Winning the War

@bobmnu (8160)
United States
August 30, 2007 11:42am CST
It seems that President Bush is winning the war started over 50 years ago by the Democratics. The US Census Bureau has announced that there has been a drop in the poverity rate in the US. This is the first siginifant drop in over 10 years. The poverty rate was lower in 2006 than in 1959 (first year we had poverity data). The Median Income (50% of the population is above this amount and 50% below) has increased over last year. When you look at the income gains made by group, each group made gains in real income over last year. The bad news is that there are about 47,000,000 people without Health Insurance. When you break it down by income you find that 9,000,000 without health insurance make over $75,000 per year and 14,000,000 people are below $25,000 and elegilable for state or federal coverage and have not filled out the forms. The number of people without health insurance who are not elegiable for government porgrams of could afford to pay for it is really 23,700,000 people and some of them are not insured by choice. Wehn you look at the total population you will see the the percent of uninsured not by choice is around 6-7% of the total population. It is a very interesting report with lots of statics and data to confuse you. Poverty in this country could be eliminated overnight if we just changed the defination of poverity. Poverity is based upon an income amount(excluding food stamps, government assistance, government helath insurance, earned income tax credit, housing allowance and free and reduced lunches to name a few - could total as high as $15,000 or more per year) that was arbitrarly decided on. Before 1959 there was no poverity in this country according to the US Government because they had no defination. The top 20% of the population by income or the very wealthy make $75,000 or more a year. Keep this in mind wehn they talk about taxing the rich. Right now this group pays 80% of the taxes in this country
2 people like this
3 responses
@yesah65 (158)
• United States
4 Sep 07
They used to have a different name for these UPBEAT reports the govt puts out. They were called Propaganda. Where I come from we call them BS! If poverty has so diminished, please tell me what part of Washington D.C. that was in. The rest of the country doesn't seem to enter into the equation. If anyone actually starts to believe the malarky the Feds put out, you haven't been around enough.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
5 Sep 07
I was working with some former students who were trying to get off of welfare. they had to get a job that paid $30 to $35 thousand dollars a year to equal what they were getting on welfare. They were caught in a all or nothing trap. If they got a job and earned more than, $20,000, per year they lost all benifits including health insurance. They had small children so they could not take a chance. The system kept them in poverity and keeps mother hens, called Social Workersand Case workers employed in very good jobs. The people in poverity in this country are better off than many average citizens in the industrial nations. Check out the US Census report and read the facts for your self. Wehn you look at 46% own their own homes, 75% own a car, 95% own at least one color TV and only about 50% bothered to sign up for free health care. One thing that should be noted is the Government payments and programs do not count as income when trying to determine who is in poverity. If a person receives SSI, Food Stamps, General Welfare Payments (AFDC), disablity payments or Social Security The government will not add that income to the household income.
@yesah65 (158)
• United States
9 Sep 07
Yes, you are right about the Government not counting the extra money, but now, Social Security is another matter. I am on Social Security and last year I had to go back to work, because I couldn't even pay my bills. When the year was over, paperwork showed that I had earned over the amount(allowed by Social Security), and even though I never saw that much money, I couldn't prove my case; Social Security cut me down to 600 dollars a month for the next three years. I am 66 years old and don't mind working, but I can no longer run the race with the younger ones, and I can tell you, it is not easy living on 600 dollars a month...in the United States. It just warms my heart every time I see that Congress has voted themselves another raise... to maintain their lifestyle! I fought a war for this country, but in Washington, there has never been an appreciation for the common citizen; Since Politicians have seldom been common.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
10 Sep 07
In Wisconsin the Teachers and other public employees have a retirement system we pay in almost the same amount as Social Security. The big difference is that this is considered employee owned and managed by the state. It is very similar to what President Bush proposed when he wanted to privitize Social Security. Basicly the state collects the money and it is invested under the direction of an elected board made up of members of the system. Several years ago the state tried to take over the plan and wanted to guarantee 6% growth on the money and the state would take the money and put it into the general fund and would pay from the general fund. At that time a court challenge was started and it stated that it was to remain an employee owned and run fund. I receive more money from the Fund, st age 57 (early Retirement) than I will receive from SS at age 66.5 (Fulll Retirement). When you look at what my employer and I have put into both funds you will see that I have more money in SS and there is no limit to the amount of Money I can make and draw the State Retirement Pension. Think where you would be now if all the money you and your employer had put into SS was invested in the Stock Market over the years and in consirtive funds making 5%-7% a year. If you assume for figuring a steady salary of $1,000 per month(for your whole working career) and you and your employer pay into a retirement fund that makes 5% the same amount that you are paying into SS now what would you have at retirement? You start work at age 20 and work until age 65 and have a life expectancy of 85 years. You pay in a flat amount of $120 per month over your working career you and your employer would have paid in $64,800, and at age 65 that fund would be worth $229,968 and you continue to pay in $120 per month after retirement you would see a monthly income of $1,846 until you reach age 85. If you die your wife or children would receive what ever money was left over. The liberals don't like this plan because they don't have control over you, like they do now by telling you you have to live at a certain standard or lose money. I wish the government would give me only the money I have given for SS and let me invest it in the Stock Market. I would be better off and have more money that letting the government manage my money. This is why I an opposed to letting the Governemnt run the health care.
• United States
30 Aug 07
Someone figured out years ago that if all the welfare and war on poverty beauracrats were fired and the money just distributed directly to the poor it would do more to win that war than the official war on poverty.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
30 Aug 07
Are you suggesting that the beauracrats go out and find a real job? How heartless, where could they find a job that pays them to worry about other peoples problems and tell them how to run their lives. Maybe we could have them sit in the ezpass toll booths and do nothing all day.
1 person likes this
• United States
30 Aug 07
"Worry about other peoples problems and tell them how to run their lives." You know, I've come to absolutely detest the people who can be described by this quote. You can not make these people understand the harm they do. It's as if they think having good intentions assures them of a good outcome. This colors their evaluation of all they do so that they are in constant denial concerning all they screw up.
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
31 Aug 07
You can be sure though, that the current administration will recieve little credit for any of this though. Either on the news, the xtreet or here on mylot for that matter. Another statistic on the lack of health insurance; a great number of that figure are not U.S. citizens.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
2 Sep 07
When you look at the data it tells you that 47,000,000 people are without helath ins. in this country. Almost 14,000,000 earn less that $25,000 per year and are elegable for state (medicare) or Federal(Medicaid) Insurance and for some reason do not sign up for it. Almost 10,000,000 earn more than $75,000 and could afford insurance. That leaves about 23,000,000 people who earn between $25,000 and $75,000 without health ins. This is about 7% of the population. Do we scrap the best health care system in the world to cover 7% of the population or do we expand the state and federal and allow people to purchase the insurance based on income and allow deductables and co pays. The liberals want to take over and make the decisions we should be making.