Why don't Americans without health insurance just marry Canadian or European women?
This is an easy solution to the healthcare crisis. For example, I am married to a Belgian woman. This gives me access to Belgium's socialized healthcare system. It's a good system; I fly there every year for a checkup and dental work and blood tests and all that kind of stuff. I had a shoulder operation that would have cost me a $5,000 copay on my American insurance for only $350 Euros in Belgium, and I went on a wine tour of southern Wallonia/Luxembourg afterwards, so it was also a vacation. Including airfare, all this only cost me $4,700, which means I actually came out $300 AHEAD compared to how the American healthcare system wanted to screw me. But anyway, this seems like an easy solution. If you need healthcare, just marry a European or a Canadian or someone from a country with national health coverage. In most cases, you can start getting benefits within a year of marriage. It's pretty awesome. Why don't more Americans do this, instead of whining so much and pushing for socialism? Just marry Europeans, dummies!
Politics - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yeah right, we're the dummies! We feel sorry for you.
2 :
Have you seen them? You're going to be sick either way.
3 :
because you cant make yourself love someone because of the benefits ........... also their is discrimination
4 :
Actually, getting residency after marriage can still be a problem. FACT - Insurance companies in the USA admit to pushing up prices, buying politicians and not paying out claims when they should [1] FACT - PER PERSON the USA spends more on healthcare than any other nation on the planet [2] FACT - Obama debated his plans before the election for healthcare [3] FACT - the chance of a child under five of dying in the USA is greater than industrialised nations with universal health coverage [4] FACT - Obama was elected by the American people to bring in change [5] FACT - Obama wants to stop insurance companies from screwing America [6] FACT - The reforms Obama wants work in the Netherlands and Switzerland [7] Let me know if my facts are wrong, but please provide proof.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Is "Corporate Welfare" a myth
Is "Corporate Welfare" a myth?
A common assumption, based on theoretical models of tax incidence, is that capital (i.e. shareholders) bears the burden of the corporate income tax. Recent empirical work using cross-country data on corporate taxes and wages suggests reconsidering this assumption; labor may actually bear a substantial burden from the corporate income tax. - Treasury research paper, "A Review of the Evidence on the Incidence of the Corporate Income Tax," http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota101.pdf Empirical evidence from three different studies cited in the paper includes: 1. It is estimated that 61% of any additional corporate tax is passed on in lower wages in the short run, and around 100% in the long run. 2. Using cross-country panel data from the Luxembourg Income Study, it is estimated that a 10% increase in the corporate tax rate decreases annual gross wages by 7% percent. 3. The results in this paper suggest that corporate tax rates affect wage levels across countries, and that higher corporate taxes lead to lower wages. A 1% increase in corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1% drop in wage rates. High Corporate Taxes = Lower Wages
Other - Politics & Government - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No, bailing out subprime predatory lenders would definitely be corporate welfare.
2 :
As I have said before that without the rich there would be no jobs. You take their money and jobs are lost Their taxes are considered a business expense and is passed onto the consumer. You keep prices down, job rates high and companies in America by cutting them some tax slack Anyone in business is going to move to where they can afford to do business as their job is to make money As soon as the Democrats in this country learn this the companies will slowly come back Then you have the unions that would like to put them out of business and run up the cost to us all so they can make a dollar (different story for another day)
3 :
I definately agree that some of the arguements the liberals make are BS, but not all of them. I am inclined to believe politicians (including liberals) increase taxes above the table, & give loopholes & other benifits (often called corperate welfare) under the table. The biggest lie is that many claim it is jsut the republicans that do this.
A common assumption, based on theoretical models of tax incidence, is that capital (i.e. shareholders) bears the burden of the corporate income tax. Recent empirical work using cross-country data on corporate taxes and wages suggests reconsidering this assumption; labor may actually bear a substantial burden from the corporate income tax. - Treasury research paper, "A Review of the Evidence on the Incidence of the Corporate Income Tax," http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota101.pdf Empirical evidence from three different studies cited in the paper includes: 1. It is estimated that 61% of any additional corporate tax is passed on in lower wages in the short run, and around 100% in the long run. 2. Using cross-country panel data from the Luxembourg Income Study, it is estimated that a 10% increase in the corporate tax rate decreases annual gross wages by 7% percent. 3. The results in this paper suggest that corporate tax rates affect wage levels across countries, and that higher corporate taxes lead to lower wages. A 1% increase in corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1% drop in wage rates. High Corporate Taxes = Lower Wages
Other - Politics & Government - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No, bailing out subprime predatory lenders would definitely be corporate welfare.
2 :
As I have said before that without the rich there would be no jobs. You take their money and jobs are lost Their taxes are considered a business expense and is passed onto the consumer. You keep prices down, job rates high and companies in America by cutting them some tax slack Anyone in business is going to move to where they can afford to do business as their job is to make money As soon as the Democrats in this country learn this the companies will slowly come back Then you have the unions that would like to put them out of business and run up the cost to us all so they can make a dollar (different story for another day)
3 :
I definately agree that some of the arguements the liberals make are BS, but not all of them. I am inclined to believe politicians (including liberals) increase taxes above the table, & give loopholes & other benifits (often called corperate welfare) under the table. The biggest lie is that many claim it is jsut the republicans that do this.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
How can we convince voters that everyone without health insurance is just a lazy bum
How can we convince voters that everyone without health insurance is just a lazy bum?
....this will make it easier for all of us. If we can convince the average American boob that every single person without health insurance is either an illegal alien or some bum who refuses to do his share, we can win this battle. We need to stop stories of working people being dropped, people desperate and taking jobs without benefits, people who work hard, but are denied coverage or priced twice their salary. This needs to be kept confidential. If we can convince the American people that these are all welfare cheats and illegals, we can keep the insurance system the way it is and continue to make more money off it. We've already done a good job of keeping Americans from finding out anything about health-care systems in nations such as Switzerland, Australia and Japan and Luxembourg and Taiwan because we've trained them to focus only on the two most defective ones, Britain and Canada, so that they never even bother to look at other systems. You have to love the American people, so dumbed down in their educational system and their entertainment that they are the perfect dupes...they'll keep getting raped by us in the insurance racket and they'll still think that this is the best of all possible worlds. We've got it all under control. It's so easy to control a society composed of people who, for the most part, know absolutely nothing about the outside world and think that life is a nightmare in every country except their own. God, I love Americans, they're so profitable!!!!!! Universal health care. Why don't you survey and do research on Australians, citizens of Taiwan, Singapore, Norway, Switzerland and Japan and find out. Start with Australia, find out how many Aussies wish they had our system instead. Then go look at their per-capita income, highest taxation rate, standard of living, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and percentage who want the universal health care system abolished. Start there, then go look at the other industrialized nations, that is other than Canada and Britain. We all know very well about the failures of those systems. Ask yourself also why we don't have a massive exodus of Western Europeans and Aussies migrating to the United States. They appear rather happy where they are, for the most part and know about the rest of the world, unlike many of the posters here.
Politics - 19 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Agree. We have Medicaid, so I don't see why it's a prob
2 :
ha ha!
3 :
You have to lie and spread fear like the GOP, since it's not true.
4 :
LOL
5 :
Here's a fact. Nearly 13 million people without health insurance make over $50,000 a year and choose not to have health insurance. Here's another fact. About 14 million people without health insurance are poor enough to qualify for government assistance, but choose not to get it.
6 :
Since it is not true you can't.
7 :
If the insurance companies weren't so greedy, employers could afford to provide insurance. Even then, most employers are greedy too and won't spend a dime for the employees, unless forced to. Taxpayers are picking up the tab because of corporate greed. No matter what system the US uses, it's not going to work due to that fact. This American isn't so dumb either. I don't listen to the news on TV, I see the news from the world on the internet and talk to others in other countries. Knowledge is power.
8 :
Well said. Republicans are wholly owned subsidiaries of the insurance companies. ##
9 :
Your sarcasm is as subtle as getting hit with a hammer. Everyone agrees that we need health care reform. What we don't agree on is that Congress can fix it. Their track record is deplorable.
10 :
MA has 42% year over year cost increases. Hawaii has MASSIVE taxation. California is BANKRUPT. Maine it failed in. Prove it works. Show us your FANASTICALLY AMAZING "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE" works. PROVE IT!!!
11 :
Even though that was a long post, I'm glad I read it. It was humorous, but serious at the same time. You are right, Americans should learn more about other systems and not believe everything they are told.
12 :
That's quite a twisted story. I bet your a liberal. Your not describing republican nor conservative values. Not everyone without health insurance is just a lazy bum as you describe. There are however way to many freeloaders.
13 :
the sad part is there is a shadowy group ( zionists ? ) that are saying exactly that . ever think of going into politics ?
14 :
The connies seem to have a plan in place.
15 :
You guys really think the U.S. government which is full of corruption, fraud, and mismanagement will take good care of you when they take three years just to pay some soldier's bonus pay, don't take care of vets, cut medicare payouts to providers, and deny treatment to just as many people as the private insurance companies. Please!!! The bills they have now are just disaster and American bankruptcy waiting to happen.
16 :
Two step plan: 1) wait "till they get fired, 2) tell them they can get Medicare. OR alternate: tell them to ask their European immigrant friends. Everybody know a lot of Euro immigrants, right, right. oh.
17 :
He wants to impose on America social programs bigger than FDR and LBJ so that he can stake his claim in history as one of the progressive heroes. He knows that he will lose seats in November and the election of Scott Brown ushered in the reality that he could lose the majority in one or both chambers. He wants to do it now or he will not have the progressive legacy he believes is his birthright. The other thing is that he believes that if he tanks on health care he will be seen as a failure. Republicans said this issue could be his Waterloo and now some Democrats are expressing the same thing. He is more worried about his image, his legacy and whether he is viewed as a failure than he is about America or his own party. Obama is so worried about passing his agenda that he is embracing a procedure that violates Senate rules. The way this bill has been amended and will be voted on (vote on Senate bill, add amendments and send to Obama) is not how legislation is supposed to be accomplished but none of this matters because Obama wants it done at all costs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8
18 :
You have a few valid points, actually you have a lot of valid points. I think the real problem for most of the people who oppose the health care reforms proposed by the president and congress is this. It's being crammed down their throats. There are serious problems in health care and they need to be addressed. The idea of millions of Americans not having access to quality health care is not true. It's having access to affordable health care. If being healthy costs money a lot of people aren't going to get it. Yet why should someone who works support someone who doesn't? What to do? The Swedish system consumes an enormous percentage of their GNP. The Canadian system has problems, as does the British. I've looked in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere does it say that health care is a right. It does say that you're entitled to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You've got to catch it yourself. We need Health care reform, but not this.
19 :
You need the neurolyzer which zaps the memory for a few minutes and you can tell people what you want them to do like in that movie Men in Black. Health insurance should be a right and freedom. Not a company to make money!! Those health insurance companies are screwing with the free will to live.
....this will make it easier for all of us. If we can convince the average American boob that every single person without health insurance is either an illegal alien or some bum who refuses to do his share, we can win this battle. We need to stop stories of working people being dropped, people desperate and taking jobs without benefits, people who work hard, but are denied coverage or priced twice their salary. This needs to be kept confidential. If we can convince the American people that these are all welfare cheats and illegals, we can keep the insurance system the way it is and continue to make more money off it. We've already done a good job of keeping Americans from finding out anything about health-care systems in nations such as Switzerland, Australia and Japan and Luxembourg and Taiwan because we've trained them to focus only on the two most defective ones, Britain and Canada, so that they never even bother to look at other systems. You have to love the American people, so dumbed down in their educational system and their entertainment that they are the perfect dupes...they'll keep getting raped by us in the insurance racket and they'll still think that this is the best of all possible worlds. We've got it all under control. It's so easy to control a society composed of people who, for the most part, know absolutely nothing about the outside world and think that life is a nightmare in every country except their own. God, I love Americans, they're so profitable!!!!!! Universal health care. Why don't you survey and do research on Australians, citizens of Taiwan, Singapore, Norway, Switzerland and Japan and find out. Start with Australia, find out how many Aussies wish they had our system instead. Then go look at their per-capita income, highest taxation rate, standard of living, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and percentage who want the universal health care system abolished. Start there, then go look at the other industrialized nations, that is other than Canada and Britain. We all know very well about the failures of those systems. Ask yourself also why we don't have a massive exodus of Western Europeans and Aussies migrating to the United States. They appear rather happy where they are, for the most part and know about the rest of the world, unlike many of the posters here.
Politics - 19 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Agree. We have Medicaid, so I don't see why it's a prob
2 :
ha ha!
3 :
You have to lie and spread fear like the GOP, since it's not true.
4 :
LOL
5 :
Here's a fact. Nearly 13 million people without health insurance make over $50,000 a year and choose not to have health insurance. Here's another fact. About 14 million people without health insurance are poor enough to qualify for government assistance, but choose not to get it.
6 :
Since it is not true you can't.
7 :
If the insurance companies weren't so greedy, employers could afford to provide insurance. Even then, most employers are greedy too and won't spend a dime for the employees, unless forced to. Taxpayers are picking up the tab because of corporate greed. No matter what system the US uses, it's not going to work due to that fact. This American isn't so dumb either. I don't listen to the news on TV, I see the news from the world on the internet and talk to others in other countries. Knowledge is power.
8 :
Well said. Republicans are wholly owned subsidiaries of the insurance companies. ##
9 :
Your sarcasm is as subtle as getting hit with a hammer. Everyone agrees that we need health care reform. What we don't agree on is that Congress can fix it. Their track record is deplorable.
10 :
MA has 42% year over year cost increases. Hawaii has MASSIVE taxation. California is BANKRUPT. Maine it failed in. Prove it works. Show us your FANASTICALLY AMAZING "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE" works. PROVE IT!!!
11 :
Even though that was a long post, I'm glad I read it. It was humorous, but serious at the same time. You are right, Americans should learn more about other systems and not believe everything they are told.
12 :
That's quite a twisted story. I bet your a liberal. Your not describing republican nor conservative values. Not everyone without health insurance is just a lazy bum as you describe. There are however way to many freeloaders.
13 :
the sad part is there is a shadowy group ( zionists ? ) that are saying exactly that . ever think of going into politics ?
14 :
The connies seem to have a plan in place.
15 :
You guys really think the U.S. government which is full of corruption, fraud, and mismanagement will take good care of you when they take three years just to pay some soldier's bonus pay, don't take care of vets, cut medicare payouts to providers, and deny treatment to just as many people as the private insurance companies. Please!!! The bills they have now are just disaster and American bankruptcy waiting to happen.
16 :
Two step plan: 1) wait "till they get fired, 2) tell them they can get Medicare. OR alternate: tell them to ask their European immigrant friends. Everybody know a lot of Euro immigrants, right, right. oh.
17 :
He wants to impose on America social programs bigger than FDR and LBJ so that he can stake his claim in history as one of the progressive heroes. He knows that he will lose seats in November and the election of Scott Brown ushered in the reality that he could lose the majority in one or both chambers. He wants to do it now or he will not have the progressive legacy he believes is his birthright. The other thing is that he believes that if he tanks on health care he will be seen as a failure. Republicans said this issue could be his Waterloo and now some Democrats are expressing the same thing. He is more worried about his image, his legacy and whether he is viewed as a failure than he is about America or his own party. Obama is so worried about passing his agenda that he is embracing a procedure that violates Senate rules. The way this bill has been amended and will be voted on (vote on Senate bill, add amendments and send to Obama) is not how legislation is supposed to be accomplished but none of this matters because Obama wants it done at all costs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8
18 :
You have a few valid points, actually you have a lot of valid points. I think the real problem for most of the people who oppose the health care reforms proposed by the president and congress is this. It's being crammed down their throats. There are serious problems in health care and they need to be addressed. The idea of millions of Americans not having access to quality health care is not true. It's having access to affordable health care. If being healthy costs money a lot of people aren't going to get it. Yet why should someone who works support someone who doesn't? What to do? The Swedish system consumes an enormous percentage of their GNP. The Canadian system has problems, as does the British. I've looked in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere does it say that health care is a right. It does say that you're entitled to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You've got to catch it yourself. We need Health care reform, but not this.
19 :
You need the neurolyzer which zaps the memory for a few minutes and you can tell people what you want them to do like in that movie Men in Black. Health insurance should be a right and freedom. Not a company to make money!! Those health insurance companies are screwing with the free will to live.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Why do Republicans want the rich to get richer
Why do Republicans want the rich to get richer?
I asked the question how Republicans are going to solve income inequality without evil socialism. And I provided graphs illustration how the wealthiest 1% in the USA have gotten 180% wealthier in comparison to the middle class which have gotten only 25% wealthier. And then I showed that Socialist countries have the lowest income inequalities in the world, and Norway and Luxembourg are the wealthiest countries in the world too (In both PPP and Nominal GDP). http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100326192459AAowCIV And I got these answers? Which seemed so wrong? ___________________ end welfare so they have to work. - rightwing radical 1 You'll need to motivate lazy people to work harder. ___________________ Ending welfare will increase unemployment and further increase the income inequality. If anything they need far, far more welfare. Unemployment rate in the USA - 9.70% Unemployment rate in selected countries under the International Socialist Alliance Australia - 5.50% Netherlands - 3.30% Norway - 3.30% Denmark - 4.20% ________________________ Improve education _______________________ That's a socialist thing to do, I asked how to decrease income inequality WITHOUT socialism. Better schools = Higher taxes ____________________________________ The U.S. has never been about equal income. Its about equal opportunity. If people don't take advantage of their opportunities, they aren't going to get anywhere. That would be a normal expectation. - Bekingtoanimals ___________________________________ Talking about giving people more opportunities?, People born into wealth obviously have more opportunities, and better access schools than those born into the middle/lower classes. Putting more money into public schools would give people more equal opportunities. Lowering university fees will give the lower classes more opportunities to escape poverty and get an education. ____________________________________ And then I got alot of answers saying it wasnt bad at all that america has a high income inequality, and they dont have a problem with the rich-poor gap growing at an extremely fast rate. Somehow I got answers saying it was a good thing? Since there's a 99% chance that you don't make up the richest 1% of the US population. I don't know why people answer this saying this. Why do Republicans want the richest 1% to get richer x7.2 faster than the middle-class. Why are they fighting for the rights of the rich to get richer? I just dont understand it. I mean, its NOT benefitting them. Its benefitting the wealthy, and the ultra-mega-wealthy. I dont understand why they're fighting for the bougouis? It seems so strange to the rest of the world, A UK newspaper I read likened it to a reverse-French revolution where the workers pour into the streets demanding more power to the aristocracy. @rainmaker You never read anything I wrote, did you? ____________________________ You assume we need income equality. That's never going to happen, because some people will simply be wealthier than others. And you don't want the rich to get richer? Do you want them to get poorer? I want everyone to get richer, rich and poor alike. ____________ YOUR A SOCIALIST TOO!!!!!!!!!!!! YOUR ONE OF US NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Politics - 15 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
They don't want to support a bunch of lazy A** liberal socialist
2 :
cocaine
3 :
You assume we need income equality. That's never going to happen, because some people will simply be wealthier than others. And you don't want the rich to get richer? Do you want them to get poorer? I want everyone to get richer, rich and poor alike.
4 :
You envy is showing. Divide all the money in the world equally and in six months the same ones that have it now will have it back. There is no cure for ignorance if the ignorant don't realize they are ignorant.
5 :
How does tearing down the rich make me any wealthier, wealth is almost never transferred but destroyed. What you fail to mention is that a 25% percent increase in income is not a bad thing.
6 :
the more money they have the more they want so they hire more people to work in order for them to make more money. you know the American way
7 :
The question comes down to what do you think is more important for a society to have...economic freedom or human equality? They typically have an inverse relationship. Republicans stress freedom SO MUCH, even freedoms for the rich, so the end result is more inequality. If someone actually knew the magic way to make everyone rich and equal we would have solved it by now.
8 :
The bottom line is------> The Repubs do not want a system where they have to continue supporting the lazy worthless beings who choose not to work. I dont know about you, but I was raised to believe that if you didnt work you didnt have means to live because nothing in life is free... If only Libs believed that.
9 :
Its not about keeping the rich richer.... In the words of Thomas Jefferson..... The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson We are all capable of being equal. money is earned not just owed to you...
10 :
Some people are more valuable than others. Sorry, doctors and burger flippers shouldn't be equal. I mean it's basic common sense. THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY, NOT THE LAND OF ENTITLEMENTS.
11 :
Actually Republicans would like to see everyone who works hard to succeed and get richer, democrats want people to be poorer so they can use them to win elections by promising that if elected the government would do everything for them at the rich man's expense. No wanting the poor to stay poor and the rich to get poorer is socialism, wanting everyone to get richer is capitalism.
12 :
No. Republicans want more people to be richer. That way people will have more money to spend on the goods and services that they produce. There would also be more people to pay taxes and thus reduce the burden upon themselves. If the rich are getting wealthier, it is because youngsters coming up behind them do not have the education that they did. The youngsters have been indoctrinated with a sense of entitlement by socialist teachers for decades. Consequently, the only hand that they can offer has an upturned palm.
13 :
Our system is set up to favor those who work hard and want to achieve. Why are you infants so infatuated with the rich? Who cares? Only an insecure, immature dependent would even concern themselves with ANY of the stuff that you do...You people are natural born losers, all you do is complain!
14 :
OK, there is a lot of ground to cover here, but I'll give it a shot. First, I can't find any sources that show that Norway and Luxembourg are the wealthiest countries in the world in terms of PPP, GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29 According to that link, the US economy is almost as wealthy as the entire European Union. I will go ahead and admit that I believe strongly in free market capitalism. Yeah, it might create a rift in income equality, but I would argue that that would inspire hard work and ingenuity within the lower classes. If you live in a system that rewards success, you are more inclined to be successful. A system that produces successful individuals will tend to be successful itself. Socialism creates a "permanent" lower-class, by taking from the successful and giving to the unsuccessful. By punishing successful behavior, you thereby make it less attractive, and simultaneously disillusion those who are being rewarded; if they do one day become successful, they will be taxed to support those who are not. So why try? Most of the problems in this country could be fixed with decent education early in life. Education in this country is very poor until the collegiate level. The reason for this is that public schools are managed and funded by the government, whereas colleges are managed as private enterprises. State colleges receive some funding from tax dollars, but the college is run as a business with profit in mind. Most of the profits are earned through tuition and investments. With that said, the college must still stay accredited by providing a quality service, or it will lose its customer base and go bankrupt. A purely government funded school keeps its doors open regardless of how poor its quality might be, because the government will fund it regardless. This is an example of how capitalism promotes a quality product at a reasonable price, even if greed is the motivator. Since the level of education is so poor, many Americans graduate highschool knowing very little. Most can't balance their bank account each month, and even fewer have a real understanding of how the economy works. If we want to fix America's problems, we need to educate those who have the most to gain: the lower class. These people do not need a government hand-out. They need a quality education and the opportunity to prove themselves. Unfortunately, a government funded school will not provide either. One reason that the republican party is popular is that it promotes a small government. This is good for the wealthy, because it implies less taxes. This is bad for poverty-level citizens and non-citizens, as it implies less free services. However, the reason many middle-class Americans back the wealthy is because the wealthy create the enterprises in a capitalist market. By helping those who invest, you allow them to invest more, which provides either higher paying jobs or more jobs at the same pay level. In a system where the government holds the wealth, the citizens are dependent on the government to fund employment. Many Americans are uncomfortable with this idea, myself being one. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few points that I would like to make, but you get the idea. Thanks for the friendly arguments, as they're always welcome. Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss this further.
15 :
You've made excellent points. I think the Republicans want the rich to get richer is a platform they've believed in for so long that they just don't see what's going on now. It's like a lot of things that started out with good intentions, but then took a terrible turn for the worse. They believe that if you give more to the rich, they'll share by creating jobs and being fair. That was true once upon a time ago. There were a few who didn't share or create, but now it's not a few, it's most all of the wealthy. They've become super greedy and selfish. They created jobs, but took them overseas for cheap labor, and more lax government requirements, then bring their goods back here to sell at the same high prices as before. Only difference is most people are either earning less or nothing, and can no longer make the purchases they could before. It may take a while before it hits the wealthy. After all, they've been playing this game with money much longer than us, cause we don't have much to play with.
I asked the question how Republicans are going to solve income inequality without evil socialism. And I provided graphs illustration how the wealthiest 1% in the USA have gotten 180% wealthier in comparison to the middle class which have gotten only 25% wealthier. And then I showed that Socialist countries have the lowest income inequalities in the world, and Norway and Luxembourg are the wealthiest countries in the world too (In both PPP and Nominal GDP). http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100326192459AAowCIV And I got these answers? Which seemed so wrong? ___________________ end welfare so they have to work. - rightwing radical 1 You'll need to motivate lazy people to work harder. ___________________ Ending welfare will increase unemployment and further increase the income inequality. If anything they need far, far more welfare. Unemployment rate in the USA - 9.70% Unemployment rate in selected countries under the International Socialist Alliance Australia - 5.50% Netherlands - 3.30% Norway - 3.30% Denmark - 4.20% ________________________ Improve education _______________________ That's a socialist thing to do, I asked how to decrease income inequality WITHOUT socialism. Better schools = Higher taxes ____________________________________ The U.S. has never been about equal income. Its about equal opportunity. If people don't take advantage of their opportunities, they aren't going to get anywhere. That would be a normal expectation. - Bekingtoanimals ___________________________________ Talking about giving people more opportunities?, People born into wealth obviously have more opportunities, and better access schools than those born into the middle/lower classes. Putting more money into public schools would give people more equal opportunities. Lowering university fees will give the lower classes more opportunities to escape poverty and get an education. ____________________________________ And then I got alot of answers saying it wasnt bad at all that america has a high income inequality, and they dont have a problem with the rich-poor gap growing at an extremely fast rate. Somehow I got answers saying it was a good thing? Since there's a 99% chance that you don't make up the richest 1% of the US population. I don't know why people answer this saying this. Why do Republicans want the richest 1% to get richer x7.2 faster than the middle-class. Why are they fighting for the rights of the rich to get richer? I just dont understand it. I mean, its NOT benefitting them. Its benefitting the wealthy, and the ultra-mega-wealthy. I dont understand why they're fighting for the bougouis? It seems so strange to the rest of the world, A UK newspaper I read likened it to a reverse-French revolution where the workers pour into the streets demanding more power to the aristocracy. @rainmaker You never read anything I wrote, did you? ____________________________ You assume we need income equality. That's never going to happen, because some people will simply be wealthier than others. And you don't want the rich to get richer? Do you want them to get poorer? I want everyone to get richer, rich and poor alike. ____________ YOUR A SOCIALIST TOO!!!!!!!!!!!! YOUR ONE OF US NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Politics - 15 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
They don't want to support a bunch of lazy A** liberal socialist
2 :
cocaine
3 :
You assume we need income equality. That's never going to happen, because some people will simply be wealthier than others. And you don't want the rich to get richer? Do you want them to get poorer? I want everyone to get richer, rich and poor alike.
4 :
You envy is showing. Divide all the money in the world equally and in six months the same ones that have it now will have it back. There is no cure for ignorance if the ignorant don't realize they are ignorant.
5 :
How does tearing down the rich make me any wealthier, wealth is almost never transferred but destroyed. What you fail to mention is that a 25% percent increase in income is not a bad thing.
6 :
the more money they have the more they want so they hire more people to work in order for them to make more money. you know the American way
7 :
The question comes down to what do you think is more important for a society to have...economic freedom or human equality? They typically have an inverse relationship. Republicans stress freedom SO MUCH, even freedoms for the rich, so the end result is more inequality. If someone actually knew the magic way to make everyone rich and equal we would have solved it by now.
8 :
The bottom line is------> The Repubs do not want a system where they have to continue supporting the lazy worthless beings who choose not to work. I dont know about you, but I was raised to believe that if you didnt work you didnt have means to live because nothing in life is free... If only Libs believed that.
9 :
Its not about keeping the rich richer.... In the words of Thomas Jefferson..... The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson We are all capable of being equal. money is earned not just owed to you...
10 :
Some people are more valuable than others. Sorry, doctors and burger flippers shouldn't be equal. I mean it's basic common sense. THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY, NOT THE LAND OF ENTITLEMENTS.
11 :
Actually Republicans would like to see everyone who works hard to succeed and get richer, democrats want people to be poorer so they can use them to win elections by promising that if elected the government would do everything for them at the rich man's expense. No wanting the poor to stay poor and the rich to get poorer is socialism, wanting everyone to get richer is capitalism.
12 :
No. Republicans want more people to be richer. That way people will have more money to spend on the goods and services that they produce. There would also be more people to pay taxes and thus reduce the burden upon themselves. If the rich are getting wealthier, it is because youngsters coming up behind them do not have the education that they did. The youngsters have been indoctrinated with a sense of entitlement by socialist teachers for decades. Consequently, the only hand that they can offer has an upturned palm.
13 :
Our system is set up to favor those who work hard and want to achieve. Why are you infants so infatuated with the rich? Who cares? Only an insecure, immature dependent would even concern themselves with ANY of the stuff that you do...You people are natural born losers, all you do is complain!
14 :
OK, there is a lot of ground to cover here, but I'll give it a shot. First, I can't find any sources that show that Norway and Luxembourg are the wealthiest countries in the world in terms of PPP, GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29 According to that link, the US economy is almost as wealthy as the entire European Union. I will go ahead and admit that I believe strongly in free market capitalism. Yeah, it might create a rift in income equality, but I would argue that that would inspire hard work and ingenuity within the lower classes. If you live in a system that rewards success, you are more inclined to be successful. A system that produces successful individuals will tend to be successful itself. Socialism creates a "permanent" lower-class, by taking from the successful and giving to the unsuccessful. By punishing successful behavior, you thereby make it less attractive, and simultaneously disillusion those who are being rewarded; if they do one day become successful, they will be taxed to support those who are not. So why try? Most of the problems in this country could be fixed with decent education early in life. Education in this country is very poor until the collegiate level. The reason for this is that public schools are managed and funded by the government, whereas colleges are managed as private enterprises. State colleges receive some funding from tax dollars, but the college is run as a business with profit in mind. Most of the profits are earned through tuition and investments. With that said, the college must still stay accredited by providing a quality service, or it will lose its customer base and go bankrupt. A purely government funded school keeps its doors open regardless of how poor its quality might be, because the government will fund it regardless. This is an example of how capitalism promotes a quality product at a reasonable price, even if greed is the motivator. Since the level of education is so poor, many Americans graduate highschool knowing very little. Most can't balance their bank account each month, and even fewer have a real understanding of how the economy works. If we want to fix America's problems, we need to educate those who have the most to gain: the lower class. These people do not need a government hand-out. They need a quality education and the opportunity to prove themselves. Unfortunately, a government funded school will not provide either. One reason that the republican party is popular is that it promotes a small government. This is good for the wealthy, because it implies less taxes. This is bad for poverty-level citizens and non-citizens, as it implies less free services. However, the reason many middle-class Americans back the wealthy is because the wealthy create the enterprises in a capitalist market. By helping those who invest, you allow them to invest more, which provides either higher paying jobs or more jobs at the same pay level. In a system where the government holds the wealth, the citizens are dependent on the government to fund employment. Many Americans are uncomfortable with this idea, myself being one. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few points that I would like to make, but you get the idea. Thanks for the friendly arguments, as they're always welcome. Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss this further.
15 :
You've made excellent points. I think the Republicans want the rich to get richer is a platform they've believed in for so long that they just don't see what's going on now. It's like a lot of things that started out with good intentions, but then took a terrible turn for the worse. They believe that if you give more to the rich, they'll share by creating jobs and being fair. That was true once upon a time ago. There were a few who didn't share or create, but now it's not a few, it's most all of the wealthy. They've become super greedy and selfish. They created jobs, but took them overseas for cheap labor, and more lax government requirements, then bring their goods back here to sell at the same high prices as before. Only difference is most people are either earning less or nothing, and can no longer make the purchases they could before. It may take a while before it hits the wealthy. After all, they've been playing this game with money much longer than us, cause we don't have much to play with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)