to Iraq that he compared his administration to that of George Washington. So he believes he is the father of a nation. - dan2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Remove hands from ears, try again.
- charlietuna, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17He's not a moron, he's a privileged scion of a wealthy former president who managed to graduate from Harvard despite mediocre grades. He also speaks very poorly.
His record indicates that - were he born to a family of average means - he'd be lucky to keep a job as high school gym teacher. As we see with Angela Merkel, in any normal job he'd most likely be hit with sex harassment charges for acting like the class jock. - kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11It may not be the job of the government, but it is the job of all Christians. You don't see them with open arms now do you? No, theirs is just to get their candidates elected so that we can wind back the clock to the 1950's.
I refuse to live in their world. They're just as bad as the Muslim funadmentalists who want us back in the middle ages.
Bush isn't necessarily a moron, but he's definitely a puppet. The fact that he has oil ties, as do Dick Cheney and other members of the administration, tells you all you need to know. They're pro when it comes to big business and those with money.
I'd just be happier if we could clean up our entire political system because right now it's stinking rotten. - scott1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Also it's not scientfic study.There's no control varible showing that this increase unnormal.
I just like poltics having some logic in it(if that's possible).
btw This seems like it should be added poticle oppion. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12The chart does not take into account population growth, immigration or anything else.
Inaccurate. - TB65, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4mushuweasel said
"And actually, there are graphs for the information you ask for on page 20 of link provided"
Thanks for the file. The chart shows a decline from 1959-1973. Since then, the poverty rate has leveled off to a range of about 11-15%. There a couple of points; one, most of these people aren't the same people every year. Many are immigrants or transitional workers. Two, poverty is also based on income so if you have millions in assets and no income, you're still a poverty statistic, but I'm not saying this is the majority case here.
Why does poverty still exist? Not all inclusive, but one, immigration as mentioned above. Two, the welfare program creates a disincentive to work with full benefits housing, food, insurance, equivalent to $30k+ income in some areas. You subsidise something, you get more of it.
Three, inflation through the federal reserve. New money created benefits those that use it first, the government and bankers. By the time the new money cycles through the economy, prices have adjusted to the new money supply and the last recipients actually receive a negative benefit, thus lowering their purchasing power. Note that the improvements in poverty ended in 1973, shortly after the gold standard was eliminated(1971) and inflation increased. Removing the inflationary policies and welfare would allow for poverty to decrease at least to the point where it is only the new and poor immigrants who are still working their way up and advancing their job skills. - macewan, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17To think that all along the wmd would turn out to be the current administration and not an object hidden in the desert.
- BevansDesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As much as I despise the Bush administration (and I do...a lot), I'd like to see these numbers as a percentage of the total people in the country. It's no secret that our population grows each year, after all.
It's this kind of misrepresentation of facts that's ruining our government. And all sides are guilty. - giantAppleCore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@mushuweasel: crap... yes it does... I must have misread the increase thing...heh, crap, and 13 diggs on MY misinformation =(
- nstanosheck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6While there is an issue for some that are uninsured want to be insured, many young single people chose not to be insured. Also many 2-income families will only get insurance from one employer and often these polls will count the spouse who does not get insurance at work as "uninsured". Knowing the methodology and reasonings behind the answers in these polls often helps.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Did anyone take a look at the PDF files from the Census?
Things are actually getting better....not worse. - pawchikapawpaw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8hm. has anyone bothered to look at the numbers on the report, or is everyone pretty much just basing their opinions on what the article wants them to believe?
1. Income - REAL median household income rose between 2004 and 2005 by 1.1 percent.
2. Poverty Rate - changes were statistically insignificant since 2004. we are seeing poverty levels that are almost the same at around 1995. unchanged and steady at that level. poverty at its lowest was in 2000-2001 and began to climb shortly after. i wonder what happened then. an attack to the business center of the US, a declaration of war, fluctuating/ climbing oil prices. even so, the climb is not as steep as the transition to the highest poverty level that the US had around '93 '94, which is a notably less stressful period in U.S. history.
3. Insurance coverage - more insured in 2005 than in 2004. private plans increased between 2004 and 2005. difference between no insurance from 2004 and 2005 is 0.3 w/ 90% confidence.
quote:
"The number of workers (people who worked at some time during the year) with no health insurance increased from 26.5 million to 27.3 million,..."
quote from the report:
"Research shows health insurance coverage is underreported in the CPS
ASEC for a variety of reasons. While annual retrospective questions appear
to be less of a problem when collecting income data (possibly because the
interview period is close to when people pay their taxes), it is probably
less than ideal when asking about health insurance coverage. For example,
some people may report their insurance coverage status at the time
of their interview rather than their coverage status during the previous
calendar year. Compared with other national surveys, the CPS ASEC’s estimate
of the number of people without health insurance more closely
approximates the number of people who were uninsured at a specific
point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the
entire year."
also from the report:
"There was *no statistical difference* in the number or the percentage of people covered
by Medicaid (38.1 million and 13.0 percent, respectively) between 2004 and 2005."
RTFR. geezus. i understand it's too much information, but read through the whole thing. - mushuweasel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8It is not "inaccurate". It is, perhaps, "incomplete". These are data points from the Census Bureau. To call them "inaccurate" belies your understanding of the subject.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Calling them trolls is much much easier than actually refuting arguments.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Does it matter that the number in poverty was actually the highest since 1965 during the Clinton administration (1993)?
Employment health care coverage is the main factor in the decline of coverage between 2004 and 2005. Is that because of the number of employees increased, or the number of employers who didn't provide healthcare increased? What was the cause of this? Instead of speculating, how about some facts?
18 years old working at your local clothing store.....do you think you will be recieving health insurance from your employer? How about being paid well enough to afford it yourself? ITS THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT!!
So is it the government's fault to that median household incomes have significantly risen since 2000?
And of course it's the government's fault that the total number of people being covered has risen in the past 5 years....
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf - th3p0p3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I thought that Republicans supported lower taxes so the American people could do what they want with their money? And Democrats supported insane tax brackets so as to assign who gets the money (welfare, medicaid)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it was up to Republicans, would not a lot of these taxes be lowered?
- Jerichop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Machiavelli: How many insults has bush thrown upon the people since 2000? The 2000 election, Katrina, the response to 9/11, Iraq, Social Security, .... What else does he have to f*ck up before we are eligible to call him an idiot? Even my professor at university gave me the advice to 'never go easy on idiots'. If we don't call him an idiot when he's behaving like one, he'll probably think he's doing a heckuva job!
- AhronZombi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6the way we are being ripped off every day in taxes and so on makes us all slaves. and we have no one to blame but our selves because we let people ***** us like this
- chrisgiddings, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@nocountries,
On your second point, Americans already work harder than other western cultures when you factor in the lower number of holidays and shorter vacation and personal time we get compared to the Germans, French and others.
I don't think any western nation can compete properly on pure wage basis with underdeveloped nations such as China, India, Singapore and Malaysia. The dollar is simply worth more, and so long as the individuals are making a 'liveable wage' there shouldn't be any complaints. They work hard for their money, and we work hard for ours.
I do think an hours per day cap should be imposed by the U.N. and pressed worldwide while allowing exceptions for certain circumstances such as disaster emergencies, etc. This hopefully would remove the sometimes 18 hour days some I know in retail and gaming industries work. Obviously these rules would not apply to those who run their own businesses, as we spend a majority of our time running the business itself.
To your primary statement, I don't believe that firm control over MidEast oil is really what we need, as your statement seeks to suppose. Instead energy independance (which has been touted but not followed up on) is a hugely important factor. This is possible by having the government work with industry the way it did in WWI and WWII where the industries would help to produce the items necessary for America to be successful in those wars. In this case, reasearch would be done on new and more efficient forms of energy and/or energy usage. After developing those new systems/methods working with the industries to implement them quickly accross the board, from power-plants to motor-vehicles to boats to planes to lawnmowers would help to move the country forward more quickly.
Lack of educational prowess in the United States is preventing us from stepping ahead of China at the moment and without a firm commitment from the federal government to truly raise standards from the ground up (starting in Kindergarten) this won't occur fast enough. Running on the educational system we have now (originally designed in the 60's for the industry needs they felt would be needed in the 70's) we have been continually falling behind in the 'smarts' department compared to developing nations along with first world nations when we realistically could be at the top. I'll have a proposal for this before January I believe and I will be submitting it to my (hopefully) new representative in the House for consideration and backing. - pawchikapawpaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3no, this article? it's NOT census data. it is a very biased interpretation of a very biased source of the CENSUS DATA, being represented as FACT. the only FACT in this whole discussion, and the only FACT that should be considered in this discussion is the CENSUS DATA:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
not a crackpot analysis of a blog which has an axe to grind.
THAT is what is inaccurate. that an incredibly FLAWED analysis of the data is being represented as "their truth" and is being lapped up by the diggers of the left here because it reinforces their "world view". - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why does poverty still exist?
Simple.
The definition of poverty keeps changing.
Year to year variations are almost meaningless. There have always been good times and bad. But look over longer trends. Say, a decade or two. (following are approximate dates and "no one" means overwhelming majority - for all those nitpickers)
A decade ago no one had large screen TVs
Two decades ago no one had cell phones.
Three decades ago no one had computers.
Four decades ago no one had calculators.
Now even the poor have them (at least in the US). There, even the poor people are fat. A similar list could be about availability of medical treatment. Health insurance or not, no one got a heart transplant in the sixties. Now they're commonplace, along with a host of other organ transplants.
There will always be 10% of the population in the bottom 10% of any measurement of wealth. You will always have the poor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think someone said that about 2000 years ago. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8So what exactly IS the government's job then?
- doctornkul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4We're not saying the data itself is inaccurate. We're saying that the conclusions the writer draws from the article is inaccurate. Just because the number of unemployed/uninsured is greater, it is very likely that the difference is in large part due to population growth. For all we know, the RATIO between unemployed and total people in the US might very well be less in 2005 than it was in 2000, because the population might have grown faster than unemployment. A better way to compare would be in PERCENT, because then we can see the ratio.
- jdanielcaldwell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@cliffzdude
Did the Census Bureau start polling illegal immigrants? I'm a little rusty with current events. (I'm being serious.) - chrisgiddings, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I for one know many people without insurance. They simply cannot afford it. There seem to be several reasons for this.
1) Retail jobs hire individuals for part-time work and hire lots of them because it is less costly to hire another part-time worker than pay for benefits for one full time employee. This doesn't only occur in retail, look at fast food and other industries as well. And while this certainly may not employ the bulk of American jobs, it's large enough to cause an impact.
2) The rise in gasoline prices has caused some people I know to drop their health insurance because they cannot afford both health insurance 'and' gasoline for their cars. Most American cities have sh!t for public transit which certainly doesn't help out. Especially with the middle class which usually lives in the suburbs or is attempting to move to the suburbs as the many exodus articles are demonstrating.
3) Multiple working family members. The articles and statistics likely do not cover a family member which works but chooses not to pay for insurance because the other (likely a spouse) has either a better insurance plan or gets paid more and can afford it.
- - -
@nocountries,
On your second point, Americans already work harder than other western cultures when you factor in the lower number of holidays and shorter vacation and personal time we get compared to the Germans, French and others.
I don't think any western nation can compete properly on pure wage basis with underdeveloped nations such as China, India, Singapore and Malaysia. The dollar is simply worth more, and so long as the individuals are making a 'liveable wage' there shouldn't be any complaints. They work hard for their money, and we work hard for ours.
I do think an hours per day cap should be imposed by the U.N. and pressed worldwide while allowing exceptions for certain circumstances such as disaster emergencies, etc. This hopefully would remove the sometimes 18 hour days some I know in retail and gaming industries work. Obviously these rules would not apply to those who run their own businesses, as we spend a majority of our time running the business itself.
To your primary statement, I don't believe that firm control over MidEast oil is really what we need, as your statement seeks to suppose. Instead energy independance (which has been touted but not followed up on) is a hugely important factor. This is possible by having the government work with industry the way it did in WWI and WWII where the industries would help to produce the items necessary for America to be successful in those wars. In this case, reasearch would be done on new and more efficient forms of energy and/or energy usage. After developing those new systems/methods working with the industries to implement them quickly accross the board, from power-plants to motor-vehicles to boats to planes to lawnmowers would help to move the country forward more quickly.
Lack of educational prowess in the United States is preventing us from stepping ahead of China at the moment and without a firm commitment from the federal government to truly raise standards from the ground up (starting in Kindergarten) this won't occur fast enough. Running on the educational system we have now (originally designed in the 60's for the industry needs they felt would be needed in the 70's) we have been continually falling behind in the 'smarts' department compared to developing nations along with first world nations when we realistically could be at the top. I'll have a proposal for this before January I believe and I will be submitting it to my (hopefully) new representative in the House for consideration and backing. - thecolor11, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Don't forget about the hidden taxes that are built into the cost of the goods we buy.
- hobophobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't believe that these sorts of measures should be directly interpreted as presidential record without due evidence linking the stat to the actions. That said, I don't think it's right on the other end where there's positive news and the president trots out and acts like he did the work by himself.
The bottom line is that this is more an indicator of where we are as a nation. That's how we should be treating it. If we can attribute it to policies, then we ought to change them. If not, we should find out how else we can shift in the right direction.
As much fun as this partisan game has been in the past, I think it's time to lay it down. I concede, everyone else wins, now let's move on and actually fix our problems. - thecolor11, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I disagree; their goal is to influence opinion and policy through a graphical representation of the data that is, in my opinion, unscrupulous at best (downright deceiving at worst). As a scientist, I attempt to visualize data in a revealing way. In this case, I can not think of any reason to:
A.) Show an increase only in terms of absolute quanties, and
B.) Shift the origin so as to make it appear the change is larger than it really is, and
C.) Try to establish a trend from only a few years' worth of data. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Jesus was an anarchist. Today, I guess that means he would be in the Pirate Bay party.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is