Tuesday, August 29, 2006

CT Census Data on Poverty and Health Insurance

Connecticut Voice for Children has issued a press release highlighting survey data from the US Census Bureau with information about Connecticut. They have set up a page of additional information here which breaks down the results by city, county, and congressional district.

Some highlights as quoted from the release:

  • In 2005, 9.3% of Connecticut residents (326,000) had incomes under the Federal Poverty Level ($19,961 for a family of four). For the two-year period of 2004-05, the poverty rate increased significantly from 7.5% in 2000/2001 to 9.7% in 2004-2005. This increase occurred despite the state's recent economic recovery.

  • In 2005, 12.4% of Connecticut children under 18 (103,000 children) lived in families with incomes under the Federal Poverty Level, a slight, but not statistically significant increase from the levels of recent years despite the state's economic recovery. Further, the 2005 Connecticut child poverty estimate represents no progress over the 1990 child poverty rate of 10.4%, despite record-low unemployment in the 1990s, ten straight years of growth in productivity in Connecticut's economy, and an aggressive 10-year effort to move welfare recipients into the workforce.

  • In addition, the Census Bureau reported that 11.3% (394,000) of Connecticut residents in 2005 were without health insurance coverage for the entire previous 12-month period. For the two-year period of 2004-05, the percentage of uninsured residents increased significantly from 10% in 2000/2001 to 11.3% in 2004-2005. This increase occurred despite the state's recent economic recovery.

  • In 2005, among Connecticut children under 18, 8.2% (68,000 children) were uninsured for the entire year, unchanged from the recent years, despite signs of an improving Connecticut economy. In Connecticut, 76.4% of residents were covered by employer-based or privately-purchased insurance in 2005.

In response to this Connecticut Voices for Children wants the CT Congressional delegation to oppose the repeal of the Estate tax, oppose funding cuts that would most affect low-income families, and protect federal funding for childcare, energy assistance, and K-12 programs that promote the health and well-being of Connecticut residents.


Healthcare is a frequently debated topic among candidates but they don't spend as time on poverty. Lamont touched on it while appearing with Senator Edwards a few weeks ago but otherwise local politicians from both parties rarely mention it. In many ways it's easier to debate issues that affect poverty rather than poverty itself.

How should politicians approach this? Is it enough to discuss related issues or is a direct approach more appropriate?

Sullivan, Michael. "Census Bureau: increase in CT poverty & uninsured ". Connecticut Voices for Children Press Release. 8/29/06


GMR said...

One thing I'd really like to know is, what percentage of the people living in poverty are immigrants?

I didn't see any numbers (I didn't look that hard, so they might be there) for this. But whether or not someone came legally or illegally from a third world country, they are likely going to be below the poverty line here. And I'm not sure what we could do to prevent that: if someone with no skills (or even if they have skills, with no accreditation) and limited or no English speaking ability, it's going to take them a while to get out from under the poverty line. There's also a moral hazard here in that if we have programs to help immigrants out of poverty (free English classes, free or reduced health care, etc), that will just bring on many more immigrants.

I'm not blaming immigrants for wanting to come here, but I am saying that they can have a significant impact on the results of a census report on poverty, and it's difficult to do anything about that.

The left really seems to think that Walmart is the big enemy of the poor this year. Obviously, the left isn't concerned that Walmart sells household necessities at very low margins, which enables poor people to spend less (see this Slate article for more info, like the fact that people that buy groceries at Walmart save 25%: quite a lot for poor people.

The left is concerned with the perceived lower wages that Walmart pays. However, in the absence of Walmart, would the Walmart employees make more money? Obviously, the presumption is that the employees would still be working in retail, so would smaller retailers that would presumably replace Walmart really pay higher wages? Why would the supply/demand market end up any different if there were many inefficient stores versus one Walmart? (And if the smaller stores could be more efficient than Walmart, then they'd exist now, and the Walmart workers could work there now).

As far as lack of insurance goes, it's not just poor people. I remember when I was 25 and single and had no health insurance because my employer didn't offer it, or I didn't want to pay the premium. I had no major assets or dependents, so I figured if I got really sick, I'd just declare bankrupcy. Now I'm much more responsible, and even have life insurance (since I have a 20 month old child and a wife now). I'm certainly not the only one: when Massachusetts mandated health insurance, they found lots of single guys in their 20s didn't have insurance although they could afford it.

Finally, is keeping the estate tax going to make any poor people not poor anymore? Will keeping that tax lift anyone over the poverty line?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Let's remember what "poverty in America" really means; it's not people living in cardboard boxes.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

TrueBlueCT said...


Thanks for the brilliant expose about how well America's working poor really have it. It just shows that you have a wonderful understanding. A real "compassionate" conservative.


The left isn't trying to put Wal-Mart out of business. We are trying to increase wages in America's service economy. I know that seems horrible to you. But that's all we're about. And yeah, we're trying to get health insurance for the people making $5-$15/hour.

Anonymous said...

If Ned Lamont had donated the same amount to college scholarships he paid for one painting, dozens of kids could climb out of poverty.

Ned put his mouth one place, and his money somewhere else.

Andover Republican said...

I oppose more handouts.

Give a man a fish, you have fed him for today.
Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime

steve said...

anonymous, that has to be one of the dumbest quotes i've yet read on this page. ned donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to a variety of charities every year.

GMR said...

The left isn't trying to put Wal-Mart out of business. We are trying to increase wages in America's service economy. I know that seems horrible to you. But that's all we're about. And yeah, we're trying to get health insurance for the people making $5-$15/hour.

Walmart pays market wages. If it paid below market wages, it wouldn't be able to hire anyone. It's not like there's a shortage of people looking for jobs at Walmart either: in spring 2004, Walmart opened a store in Glendale (AZ) and got 8,000 applicants for 525 spots. Obviously, Walmart's wages were better than the wages (plus benefits, commute time, hours, etc) those 8,000 people were earning. The problem of low wages isn't Walmart's fault. It's the fact that there's a large segment of our society who has limited skills and limited education. Since Walmart's wages are quite a bit higher than the minimum wage, in order to achieve higher wages, you'd have to increase the minimum wage substantially.

As for health care coverage, Jason Fuhrman, who was John Kerry's economic adviser, wrote a paper last year that, while critical of some of Walmart's policies, he found that Walmart's health insurance policies were similar to other retailers.

Anonymous said...

Another report from a "non-partisan" advocacy group. Not!

Anonymous said...

None other than Al Gore himself has embraced Walmart regarding their environmental policies. Oh my god, that must set the lefties spinning out of control: attack Walmart ... no, praise them ... attack ... no ... praise .... aaaahhhhhh!

TrueBlueCT said...


The Federal minimum wage hasn't been raised in more than a dozen years. Currently it's stuck at $5.15.

Now I know it's impossible for you to imagine what it's like to be at the bottom rung of the economic ladder. You know, those people forced to take the crappy jobs at McDonald's and Wal-Mart.

Why are you so against raising their wages and making sure they have health coverage? You know America used to be a country that took pride in the standard of living of all its citizens. What happened to that?

I see the hard-working people who show up every day to work at these jobs. It's shameful that in America, hard work pays so little. And the lack of health insurance for all is just immoral.

Looking after the less fortunate used to be a Republican value. What happened to the rising tide lifting all boats?

Anonymous said...

Just one painting on Ned's wall= five years of his charitable giving

as a fraction of income the average churchgoing Catholic is more generous than Morgan heir Ned.

BTW, I see Ned was in New Orleans today. Amazing how he's trying to outdo Bono now that he's the media star. Guess it beats firing working stiffs at the cable company he couldn;t unload

Anonymous said...

Of course Liberals hate Wal-Mart, None of them would be caught dead driving their Range Rover to one of them

Anonymous said...

How about Connecticut parents for children? Why is someone else's poverty my problem?

I grew in the tough inner city of New York City--Brooklyn. I grew up in the most abject, squalid, embarrasing poverty one can imagine. It drove me to excel. Today I am well educated with a Masters Degree. I live in Fairfield County in a 4000 sq, ft. home on 2 acres. Both of my children are college educated, productive young adults. My wife and I have been married for 32 years. And I have a $3 Million net worth.

Nobody handed me a thing. I never wanted it. I never needed it. It's the welfare state and quasi-socialism that has condemned our poor to pass their low station to their posterity. So much for the welfare state. I'll fend for myself, thank you.

cgg said...

ACR the Heritage Foundation seems to define wealth in terms of stuff and square footage, both of which are not hard to come by in the US. What about savings? access to education? employee benefits? I don't see anything about those. Do they really expect people to define poverty by who has a color TV?

steve said...

"...made more than $213,000 in charitable contributions last year."

Source: Tax Documents Show Lamont's Charitable Side: The Day

$213,000 in one year and you say he's selfish?

Anonymous said...

truebluect said: "The Federal minimum wage hasn't been raised in more than a dozen years. Currently it's stuck at $5.15."

I guess you are taking a page from the JDS playbook. He attacked Rell for lack of funding in a federal program. Now, you refer to the federal minimum wage.

Memo to truebluect: the state of CT has increased the minimum wage, and it is significantly higher than the federal minimum wage (I believe it is the highest or second highest in the nation). Since we are debating who would be the better Governor for CT, the federal rate seems irrelevant.

Guess who supported the increase? Governor Rell.

Go ahead truebluect, this is where you tell us that it was the Democrats that did it and that they get credit for everything good, while Rell is at fault for everything bad ... blah, blah, blah.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

TrueBlueCT said...
You know, those people forced to take the crappy jobs at McDonald's

Where the corporation promotes heavily from within?

Where a manager in 1981 was earning 45K?? (I've no idea what the mgrs make now)

Where a high school dropout could start (get hired at all) and wind up in under 48 months managing a store and in under 15 years have a store virtually handed to them as franchisee?

You need to get out more.

Anonymous said...

An ever-growing number of uninsured, and Rell's plan? More uninsured, please!
"We'll just be talking about what we've already been doing and some of the things we want to continue to do."

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

cgg said... the Heritage Foundation seems to....
drive liberals crazy.

>>What about savings?

You have savings? (gasp!!)
I have a wife.

>>access to education?

Miriam Masullo came here from Cuba in 1962 at 12 years old, spoke no English and lived in Harlem.

Your point?

cgg said...

ACR one person is not a statistic. And access to education could mean a number of things.

As for the Heritage Foundation driving me crazy I thought my response was fairly sane. I actually don't know that much about what they even do. But I certainly wouldn't define poverty in terms of consumption and square footage.

disgruntled_republican said...

TrueblueCT -

You say, "Now I know it's impossible for you to imagine what it's like to be at the bottom rung of the economic ladder. You know, those people forced to take the crappy jobs at McDonald's and Wal-Mart."

Now maybe GMR cant relate, and I don't know him or his background so i cannot speak to it, but I certainly can. Let me give you a little background bucko...

My brother and I were raised by my single mother (in the early 80's when the job market wasnt really open to women yet) who busted her hump to make sure that we had food on the table and the lights were on from my 4th birthday. She received an amazing $75 per week from my deadbeat dad for child support on 2 kids...yeah, that goes a long ways. (That is what the judge ordered btw)

She didn't have the best job & in fact at times she had 2 of them but she busted her hump and got noticed and worked her way up the ladder. At one point she went on welfare and guess what...she paid every f**ing cent back.

Sadly, she died 2 weeks before I turned 19...and I was now the legal guardian for my kid brother. KNow what I did with my highschool diploma and nothing more? (Her life insurance paid off her funeral and other expenses) I got out there and got a job. Worked in retail, busted my hump since that is what I was taught to do and got noticed and moved up the ladder. Now I am 18 years old with a HS diploma supporting myself, my brother and paying for the house she left me (still have a mortgage on the 3 br 1 bath ranch - nothing elaborate). I eventually left retail to work as a shipping manager for a worldwide manufacturer and now make a damned good living selling advertising. I still don't have a college degree either. Know how we did it? HARD WORK.

When my brother entered the working world he went to, gasp, WalMart as a stockman where he busted his hump, got noticed and you guessed it, moved up the ladder. He had excellent benefits and was paid a fair wage for the work he did. You'll forgive me here if I find JDS comments to be 100% politically motivated. Anyways, he left Walmart as an Asst Manager and works for 3M now where he makes pretty good salary(another non-union company). Know how he did it? HARD WORK.

Don't feed me this bottom rung bullshit...people on the bottom rung are there for one reason and one reason only...they want to be.

I have never received a goddamned handout and never asked for one but somehow I made it. Now tell me again why everyone else can't because I think I missed it. I guess I just have no sympathy for those folks cause I have been there and I know how to rise out of it. (that is the very reason i am Republican by the way....I don't beleive in handouts....programs and entitlements are killing this nation and are why the D's receive a large portion of the impoverished votes...they feel they owe it back to the people who "gave it to them")

Oh, one last thing...you critize GMR for not knowing what the bottom rung is like...you'll have to forgive me for finding your comments a bit disengenuous. And tell me, have you ever been on that "bottom rung"?

Ghost of Yogi said...


The left attacks Wal-Mart because they believe in a flawed philosophy of economics. Liberals believe that a company can grow so large that it can adversely effect, through free market operations, the level of wages. How does this happen? They think that if a company becomes this big, it can influence prices, maybe on a global scale, thus cutting profits for all competitors. It is usually called "low-balling." Crazy, I know, but if we want to defeat them, we must first understand them. Reagan understood this too.

A good example of this is the fare wars between railroads in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Another example is the U.S. agridumping on the world market in order to crush competition.

With regard to wages, an area where Gov. Rell will not and probably should not go - poor people shouldn't be allowed to make too much money anyway, thanks Reaganomics - Wal-Mart, according to liberals can actually depress wages. So, according to liberals, if the deflationary pressures that Wal-Mart places on hourly wages were alleviated maybe, but probably not (and we should absolutely not try), wages would rise on there own.

Last but not least: Liberals will say your point of view regarding the desirability of Wal-Mart jobs is a flight of fancy. Maybe, they will say, so many people applied to Wal-Mart because there aren’t any other jobs. I am with you though: Bush's economy is better than Reagan's and Clinton's; maybe even the best in world history. Wal-Mart jobs are highly desirable: Maybe not as nice as working at a Bank, but not all of us deserve access to higher education or healthcare. And for those Americans who do not, I agree with you, gmr, Wal-Mart is very desirable.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...


Good post.

I call on small retailers all day; most of them have been in America for only a few years; those that have been here for 15 or more are often quite well off.

Why is that do you think?

I suspect it's due to their hard work.

Ghost of Yogi said...

Disgruntled Republican

I agree with your work ethic: But you present a good case for liberals on education. Shouting down someone and maintaining, in the same post, that your mother received welfare, yet you never received any support is poor form. I agree that people should not be helped (even if they are starving to death) by our Govt. But to acknowledge so many times in one tirade that you only have a diploma, some liberal is likely to say, “see, this is why we need to offer a College education to everyone that wants one, regardless of circumstances.”

I will say this for your post, though: You have reached Nirvana in conservative thinking. You have struggled through life, received maybe some help from the Govt., maybe from some friends, and certainly from your mother, and now you passionately hold that no one should receive assistants. I am glad you made.

disgruntled_republican said...

Ghost of Yogi -

Me not having a degree is simply because I haven't gone back because I have been too busy with advancing my career. I started out of high school at community college and dropped out when mom died. Forgot to mention that in my tirade...thanks for pointing it out.

As far as "help" from family, friends, etc. Emotional support yes, nothing more...again, never asked but would have if I asked. As for mom...she certainly gave us a lot but we gave back....my brother and I took care of the house, meals, cleaning, etc. at a very young age while she worked so it was a 2 way street.

And I think welfare has it's place but it is way over abused and way to easy to be abused. I am not in favor of eliminating all programs but we certainly should be cutting down on them and watching them much more closely.

But my point was made regardless.

TrueBlueCT said...


That's not fair. DR already vouched for the fact that his mother paid back all the welfare. If that's the case, it means that DR and his family never really took advantage of governmental assistance.

What I'd like to hear is more about the way in which ACR's mom paid back the government. Honestly, I didn't know that was possible. Did she make anonymous donations towards the American deficit?


Can you help clarify this point? If someone was on welfare, but then became moderately successful,... well how would that person go about paying the government back?? I'm interested to hear more about your family triumph.

But honestly, do you really believe the bottom rung secretly wants to be bottom rung? That doesn't seem to make sense on the surface. Why would anyone want to be stuck working for $5.15/hour? What you seem to be saying is that every minor minor leaguer could be playing major league ball, -- if only they had the heart and the work ethic. Somehow, I doubt that's true.

Since you are a success story, i.e. someone who made it out of the minors, well, I might hope that you'd have a bigger heart for those who couldn't force their way up the pyramid. Do you really think the base should be without hope, and/or health coverage?

P.S. Who paid for your education? I hope it wasn't the socialists who like to tax CT homeowners.

Anonymous said...

Ghost of Yogi,

Shame on you.


Anonymous said...

We all have to be careful on making broad statements based on the extrapolated survey information. It is interesting that Mass's information (released yesterday) show that they have slightly fewer uninsured than CT even through they have a much greater population and similar programs (at the time of survey).

I know a few that still post on this blog care about facts. I wish the rest of you would dump the name calling, character assinations. Do you actually think you influence anyone to your point of view?

Very few people are all bad and very few people are all good. The vicious attacks I believe hurt or democracy because it discourges decent people for running for office. It seems that only the huge ego types can deal with the abuse.

Anonymous said...

Lamont's net worth is well over $100M.

He gave away 0.2% of that to charity last year.

He spent over $1M on one painting for his $30M mansion.

Selfish is as selfish does

GMR said...

It takes guts in this liberal world run-amok, to stand up and proclaim the defecation of our cultural heritage to be wrong. To withhold basic necessities to our poor, because they are probably immigrants (at least most of them anyway) is the only way to stop immigration. Immigrants must be stopped from getting on on our dimes. People like you are what this country needs. Bravo!

Instead of trying to find racism everywhere, if you actually read my first comment, what I was saying was this: the number of immigrants is going to have an impact on poverty statistics. We can have a zillion programs to combat poverty, but if we get lots of immigrants from third world countries, we'll have lots of poverty in our statistics.

When someone posts that x% of the people are below the poverty line, but a sizable number of those are people who got here a year ago from Mexico or Ecuador, what's our government supposed to do exactly? I'm not saying we should not let them in, but I did say that they will impact our statistics.

I also pointed out that it was difficult to have programs to combat poverty of immigrants, because the more programs you had, the more immigrants you'd get. So if we establish more anti-poverty programs, we may end up getting more poverty, and then people can come along and say how terrible it is that we have all this poverty, and the answer is: more programs.

Seriously, do you think that immigrants don't influence the poverty statistics? I'm not saying immigrants are bad, but I am saying that when someone makes a post that implies we aren't doing enough to combat poverty, I'm going to ask how much of our poverty is immigrants (or even migrants from other states).

GMR said...

The left attacks Wal-Mart because they believe in a flawed philosophy of economics. Liberals believe that a company can grow so large that it can adversely effect, through free market operations, the level of wages. How does this happen? They think that if a company becomes this big, it can influence prices, maybe on a global scale, thus cutting profits for all competitors. It is usually called "low-balling." Crazy, I know, but if we want to defeat them, we must first understand them.

So you are saying that Walmart, because it hires so many people, can lower the wages it pays? How can Walmart pay less than its competitors? Are you saying that Walmart has a monopoly on hiring certain groups of people? I fail to see how the absence of Walmart would make its employees better off. Where would they work that would pay more than they are getting now?

Walmart isn't the only place that hires people, so I fail to see how it can set the wages of its employees below market? Why wouldn't its employees simply work elsewhere?

CTRevolution said...

We have to understand that Wal Mart as an employer of 1.7 million is a symbol of big business retailing. Obviously, this is why it is singled out for attacks.

Many of the companies working employees do not have health care or are forced to pay significant portions of their salary toward it. Is this all Wal Mart's fault, no, there are many companies like it, many like Target that may have even poorer records on health care insurance.

It's also understandable that Wal Mart wants to keep consumer prices as low as possible. That is why the execs at Wal Mart have been quoted as saying that in the end Universal Health Care is what's needed. Because it's becoming harder and harder for Wal Mart to keep it's prices down, and provide health care for workers. The best solution for business and for the hoi polloi is that a Universal Health Care system is implemented. This will help businesses like Wal Mart as well as small businesses add workers. Universal Health Care if done right, will lower costs across the board, reducing significantly administrative costs, and enable companies like Wal Mart to maintain their lower prices.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

CTRevolution said... Universal Health Care if done right, will lower costs across the board,

How can that be when even towns that have municipal garbage pick up spend substantially more per household than individuals do in towns where there is an open market and competition?

There's a serious flaw in the very concept.

If you think medical care is expensive now, just wait till it's free.

BTW - it was the Republicans over 2 decades ago under the leadership of then CT st senator Phil Robertson, that doubled the amount of time a dependent child was covered by the state when her parent returned or entered the work force.
The Dems had voted the same bill down in 1984.

Nancy Johnson brought us the Husky Plan.

The left doesn't care one bit for the poor aside from using them as a cohesive voting block. To that end they pander to what they consider their base and do nothing to help them bootstrap out of poverty....unless of course there's a photo op.

Many authentic Republicans (it's my blog name but I'm sure not alone) consider it racist and we call it "the new slavery".

disgruntled_republican said...

Trueblue -

Some answers to some of your questions:

"how would that person go about paying the government back?"
In all honesty, I have no idea how it is done. I do know this...when she died, they sent me a bill for what she received as they do with any human being that collected at some point. Luckily the lawyer that was handling my mother's estate knew that my mother paid it back because he helped her with it and had documentation.

"do you really believe the bottom rung secretly wants to be bottom rung?"
I honestly beleive that some of them do. I think it is easier for them to live off the state and federal government with welfare and other forms of assistance than to go out and work. And I KNOW that some of these people, when faced with losing this assistance simply "pop another baby out" to stay on it. Am I against the programs all together? Quite the contrary, I know the programs work but they are used way too often and with little to no oversight. Welfare is a program, as former President Clinton pointed out in one his State of the Union addresses, that should be used to help people get back on their feet and become successful. Unfortunetly it has become a way of life for far too many....by their own choosing.

"Why would anyone want to be stuck working for $5.15/hour?"
Beats me...I sure didn't want to be. Oh, by the way, their is no job in CT other than waiting tables that pays that little per hour...we have a higher min wage in CT so please please please be truthful when speaking about it (and ask JDS to do the same).

"Do you really think the base should be without hope, and/or health coverage?"
I realize this isn't all of the folks stuck on the bottom rung. Some are trying and I also realize that anyone who really wants to get off the bottom rung can. It isn't hard. The history I gave you about me covers less than 10 years. You just have to try. That is why I don't "have a bigger heart" for those "stuck" their because you are only stuck their if you want to be. Those that have hope and desire will certainly succeed, there is no doubt in my mind. As for health insurance...I agree that we need to somehow help those that need help...for a limited amount of time. And as welfare is owed uyntil you die, the debt for the healthcare should be too. They certainly shouldn't have to choose between food and medicine but Universal Healthcare isn't the answer to that. Do I know what it is? Nope, never claimed to but I know that I have a huge problem with forcing companmies to pay for people that don't work for them and an even bigger problem with tax dollars paying for accross the board healthcare...it isn't the government's job, at least not in this country, to do it.

In regards to your P.S. about my schooling...I paid for half with a part time job and had a student loan, far from a handout, for the other half. Keep in mind it was community college which is amazingly still affordable.

bluecoat said...

GMR noted that when he was 25 and single he was uninsured by choice. When Mitt Romney had MIT do an in depth analysis of who was uninsured in Massachussets before they helped him fashion Romneycare, MIT found that it was the young single male in their mid 20's that made up the bulk of the uninsured. It's always much better to define a problem first before solving the wrong problem unless you're just in it for politics . Nobody reaaly knows the complexion of the truly uninsured in CT and why that is because noone has ever compiled the stats - it's much better for politicians to wage class warfare than identify and solve problems.

boredwithbluecoat said...


How right you are...yet for some reason you still like JDS...interesting.

bluecoat said...

Bored; there are some good things about JDS but his Universal Healthcare isn't one of them - you didn't get that I was facetious yesterday. I won't vote for Rell because she refused to clean house of the Rowland pigs and I don't know that I will vote for JDS as the lesser of two evils.

Jury: State Wasn't Bilked Senick Not Guilty In Larceny Case August 30, 2006 By DAN UHLINGER, Courant Staff Writer but the truth is the state was bilked but it was all perfoectly legal since state employees are entitled to many perks not just their salary and benefits.

and from the New York TimesLieberman Gains G.O.P. Ally but Loses a Democratic One

Anonymous said...

truebluect - Why do you continue to refer to the minimum wage of $5.15? Are you unaware that CT has a much higher minimum wage? Or, are you being intentionally misleading? Hmmm . . . based on your track record I think we all know the answer to that. Are you so afraid of or embarrassed by the merits of your position that you have to lie? Pathetic.

bluecoat said...

Rell pushes for interchange solution many months after a federal judge and the Meritt Conservancy urged the same thing. Thank goodness for the upcoming election and the need for press releases by Team Rell. To liste to Rell you'd think she had no responsibility for this over the course of the last two years.

Former job of Lieberman's wife a campaign issue By Don Michak, Journal Inquirer

bluecoat said...

New Lieberman TV ad prompts rapid response from Lamont camp By Don Michak, Journal Inquirer 08/30/2006

DeStefano Targets Rell's Record in today's NHR.

Ghost of Yogi said...


First, people who are qualified and willing to work at Wal-Mart are probably limited to similar forms of employment. It is not correct to say that one can simply go anywhere else for work. For example: One of those 8 thousand people applying for a Wal-Mart spot in Arizona would have less of a chance working for say Bank of America. They are most likely qualified for other retail jobs at Target, Coles, etc. Among competitors, Wal-Mart can adversely affect wages by Low-Balling.

Wal-Mart drops its prices, thus forcing other competitors - aka other employers - to drop their prices. (Wal-Mart can do this because they’re freaking huge, like Standard Oil was.) In order to stay in business, competitors must drop their prices. The price cut causes profit to go down. When profit goes down, overhead starts to thin. The difference must be made up somewhere. Among other cuts, the wages that are offered to new employees are caped. (The Federal Govt. also does this in times of low revenue, like right now.)

Another way that Wal-Mart adversely affects wages is through its sheer size of employees. Much like Oil Company's, Wal-Mart can pay what it wants: It, for all intents and purposes, owns the market of retail. Therefore, what Wal-Mart decides to pay is what the market will bear. And because the jobs are all similar in nature - sucky and low paying with supper high turnover - there is no market force that could ever push retail wages higher.

Wal-Mart isn't evil. But to act as if Market Forces are a check on Wal-Mart is to ignore 100 years of the most damaging evidence. I mean, the Great Depression never happened?

I think that Gov. Rell's position on Wal-Mart, Minimum Wage, Assault Weapons, and generally all the other "liberal" issues is slightly more enlightened than President Hoover. Which is good, Hoover was a very successful president.

bluecoat said...

I think it's fair to say that if WalMart weren't around their employess would be working at other retail stores. Other retail stores aren't particularly known for great wage and benefit packages. I have all kinds of problems with WalMart - like their importation policies, predatory business practices with suppliers and this largest retailer in the world getting tax abatements from the town of Stratford - but as long as the follow the employment laws of our land who cares what they pay and what pay theior employees decide to accept.

Anonymous said...

Hey, my local hardware store used to pay quite well. And it sent everyone home to their families at 6pm. Then Home Depot came to town.

But that's just progress. Can you imagine a world without Home Depots?

bluecoat said...

Home Depot is just one step better than WalMart in my book. I shop there in an emergency - maybe once every two years. Plus in their case they cover up the accidents that injure and even kill customers because customers aren't covered under OSHA laws.

cgg said...

What troubles is about this discussion is that people seem more interested in attacking people on welfare and big box retail than actually considering what poverty is and if government should have a role in fighting it.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

cgg said... ....
actually considering what poverty is and if government should have a role in fighting it.

You're right of course.

We as a society (regardless of what entity, civic, church based, or gov't) could do a better job of getting those (too often natural born citizens) up to speed at English; where without a command the individual is virtually sentenced to poverty.

We also don't do everything we could in so far as helping single mothers, often w/out even a GED, bootstrap themselves out of poverty without some sort of penalty.

Occasionally in our efforts to totally nerf-coat society we wind up making matters worse for the very people we might have intended to help. But that would take a whole blog of it's own.

Derby Conservative said...

Bluecoat said re Home Depot:

Plus in their case they cover up the accidents that injure and even kill customers because customers aren't covered under OSHA laws.

BC, first give one citation of more than one case where this happened. Second, do you think that customers should be covered by OSHA and workers compensation policies if they are injured while shopping in a store? You really must have a grand delusion of what Utopia would look like.

bluecoat said...

No, I don't think that consumers should be covered by workman's comp but they do have a reasonable expectation to a safe shopping environment. And BTW, Larry Cafero wants injured healthcare consumers to be covered by a system similar to workmen's comp - I guess he doesn't believe in consumer driven healthcare or maybe he just beleive in pandering to GOP campaign contributors. As for the specifics on the Home Depot safety record you can do your own research on that - it's out there but they did a good job covering it up and they have taken some corrective action but not enough. If I ran a warehouse like a Home Depot, OSHA would have fined my ass. .

bluecoat said...

I didn't have time to read it but it Googled up right away and there was a lng list beyond itBusiness Safety law hits Home Depot, Wal - Mart PATTI BOND 10/16/2001 The Atlanta Constitution and I know the press is liberal.

The True Gentleman said...

ok, bluecoat, that link talks about a dangerous work environment with items falling off of storage shelves but makes no mention of anyone trying to cover it up.

bluecoat said...

Personal injury lawsuits hit Home Depot and another link here

The simple fact is that Home Depot denied and denied this was a problem until it hit the press and it hit them in the pocketbook with litigation. They finally statreted to take corrective action about five years ago as i recall.I only did superficial research but they did in fact cover the problem up for years. And this is a blog not a court of law TG

On top of all that,Home Depot is a crappy company offering an inconsistent product and exercising predatory practices on its suppliers. And I know that lots of GOP lawyers around the country represent them so maybe I hit a nerve. Like I said I rarely use them - last time as I recal was two years ago on a Sunday afternoon for a $5 item. My choice who to patronize here in the USA.

You guys are tough and I am sure you are not satisfied but I gotts go.

cgg said...

Wow ACR I never thought I'd hear you say that I was right on anything. It's a new day. :)

I just don't think that poverty fits squarely into either the conservative or liberal stereotype. Discussing it only in terms of welfare fraud and retail wages does a great disservice to the issues involved. Being a liberal I think goverment is probably the best force to combat poverty, but at the moment neither major political party seems that interested. And even I recognize that you can't legislate cultural attitudes, which IMO also need to change.

Most of us are probably a lot closer to losing our jobs and safety nets than we care to admit. It's much easier to pretend it won't ever happen to us than sit up all night worrying that it will. Until we recognize that this could happen to anyone (and I will admit to my own denial here) nothing is going to change.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Being a liberal I think goverment is probably the best force to combat poverty...

Too much fat.

Every time we wheel out the gov't it's akin to taking a semi down to the corner store for a pack of cigarettes when we should have taken the Vespa.

Red tape galore, loads of checks and balances every one of them costing us something extra and detracting from the job at hand.

Try this; I'm sure you would agree that people need to speak English so as to better support themselves and their families.

A Danbury college student and a member of the Democratic Party there has been doing exactly that for some sort of extra credit I believe for some time. The interesting "hook" is that she uses economic necessity as her sales ploy to encourage people to sign up.

God Bless her - I only pray she sees the light and reforms so she can sit on the right hand of GOP instead of working tirelessly for the wrong party.

A good worker is a terrible thing to waste.

Chris MC said...

Quoth Trueblue/DF84:
Looking after the less fortunate used to be a Republican value. What happened to the rising tide lifting all boats?

Ed, you are the biggest asset your opponents have in any argument; From the wiki:
The aphorism "a rising tide lifts all boats" is associated with the idea that improvements in the general economy will benefit all participants in that economy, and that economic policy, particularly government economic policy, should therefore focus on the general macroeconomic environment first and foremost. It is associated with John F. Kennedy, who coined the expression when faced with criticism that his tax cuts would benefit mostly wealthy individuals. The expression also applies to free market policies, in that comparative advantage production and subsequent trade would theoretically increase incomes for all participating entities. It is a favorite proverb of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin....
[emphasis added]