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.
