Who is to blame for the financial crisis in the US (pls see details)?
As we have been told time and time again, statistics (supposedly) show that women are the ones who make purchasing decisions in the US whether they work for wages or not. I have seen numbers as high as 80% when it comes to decision making, decisions such as new home, new floors, new appliances, new countertops etc. Having worked in construction/design, I can tell you there is some truth to this. Men don't care what they put on the floor or the counter tops except in very rare instances. In addition, there are plenty of women who have spending issues - Prada purses, Gucci watches, Coach wallets and other useless crap. We've seen many of them on TV seeking help for spending addictions, but not so many guys. According to common belief here in GWS, feminists don't participate in this sort of spending since they are "butch." So. IF I were a feminist and this was true, then, I wouldn't even waste money on razors since I don't shave. Right? An exaggeration, but I think you see what I mean. Now I'm not trying to start a fight between all of you, and I chose to remain neutral like Norway when it comes to feminism and masculism, but, you have to admit, certain women are starting to look bad in this economy if the stats are correct. So I ask you - who, in your opinion, is responsible for this spending that doomed the entire country? Men or women? And can we come up with a profile for these individuals? Thanks Gaspari, take a number. Tracey (clone?) has already approached me about 5 min ago. ;-)
Gender Studies - 15 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
In fairness, this has nothing to do with ladies nor men. This was a predatory scam that allowed greedy companies and wall street to get away with murder. The consumer can only hold the economy for so long until it tanks. Now we're seeing the consequences of the Clinton Administration and the utter lack of oversight as it pertains to Wall Street. In all fairness, Fex, I'd do you in a heartbeat, for real (given the pleasure).
2 :
Women are to blame. Men wouldn't have required banks to make bad loans.
3 :
Alan Greenspan heads a very long, very grey suited queue of 'blameworthies', which includes company directors like Richard Fuld who took MILLIONS in 'bonuses' while they steered centuries old firms onto the rocks. And of course, consider the average citizen who wants the Chinese and Swiss to fund his or her infrastructure and feels that every cent paid in tax is some kind of personal affront. The US owes TRILLIONS and domestic debt is a tiny fraction of that. Add together every refrigerator, car and X-Box people have purchased, every Prada purse and kitchen bench top, add the houses people are now losing thanks to shoddy regulation and legal fraud, and it is a drop in the bucket of government spending on war, dams, roads, schools and all the other niceties people in other countries pay for themselves ~ through taxes. Consumers owe billions? It's nothing. Literally nothing compared to the trillions of debt the US has racked up all over the place trying to pay for the wants of people who don't want to pay their own way. Talk about irresponsible. And who's sitting on top of this pile, crowing about it? Yep, Bush and his hench-idiots. From all the little folks who've behaved responsibly for years, out here in the REAL world where governments have SURPLUSES, thanks a trillion (or two). But hey, enjoy those tax breaks come November! Cheers :-)
4 :
Both. Men like their cars and women like their Prada Purses:) EDIT @ Tracey Troll: You know what? Ronnie never said anything about a specific race, yet you called him a racist. It's funny how you automatically assume he was talking about another race, which makes me think that YOU need to take the stick out of your butt, please.
5 :
I'd like to start by saying I agree with R. Gaspari (except for his last sentence, thank you). As far as to the people who are doing the spending, that actually helps the economy - not hurts it. That is, if they only spend what they have the money for; not tacking everything on their card. I do spend more frivolously than my husband does (ie. candles, gifts for people for no particular reason). I have already cut back on doing that. Funny you should mention construction, specifically counter tops. We are in the middle of a kitchen rehab. My husband wants our top to be granite - I said that it was way too much and would be happy with laminate. We're still haggling. ;) I don't see the small purchases in life to be the blame for the economy. It's more the fault of people who purchased a house with 0 money down and interest deferred for a period of time. I know someone personally who did that and have lost the house in less than two years after signing. Very foolish. And banks never, ever should have allowed that to happen.
6 :
Three things are to blame: 1. Greed 2. Stupidity 3. Lack of education From both men AND women. Can't blame a gender on this one.
7 :
Unregulated markets, trading and lending pure and simple. When these are allowed every person's greedy whim is indulged. This time it's hard to blame it on simple market fluctuations. There's no point blaming it on poor people for trying to lend and spend out of their range, the markets have been offering this for 15+ years as a way of making 'markets enrich everyone'. Now it has proven itself as a failure. House ownership is too idolized and sought after, yet impossible for some. If the citizens of the world are happy to sit back and pay for this mess to be temporarily fixed then more fool them. It will take 5+ years for the economies to pick up and then governments will sell back the companies they bought to private investors at a loss. As they generally do. I've seen it before. And then we are back to the same old business. Give it half a decade and another crisis will ensue. The economic system is rotten and trying to rescue rotten things is a failure.
8 :
your president is to blame for financial problems.
9 :
It isn't retail spending that caused the financial crisis. It's overspending on mortgages people couldn't afford.
10 :
Once again I agree with Gaspare..I have to watch, this could become some weird habit... Both sexes are to blame for the current economic state. Both sexes are equally guilty of living beyoned their means (watch some of the senate hearings - all the CEO's that are running away with millions are men lol). Both sexes were stupid enough to buy homes that they couldn't possibly afford. Get a grip, start watching CNN or Fox for explanations rather than trolling on Yahoo Answers.
11 :
As a Christian Man, I would say we have replaced God in exchange for Idols (Houses, Cars, Cloths). We have increased our possessions, while reducing our value. Most people don't know that the most talked about subject in the New Testament is Money. It is actually a sin to go in to debt for foolish reasons and immediate gratification. The underlying reason in my humble opinion is we have turned away from God.
12 :
Predatory lenders of sub-rate mortgages are largely to blame for the state of the US economy. Things always get a little weird right before an election. And, TD me if you want to, but the war in Iraq is not helping. Things have not been the same since 9/11.
13 :
Well I would have to say corporate greed is what caused the problem we are facing.
14 :
You are to blame. It's all your fault.
15 :
Conversely, in England, men are getting the blame by some of the article authors for the MSM.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Loosing belly fat over the summer?
Loosing belly fat over the summer?
Hey everyone! I'm 13, weigh 60 kg and I'm 1.60 cm. Over the summer I want to loose my belly fat. I don't have a lot, but just a little bit. I think I'm 30 inches around my waist or so.. I'm not sure, maybe less. But I was just wondering - how can I loose it? My plans were to eat less and exercise. Jogging and eating healthy. Problem is, I am only thirteen - so my parents make my dinner and breakfast - of course I can choose to eat something else, but it's hard to buy your own dinner and all that with only a little money. I come from an asian family (haha!) so we always have rice for dinner and I heard that rice have a lot of carbs? What do I do about that? Can I eat very little rice? And then it's the exersizing. What can I do about that? I was thinking about jogging, but that alone can't do much. I can swim, but not everyday - I think they take money for getting into the pool, and everyday is such a pain! And the nearest beach we have to drive to (My family doesn't have a car, and we live in Norway... the water is not the hottest). So ... can you please give me some tips? This means so much to me, as I want to look pretty and FEEL pretty and good about my body. :) Thank you, so much if you answer. I'll be grateful!
Diet & Fitness - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Eat healthy: eat 3 whole meals a day. For your meals, you want something healthy and that fills you up so that you don't get hungry again for a long time. You need to also make healthy choices like eating whole wheat bread or whole grain bread instead of white bread and brown rice instead of white rice. Cut all junk food. They are bad for you and cause weight gain fast. Cut fast food as well! If you get hungry in between your 3 meals, eat a piece of fruit/vegetable, low-fat yogurt, skim milk, or fruit juice. THey are all good and healthy and will burn fat. As well as eating healthy, combine with exercise and you will lose the weight healthfully and easily. Diets don't work in the long run. When you consume too little, or deprive yourself of certain foods, you are also not getting the essential nutrients. That's why everyone gain the weight back and more in diets. Diet's are a plan for fail. INstead, just focus on eating healthy. You will feel better, look better, and perform better. Opt for a healthy lifestyle, not a fad diet. that's how you lose weight and keep it off for good. For the exercise, don't overdo yourself. Just walking, jogging for 1 hour each day will be more than enough. Rememeber to rest for 1 day of the week. Also, if 1 hour is too long for you, you can BREAK IT DOWN thorughout the day. Nobody said you have to get it all done in one shot, just do some after you wake up, some in the afternoon myabe, and sometime before or after dinner. It's more managaeable that way. Walking, jogging, running or swimming are aerobic/cardio exercises and they burn the most calories and fat. They will make you strengthen or build your muscle and keep you burning more calories and fat. eat healthy and exercise is the golden rule of losing weight. Good luck hun :)
2 :
changing your diet to only healthy foods is the best thing you can do and will ensure you will lose weight if combine with walking everyday especially. you can eat how much you like if you stay within these 3 guidelines and still lose fat naturally and gradually. You should lose 10lbs each month on average. 1.eat only steamed lean meats, eggs, healthy fruits ,vegetables, nuts, grains (Asian basmati or jasmine rice gives lots of energy and can be found at your local oriental/asian market or some super markets), & yogurt..2. drink only water, juice, & milk..3. walk or do some physical exercise 1-3 hour every day. (btw, recommend you also to buy an electronic food steamer ((Very cheap)) and a rice cooker as makes it very easy to prepare healthy meals ,,add a bit of olive oil and pepper, spices on top of steamed vegeatables, fish or chicken to add more taste if wish as these are healthy too.)
Hey everyone! I'm 13, weigh 60 kg and I'm 1.60 cm. Over the summer I want to loose my belly fat. I don't have a lot, but just a little bit. I think I'm 30 inches around my waist or so.. I'm not sure, maybe less. But I was just wondering - how can I loose it? My plans were to eat less and exercise. Jogging and eating healthy. Problem is, I am only thirteen - so my parents make my dinner and breakfast - of course I can choose to eat something else, but it's hard to buy your own dinner and all that with only a little money. I come from an asian family (haha!) so we always have rice for dinner and I heard that rice have a lot of carbs? What do I do about that? Can I eat very little rice? And then it's the exersizing. What can I do about that? I was thinking about jogging, but that alone can't do much. I can swim, but not everyday - I think they take money for getting into the pool, and everyday is such a pain! And the nearest beach we have to drive to (My family doesn't have a car, and we live in Norway... the water is not the hottest). So ... can you please give me some tips? This means so much to me, as I want to look pretty and FEEL pretty and good about my body. :) Thank you, so much if you answer. I'll be grateful!
Diet & Fitness - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Eat healthy: eat 3 whole meals a day. For your meals, you want something healthy and that fills you up so that you don't get hungry again for a long time. You need to also make healthy choices like eating whole wheat bread or whole grain bread instead of white bread and brown rice instead of white rice. Cut all junk food. They are bad for you and cause weight gain fast. Cut fast food as well! If you get hungry in between your 3 meals, eat a piece of fruit/vegetable, low-fat yogurt, skim milk, or fruit juice. THey are all good and healthy and will burn fat. As well as eating healthy, combine with exercise and you will lose the weight healthfully and easily. Diets don't work in the long run. When you consume too little, or deprive yourself of certain foods, you are also not getting the essential nutrients. That's why everyone gain the weight back and more in diets. Diet's are a plan for fail. INstead, just focus on eating healthy. You will feel better, look better, and perform better. Opt for a healthy lifestyle, not a fad diet. that's how you lose weight and keep it off for good. For the exercise, don't overdo yourself. Just walking, jogging for 1 hour each day will be more than enough. Rememeber to rest for 1 day of the week. Also, if 1 hour is too long for you, you can BREAK IT DOWN thorughout the day. Nobody said you have to get it all done in one shot, just do some after you wake up, some in the afternoon myabe, and sometime before or after dinner. It's more managaeable that way. Walking, jogging, running or swimming are aerobic/cardio exercises and they burn the most calories and fat. They will make you strengthen or build your muscle and keep you burning more calories and fat. eat healthy and exercise is the golden rule of losing weight. Good luck hun :)
2 :
changing your diet to only healthy foods is the best thing you can do and will ensure you will lose weight if combine with walking everyday especially. you can eat how much you like if you stay within these 3 guidelines and still lose fat naturally and gradually. You should lose 10lbs each month on average. 1.eat only steamed lean meats, eggs, healthy fruits ,vegetables, nuts, grains (Asian basmati or jasmine rice gives lots of energy and can be found at your local oriental/asian market or some super markets), & yogurt..2. drink only water, juice, & milk..3. walk or do some physical exercise 1-3 hour every day. (btw, recommend you also to buy an electronic food steamer ((Very cheap)) and a rice cooker as makes it very easy to prepare healthy meals ,,add a bit of olive oil and pepper, spices on top of steamed vegeatables, fish or chicken to add more taste if wish as these are healthy too.)
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Why is there concrete on the ground?
Why is there concrete on the ground?
Hi, I have been traveling trough many cities before, but when I went to places like Thailand & Norway I saw huge areas of land that had no buildings or parking lots, no concrete at all (not even wooden boards, gravel or nothing!) I am not sure what an area like this is called, so I will name it gigantic-park and it had some beautiful things to look at. Why can we not have more gigantic-parks around? I am sure that we can make a effective public transport system with modern technology that goes together with nature. They could make it free and people would not need their cars. Humans could live in gigantic-parks and work with nature, not for power, money and personal gain.
Philosophy - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
why not, thats like asking why stop hitler or why go to the moon. you gotta think about these things
2 :
Because they are a 3rd world country and can not afford to keep their countries.
3 :
Because it won't hold in the air. The Romans tried but it just kept falling to the ground, so there it stayed.
4 :
Parks are nice, but I don't like walking in mud when I'm going to the store so sidewalks are a necessity.
Hi, I have been traveling trough many cities before, but when I went to places like Thailand & Norway I saw huge areas of land that had no buildings or parking lots, no concrete at all (not even wooden boards, gravel or nothing!) I am not sure what an area like this is called, so I will name it gigantic-park and it had some beautiful things to look at. Why can we not have more gigantic-parks around? I am sure that we can make a effective public transport system with modern technology that goes together with nature. They could make it free and people would not need their cars. Humans could live in gigantic-parks and work with nature, not for power, money and personal gain.
Philosophy - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
why not, thats like asking why stop hitler or why go to the moon. you gotta think about these things
2 :
Because they are a 3rd world country and can not afford to keep their countries.
3 :
Because it won't hold in the air. The Romans tried but it just kept falling to the ground, so there it stayed.
4 :
Parks are nice, but I don't like walking in mud when I'm going to the store so sidewalks are a necessity.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
So what is it about universal health care that has everyone on red alert?
So what is it about universal health care that has everyone on red alert?
I hear people telling tall tales about how horrible Canada's system is. Just because Obama has a universal health care plan, that doesn't mean it's exactly like Canada's. France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands all have really good health care systems. Almost every other developed nation has universal health care, and it's working in those countries. Since when does the Constitution say, "All rich men are created equally?" When more than 50 million Americans are uninsured, that's a crime against humanity. When obesity is overtaking this country at the same rate greed from the insurance companies are, there is something wrong with this picture. When more than half of the nation is overweight, and something small like the swine flu makes everyone jumpy, imagine what will happen when everyone starts getting diabetes and has no health insurance. Would you all rather sit back and watch the insurance companies milk people for every penny? So what if doctors will make $500,000 a year rather than $750,000. Their standard of living will still be better than that of 95 percent of the entire country. People should really go into medicine because they want to help others and not for the money. We have to try an unusual method about health care now because the usual method obviously isn't working. So I will ask you all again. What is it about universal health care that has everyone with their panties caught in a bind when it's worked just fine in all the other developed nations?
Politics - 17 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
that certainly was a mouthful
2 :
People don't like change. People like their current health care plans, until they are killed by them. But they like them for now.
3 :
the older you are the more unlikely you will receive care. As it goes the youngest and the most fit will get treated before anyone else. So this will leave middle aged to elderly people in the ditch. there other reasons im sure but this is a big one I've heard
4 :
We have a National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. It's not perfect, but I'd rather have the NHS than what passes for healthcare in some countries. Yes, you're right, most European countries have comprehensive healthcare as well. I can't understand why so many people in the US have a problem with that.
5 :
your right, so whats the big deal, why not just raise everyone taxes to 50% or 60% to pay for the health care and other socailsit programs. its only money, we just need to eat enough to live nothing wrong with water and vitimians, we only need basic shelter, 4 walls and a roof, who needs heat? if your fine with all that then go ahead and move to where there doing that now,
6 :
It DOESN'T work in other countries. I am from Eastern Europe, my grandmother still lives(d) there. She passed away 5 months ago. She went to the doctor 2 days before she died, but she didn't bring a nice enough "present" for the doctors, so they wouldn't see her. She was complaining of pain in her arm and chest. She went and bought them more presents for the next day, but again.....the presents weren't nice enough, so they wouldn't see her again. She passed away the next day from a heart attack. Universal health care does not mean fairy dust and unicorns, it will not work in a country with so many people..... Our government can take simple measures to make the problem better...open up state lines (I live in California and only have 6 companies to choose from, but there are 1300 total!). Pass a law requiring insurance companies cannot stop coverage of someone with a lethal condition, open medicaid up to people with preexisting conditions and make them pay on a sliding scale based on wages.... Those are SIMPLE tasks that would cure a lot of the problem, without having to overhaul the entire system. Why complicate it?
7 :
Thats what CNN told you. I suggest you make some friends with people from other countries like I have done and ask them why they moved to America? It's not about Health Care anyway. It is about complete government take-over by first pre-conditioning us to believe that socialized medicine is the way to go when in fact has been a failure in every country that has used this system!
8 :
America is a free country, 400% tax on tobacco products is not freedom, it is discrimination against a minority, and like you said obesity is taking over this country, so is alcoholism, so that means anything we consume that is considered a health risk should have a 400% health tax on it, unless of course you are in the majority who support discrimination, and you might as well just make fast food and restaurants that serve anything but yogurt and tofu illegal. That is not the only reason, health care isn't going to be free, at least 15% more of your pay check is going to be taxed to support this insurance, on top of that programs will be continuously cut to make it more cost efficient, they have already begun doing it, and everyone will have premiums and co-pays which will make it so more than 50% of Americans still won't be able to take advantage of it even though they are paying for everyone else's while having their rights restricted and bringing in way less income while the cost of living raises at an alarming rate. No way am I going to support such nonsense. I'd rather go without health care and be able to enjoy living while I can. ;-)
9 :
First , very few doctors make the kind of money you are assuming they do. Only a very select few "Hot Shot"surgeons make that kind of money. Second, do you really want your health in the hands of the lowest bidder ? Canada and France aside , our Govt has proven very well that they aren't capable of running a system effectively or efficiently, Am Track, The Post Office, Medicare , Social Security are continually on the brink of financial collapse. The constitution says nothing about a right to free medical care, It does say you have the right to pursue it if you wish , but not to demand it on your terms from someone else. And just who are you to say someone should devote hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of college for the benefit of others alone ? People should be compensated for their effort , skill and dedication. It's not everyone who has the balls to finish medical school.
10 :
do you really trust the government to take care of you? It also seems like you want to blame everything on the "rich man" Depending on the government to take of us won't empower us. It only makes people weak and whiny with the expectation of getting everything for free. Government interference in our lives will also impoverish us and I don't mean financially. Dependence is slavery and Independence is freedom. Freedom does NOT come free. Our country had to pay a high price for the liberties we enjoy today. Why let the government take it all away from us? Universal health care is just another step for our administration to grab power and control.
11 :
The majority of Americans have (or rather they think they have) satisfactory health insurance, and have never had to face the issue of a medical expense that would bankrupt them, yet. Additionally, most Americans get their health insurance through their employers which cannot be denied due to pre-existing conditions. So, because of this they are afraid of change. Additionally, there are some that are just against it because it goes against their political principles.
12 :
Nice rant. Who made fat people fat? Why should I be forced to pay the consequences when someone else can't put the Twinkie down? What gives them the right to make me a slave to their CHOICES? Swine flu doesn't make "everyone jumpy". I'm ignoring the government's line and living my life as a healthy member of society just to p*** off the government. I would like to see me pay for my health care (I do) and you pay for yours. Health care is not some "right" handed down on a stone tablet. No "right", exercised by one person, can put any obligation or responsibility on another person. What should be the top limit on how much a medical practitioner can make? Who died and made you the great decider of this? Can you also decide, arbitrarily, how much anyone else can make? How much can I make at my job? How many of the ALLEGED "50 million" uninsured (everyone seems to have a different number for some reason) are here illegally and deserve nothing more than a boot in the keester as they are sent back to whatever country they deserted to invade America? How many have made a decision to not have insurance because they can afford to live without it? Since when does the Constitution of the United Sates say, "The working, healthy taxpayers are responsible to pay for the bad choices and decisions of the unhealthy people."? "Health care" is never mentioned in the constitution so the Tenth Amendment PROHIBITS the federal government from interfering. Here in America we still have something called FREEDOM and we choose to exercise it - especially in an area as important as our health care.
13 :
I know people say that, but if that was really the case, why have the populations of these democracies never voted to get rid of the system? FACT - Insurance companies in the USA admit to pushing up prices, buying politicians and not paying out claims when they should FACT - PER PERSON the USA spends more on healthcare than any other nation on the planet FACT - Obama debated his plans before the election for healthcare FACT - the chance of a child under five of dying in the USA is greater than industrialised nations with universal health coverage FACT - Obama was elected by the American people to bring in change FACT - Obama wants to stop insurance companies from screwing the American people FACT - The reforms Obama wants work in the Netherlands and in Switzerland
14 :
I don't buy this but they hysteria has been generated by the GO, Big Pharma. Fear of socialism, putting people out of business, and insensitivity to business interests, and also people's gullibity. Answers can be found in Michael Moores Crazy.
15 :
One of the biggest problems here is that people don't understand the difference between government-sponsored and government-subsidized, between socialism and communism, or between option and mandate. The public OPTION is there for people who do not or can not get private insurance. It is not universal in the same way as Canada or France, where you are insured by default. The public option being discussed still requires you to pay premiums and co-pays, but it is a lower cost than private insurers and helped by our taxes. As a word of advice, look up Medicare and its approval ratings. This public OPTION would not require you to switch off of your private insurance. I remember a town hall meeting where someone asked "well if you make this public option, will you come off of your government 'cadillac' insurance?" This was a total misstatement of what the bill proposes, as if the public option existed, it would be there for when the "cadillac" insurance refused coverage or was lost through other means. Another problem is that people have radically different views of the government and its role, but often like to select when to have these views. For instance, I would be willing to bet good money that a majority of these people against health care reform are against abortion. They say "government stay out of my life!" but then they say "government get in other people's lives and stop abortions!", and they don't see the hypocrisy inherent to that situation. They say "government stay out of our businesses!" but then they beg for the bailout (don't let them obfuscate the truth on who wanted that, by the way. Every stockholder wanted their banks to stay in business). The idea of a government is to provide core needs that are integral to leading a safe and happy life. The military, fire departments, and police exist for our safety and protection. Our roads and infrastructure exist for our travel convenience. All of these things we take for granted. The government has money set aside for safety nets in the form of welfare, SSI, food stamps, cash aid, and Medicare. All of these things require money. As with any service, we pay for its usage. In government, we pay in the form of taxes. Higher taxes mean more benefits from a central, consolidated source. Some people advocate a stronger government; higher taxes, but more benefits. That's less checks to write each month, and less people to scramble between when something breaks down. Some people advocate a smaller government; lower taxes, less benefits, and more benefits in the hands of private companies. That's more checks to write each month (for the same amount, let's say), and some would argue that it's more secure, as each private company is unrelated, so one failing doesn't affect all of your benefits. There are strong advantages to both, but only if we assume that there is a strong bottom line money level. A smaller government where the people pay for things out of pocket works fine if there is a small divide between the owning class and the working class. In America's skewed capitalist system, this divide is hugely disproportionate, and until that schism is addressed, we need the government to cover our core needs. P.S. I know this response was a little rambling, and I apologize. I'm a bit tired and very distracted right now :(
16 :
1st we have to be honest, Obama has put out no plan and that is probably the problem. We are the last ones to get real about taking care of our people and Republicans simply do not want that to happen, especially if it is done under an Obama administration after all these years of failure. They are very mean people, and they will do or say anything to keep America from becoming a true multicultural nation, this is their true fear.
17 :
I have never heard anyone from Canada say their insurance is bad. I have had many conversations with Canadians about this....I remember even going to Niagra Falls & ordering a pizza & waiting for it. The cashier told me that she would be poor if she didn't have health insurance. Then she actually said she was considered poor but life was good cause she knew if she broke her leg she would go to the hospital & not have to worry about a bill. So when bad things happen like a broken leg she still knew she would be OK.
I hear people telling tall tales about how horrible Canada's system is. Just because Obama has a universal health care plan, that doesn't mean it's exactly like Canada's. France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands all have really good health care systems. Almost every other developed nation has universal health care, and it's working in those countries. Since when does the Constitution say, "All rich men are created equally?" When more than 50 million Americans are uninsured, that's a crime against humanity. When obesity is overtaking this country at the same rate greed from the insurance companies are, there is something wrong with this picture. When more than half of the nation is overweight, and something small like the swine flu makes everyone jumpy, imagine what will happen when everyone starts getting diabetes and has no health insurance. Would you all rather sit back and watch the insurance companies milk people for every penny? So what if doctors will make $500,000 a year rather than $750,000. Their standard of living will still be better than that of 95 percent of the entire country. People should really go into medicine because they want to help others and not for the money. We have to try an unusual method about health care now because the usual method obviously isn't working. So I will ask you all again. What is it about universal health care that has everyone with their panties caught in a bind when it's worked just fine in all the other developed nations?
Politics - 17 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
that certainly was a mouthful
2 :
People don't like change. People like their current health care plans, until they are killed by them. But they like them for now.
3 :
the older you are the more unlikely you will receive care. As it goes the youngest and the most fit will get treated before anyone else. So this will leave middle aged to elderly people in the ditch. there other reasons im sure but this is a big one I've heard
4 :
We have a National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. It's not perfect, but I'd rather have the NHS than what passes for healthcare in some countries. Yes, you're right, most European countries have comprehensive healthcare as well. I can't understand why so many people in the US have a problem with that.
5 :
your right, so whats the big deal, why not just raise everyone taxes to 50% or 60% to pay for the health care and other socailsit programs. its only money, we just need to eat enough to live nothing wrong with water and vitimians, we only need basic shelter, 4 walls and a roof, who needs heat? if your fine with all that then go ahead and move to where there doing that now,
6 :
It DOESN'T work in other countries. I am from Eastern Europe, my grandmother still lives(d) there. She passed away 5 months ago. She went to the doctor 2 days before she died, but she didn't bring a nice enough "present" for the doctors, so they wouldn't see her. She was complaining of pain in her arm and chest. She went and bought them more presents for the next day, but again.....the presents weren't nice enough, so they wouldn't see her again. She passed away the next day from a heart attack. Universal health care does not mean fairy dust and unicorns, it will not work in a country with so many people..... Our government can take simple measures to make the problem better...open up state lines (I live in California and only have 6 companies to choose from, but there are 1300 total!). Pass a law requiring insurance companies cannot stop coverage of someone with a lethal condition, open medicaid up to people with preexisting conditions and make them pay on a sliding scale based on wages.... Those are SIMPLE tasks that would cure a lot of the problem, without having to overhaul the entire system. Why complicate it?
7 :
Thats what CNN told you. I suggest you make some friends with people from other countries like I have done and ask them why they moved to America? It's not about Health Care anyway. It is about complete government take-over by first pre-conditioning us to believe that socialized medicine is the way to go when in fact has been a failure in every country that has used this system!
8 :
America is a free country, 400% tax on tobacco products is not freedom, it is discrimination against a minority, and like you said obesity is taking over this country, so is alcoholism, so that means anything we consume that is considered a health risk should have a 400% health tax on it, unless of course you are in the majority who support discrimination, and you might as well just make fast food and restaurants that serve anything but yogurt and tofu illegal. That is not the only reason, health care isn't going to be free, at least 15% more of your pay check is going to be taxed to support this insurance, on top of that programs will be continuously cut to make it more cost efficient, they have already begun doing it, and everyone will have premiums and co-pays which will make it so more than 50% of Americans still won't be able to take advantage of it even though they are paying for everyone else's while having their rights restricted and bringing in way less income while the cost of living raises at an alarming rate. No way am I going to support such nonsense. I'd rather go without health care and be able to enjoy living while I can. ;-)
9 :
First , very few doctors make the kind of money you are assuming they do. Only a very select few "Hot Shot"surgeons make that kind of money. Second, do you really want your health in the hands of the lowest bidder ? Canada and France aside , our Govt has proven very well that they aren't capable of running a system effectively or efficiently, Am Track, The Post Office, Medicare , Social Security are continually on the brink of financial collapse. The constitution says nothing about a right to free medical care, It does say you have the right to pursue it if you wish , but not to demand it on your terms from someone else. And just who are you to say someone should devote hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of college for the benefit of others alone ? People should be compensated for their effort , skill and dedication. It's not everyone who has the balls to finish medical school.
10 :
do you really trust the government to take care of you? It also seems like you want to blame everything on the "rich man" Depending on the government to take of us won't empower us. It only makes people weak and whiny with the expectation of getting everything for free. Government interference in our lives will also impoverish us and I don't mean financially. Dependence is slavery and Independence is freedom. Freedom does NOT come free. Our country had to pay a high price for the liberties we enjoy today. Why let the government take it all away from us? Universal health care is just another step for our administration to grab power and control.
11 :
The majority of Americans have (or rather they think they have) satisfactory health insurance, and have never had to face the issue of a medical expense that would bankrupt them, yet. Additionally, most Americans get their health insurance through their employers which cannot be denied due to pre-existing conditions. So, because of this they are afraid of change. Additionally, there are some that are just against it because it goes against their political principles.
12 :
Nice rant. Who made fat people fat? Why should I be forced to pay the consequences when someone else can't put the Twinkie down? What gives them the right to make me a slave to their CHOICES? Swine flu doesn't make "everyone jumpy". I'm ignoring the government's line and living my life as a healthy member of society just to p*** off the government. I would like to see me pay for my health care (I do) and you pay for yours. Health care is not some "right" handed down on a stone tablet. No "right", exercised by one person, can put any obligation or responsibility on another person. What should be the top limit on how much a medical practitioner can make? Who died and made you the great decider of this? Can you also decide, arbitrarily, how much anyone else can make? How much can I make at my job? How many of the ALLEGED "50 million" uninsured (everyone seems to have a different number for some reason) are here illegally and deserve nothing more than a boot in the keester as they are sent back to whatever country they deserted to invade America? How many have made a decision to not have insurance because they can afford to live without it? Since when does the Constitution of the United Sates say, "The working, healthy taxpayers are responsible to pay for the bad choices and decisions of the unhealthy people."? "Health care" is never mentioned in the constitution so the Tenth Amendment PROHIBITS the federal government from interfering. Here in America we still have something called FREEDOM and we choose to exercise it - especially in an area as important as our health care.
13 :
I know people say that, but if that was really the case, why have the populations of these democracies never voted to get rid of the system? FACT - Insurance companies in the USA admit to pushing up prices, buying politicians and not paying out claims when they should FACT - PER PERSON the USA spends more on healthcare than any other nation on the planet FACT - Obama debated his plans before the election for healthcare FACT - the chance of a child under five of dying in the USA is greater than industrialised nations with universal health coverage FACT - Obama was elected by the American people to bring in change FACT - Obama wants to stop insurance companies from screwing the American people FACT - The reforms Obama wants work in the Netherlands and in Switzerland
14 :
I don't buy this but they hysteria has been generated by the GO, Big Pharma. Fear of socialism, putting people out of business, and insensitivity to business interests, and also people's gullibity. Answers can be found in Michael Moores Crazy.
15 :
One of the biggest problems here is that people don't understand the difference between government-sponsored and government-subsidized, between socialism and communism, or between option and mandate. The public OPTION is there for people who do not or can not get private insurance. It is not universal in the same way as Canada or France, where you are insured by default. The public option being discussed still requires you to pay premiums and co-pays, but it is a lower cost than private insurers and helped by our taxes. As a word of advice, look up Medicare and its approval ratings. This public OPTION would not require you to switch off of your private insurance. I remember a town hall meeting where someone asked "well if you make this public option, will you come off of your government 'cadillac' insurance?" This was a total misstatement of what the bill proposes, as if the public option existed, it would be there for when the "cadillac" insurance refused coverage or was lost through other means. Another problem is that people have radically different views of the government and its role, but often like to select when to have these views. For instance, I would be willing to bet good money that a majority of these people against health care reform are against abortion. They say "government stay out of my life!" but then they say "government get in other people's lives and stop abortions!", and they don't see the hypocrisy inherent to that situation. They say "government stay out of our businesses!" but then they beg for the bailout (don't let them obfuscate the truth on who wanted that, by the way. Every stockholder wanted their banks to stay in business). The idea of a government is to provide core needs that are integral to leading a safe and happy life. The military, fire departments, and police exist for our safety and protection. Our roads and infrastructure exist for our travel convenience. All of these things we take for granted. The government has money set aside for safety nets in the form of welfare, SSI, food stamps, cash aid, and Medicare. All of these things require money. As with any service, we pay for its usage. In government, we pay in the form of taxes. Higher taxes mean more benefits from a central, consolidated source. Some people advocate a stronger government; higher taxes, but more benefits. That's less checks to write each month, and less people to scramble between when something breaks down. Some people advocate a smaller government; lower taxes, less benefits, and more benefits in the hands of private companies. That's more checks to write each month (for the same amount, let's say), and some would argue that it's more secure, as each private company is unrelated, so one failing doesn't affect all of your benefits. There are strong advantages to both, but only if we assume that there is a strong bottom line money level. A smaller government where the people pay for things out of pocket works fine if there is a small divide between the owning class and the working class. In America's skewed capitalist system, this divide is hugely disproportionate, and until that schism is addressed, we need the government to cover our core needs. P.S. I know this response was a little rambling, and I apologize. I'm a bit tired and very distracted right now :(
16 :
1st we have to be honest, Obama has put out no plan and that is probably the problem. We are the last ones to get real about taking care of our people and Republicans simply do not want that to happen, especially if it is done under an Obama administration after all these years of failure. They are very mean people, and they will do or say anything to keep America from becoming a true multicultural nation, this is their true fear.
17 :
I have never heard anyone from Canada say their insurance is bad. I have had many conversations with Canadians about this....I remember even going to Niagra Falls & ordering a pizza & waiting for it. The cashier told me that she would be poor if she didn't have health insurance. Then she actually said she was considered poor but life was good cause she knew if she broke her leg she would go to the hospital & not have to worry about a bill. So when bad things happen like a broken leg she still knew she would be OK.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Economic homework help 10 pts!?
Economic homework help 10 pts!?
11. Any combination of goods lying outside of the budget line: a.implies that the consumer is not spending all his income. b.yields less utility than any point on the budget line. c.yields less utility than any point inside the budget line. d.is unattainable, given the consumer's income. 12. Which of the following is a labor resource? a.a computer programmer b.a computer c.silicon (sand) used to make computer chips d.a piece of software used by a firm 13. The production possibilities curve illustrates the basic principle that: a.the production of more of any one good will in time require smaller and smaller sacrifices of other goods. b.an economy will automatically obtain full employment of its resources. c.if all the resources of an economy are in use, more of one good can be produced only if less of another good is produced. d.an economy's capacity to produce increases in proportion to its population size. 16. The law of increasing opportunity costs states that: a.if society wants to produce more of a particular good, it must sacrifice larger and larger amounts of other goods to do so. b.the sum of the costs of producing a particular good cannot rise above the current market price of that good. c.if the sum of the costs of producing a particular good rises by a specified percent, the price of that good must rise by a greater relative amount. d.if the prices of all the resources used to produce goods increase, the cost of producing any particular good will increase at the same rate. 19. In the above diagram the equation for this line is: a.y = 4 - 11/3 x. b.y = 3 + 3/4x. c.y = 4 - 3/4x. d.y = 4 + 11/3 x. 20. Which of the following is a distinguishing feature of a market system? a.public ownership of all capital. b.central planning. c.wide-spread private ownership of capital. d.a circular flow of goods, resources, and money. 21. Examples of command economies are: a.the United States and Japan. b.Sweden and Norway. c.Mexico and Brazil. d.Cuba and North Korea. 22. The term laissez faire suggests that: a.land and other natural resources should be privately owned, but capital should be publicly owned. b.land and other natural resources should be publicly owned, but capital equipment should be privately owned. c.government should not interfere with the operation of the economy. d.government action is necessary if the economy is to achieve full employment and full production. 23. Which of the following is not a characteristic of the market system? a.private property b.freedom of enterprise c.government ownership of the major industries d.competition in product and resource markets 24. Specialization in production is important primarily because it: a.results in greater total output. b.allows society to avoid the coincidence-of-wants problem. c.allows society to trade by barter. d.allows society to have fewer capital goods. 25. Which of the following is not an economic cost? a.wages b.rents c.economic profits d.normal profits 26. Economic profits in an industry suggest the industry: a.can earn more profits by increasing product price. b.should be larger to better satisfy consumers' desire for the product. c.has excess production capacity. d.is the size that consumers want it to be. 27. The competitive market system: a.encourages innovation because government provides tax breaks and subsidies to those who develop new products or new productive techniques. b.discourages innovation because it is difficult to acquire additional capital in the form of new machinery and equipment. c.discourages innovation because firms want to get all the profits possible from existing machinery and equipment. d.encourages innovation because successful innovators are rewarded with economic profits. 28. In a market economy the distribution of output will be determined primarily by: a.consumer needs and preferences. b.the quantities and prices of the resources that households supply. c.government regulations that provide a minimum income for all. d.a social consensus as to what distribution of income is most equitable. 29. The invisible hand concept suggests that: a.changes in product demands are only randomly reflected in changes in the demands for resources. b.profit maximization is inconsistent with an efficient allocation of resources. c.government action is necessary to correct for market failures. d.when firms maximize their profits, society's output will also be maximized. 30. The market system: a.produces considerable inefficiency in the use of scarce resources. b.effectively harnesses the incentives of workers and entrepreneurs. c.is inconsistent with freedom of choice in the long run. d.has slowly lost ground to emerging command systems. 31. The failure of Soviet central planning was refle
Homework Help - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
it's fine to ask for help on a question here and there, but if you are just looking for your whole assignment to be done, then good luck to you.
11. Any combination of goods lying outside of the budget line: a.implies that the consumer is not spending all his income. b.yields less utility than any point on the budget line. c.yields less utility than any point inside the budget line. d.is unattainable, given the consumer's income. 12. Which of the following is a labor resource? a.a computer programmer b.a computer c.silicon (sand) used to make computer chips d.a piece of software used by a firm 13. The production possibilities curve illustrates the basic principle that: a.the production of more of any one good will in time require smaller and smaller sacrifices of other goods. b.an economy will automatically obtain full employment of its resources. c.if all the resources of an economy are in use, more of one good can be produced only if less of another good is produced. d.an economy's capacity to produce increases in proportion to its population size. 16. The law of increasing opportunity costs states that: a.if society wants to produce more of a particular good, it must sacrifice larger and larger amounts of other goods to do so. b.the sum of the costs of producing a particular good cannot rise above the current market price of that good. c.if the sum of the costs of producing a particular good rises by a specified percent, the price of that good must rise by a greater relative amount. d.if the prices of all the resources used to produce goods increase, the cost of producing any particular good will increase at the same rate. 19. In the above diagram the equation for this line is: a.y = 4 - 11/3 x. b.y = 3 + 3/4x. c.y = 4 - 3/4x. d.y = 4 + 11/3 x. 20. Which of the following is a distinguishing feature of a market system? a.public ownership of all capital. b.central planning. c.wide-spread private ownership of capital. d.a circular flow of goods, resources, and money. 21. Examples of command economies are: a.the United States and Japan. b.Sweden and Norway. c.Mexico and Brazil. d.Cuba and North Korea. 22. The term laissez faire suggests that: a.land and other natural resources should be privately owned, but capital should be publicly owned. b.land and other natural resources should be publicly owned, but capital equipment should be privately owned. c.government should not interfere with the operation of the economy. d.government action is necessary if the economy is to achieve full employment and full production. 23. Which of the following is not a characteristic of the market system? a.private property b.freedom of enterprise c.government ownership of the major industries d.competition in product and resource markets 24. Specialization in production is important primarily because it: a.results in greater total output. b.allows society to avoid the coincidence-of-wants problem. c.allows society to trade by barter. d.allows society to have fewer capital goods. 25. Which of the following is not an economic cost? a.wages b.rents c.economic profits d.normal profits 26. Economic profits in an industry suggest the industry: a.can earn more profits by increasing product price. b.should be larger to better satisfy consumers' desire for the product. c.has excess production capacity. d.is the size that consumers want it to be. 27. The competitive market system: a.encourages innovation because government provides tax breaks and subsidies to those who develop new products or new productive techniques. b.discourages innovation because it is difficult to acquire additional capital in the form of new machinery and equipment. c.discourages innovation because firms want to get all the profits possible from existing machinery and equipment. d.encourages innovation because successful innovators are rewarded with economic profits. 28. In a market economy the distribution of output will be determined primarily by: a.consumer needs and preferences. b.the quantities and prices of the resources that households supply. c.government regulations that provide a minimum income for all. d.a social consensus as to what distribution of income is most equitable. 29. The invisible hand concept suggests that: a.changes in product demands are only randomly reflected in changes in the demands for resources. b.profit maximization is inconsistent with an efficient allocation of resources. c.government action is necessary to correct for market failures. d.when firms maximize their profits, society's output will also be maximized. 30. The market system: a.produces considerable inefficiency in the use of scarce resources. b.effectively harnesses the incentives of workers and entrepreneurs. c.is inconsistent with freedom of choice in the long run. d.has slowly lost ground to emerging command systems. 31. The failure of Soviet central planning was refle
Homework Help - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
it's fine to ask for help on a question here and there, but if you are just looking for your whole assignment to be done, then good luck to you.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
if you met susan B anthony?
if you met susan B anthony?
if you had the opportunity to meet susan B anthony what would you do or say to her? I would capture and cage her. then I would hot glue some feathers on her. I would feed her scraps that were not even good enough for my dogs. then I would grow a long black moustache and buy a top hat and a walking stick. I would chain her cage on the back of a flat bed pickup truck and travel from town to town letting people gauk at her for 5 bucks a pop. or throw popcorn at her for 7 bucks. i would yell in a boisterous bellowing voice. " come one come all, see the bird girl of norway! " children would cry and people would boo her and throw popcorn at her and I would make 7 bucks everytime someone did. when the crowd got too rilled up and loud I would calmly lean over to the cage and whisper " can you vote your way out of an iron cage? " then she would cry and I would laugh triumphantly and twirl my moustach. when I made enough money i would buy a monkey with an acordian. what would you guys do? first 2 answers suck balls.
Gender Studies - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Susan Who?
2 :
I would hug her.and squeel like a little girl talk with her... learn from her.. and say " Thank you. Thank you...Because of women like you..I know my 2 neices will grow up knowing what true equality is. That if they are in a bad relationship when they get older it is ok to leave it...that will be protected under law. That they have the right to vote if they so choose too." Many ppl will say..that you are a feminist if you believe in equality...Well im not a feminist..I do not need that label to define who I am. Because frankly....I can identify with both non feminism and pro feminism...so i really choose the label of neither. I am just Me. ( you would know about sucking balls now wouldnt you?)
3 :
This is so bad it is funny. I guess I would have seven fewer dollars.
4 :
I would kiss her feet.
5 :
I would give her a piece of my mind about her giving women rights but leaving men out.
6 :
Dude, Susan B Anthony designed the first American flag.....f*ck tard! She wasn't some pro-woman's rights nut.....read a history book!
if you had the opportunity to meet susan B anthony what would you do or say to her? I would capture and cage her. then I would hot glue some feathers on her. I would feed her scraps that were not even good enough for my dogs. then I would grow a long black moustache and buy a top hat and a walking stick. I would chain her cage on the back of a flat bed pickup truck and travel from town to town letting people gauk at her for 5 bucks a pop. or throw popcorn at her for 7 bucks. i would yell in a boisterous bellowing voice. " come one come all, see the bird girl of norway! " children would cry and people would boo her and throw popcorn at her and I would make 7 bucks everytime someone did. when the crowd got too rilled up and loud I would calmly lean over to the cage and whisper " can you vote your way out of an iron cage? " then she would cry and I would laugh triumphantly and twirl my moustach. when I made enough money i would buy a monkey with an acordian. what would you guys do? first 2 answers suck balls.
Gender Studies - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Susan Who?
2 :
I would hug her.and squeel like a little girl talk with her... learn from her.. and say " Thank you. Thank you...Because of women like you..I know my 2 neices will grow up knowing what true equality is. That if they are in a bad relationship when they get older it is ok to leave it...that will be protected under law. That they have the right to vote if they so choose too." Many ppl will say..that you are a feminist if you believe in equality...Well im not a feminist..I do not need that label to define who I am. Because frankly....I can identify with both non feminism and pro feminism...so i really choose the label of neither. I am just Me. ( you would know about sucking balls now wouldnt you?)
3 :
This is so bad it is funny. I guess I would have seven fewer dollars.
4 :
I would kiss her feet.
5 :
I would give her a piece of my mind about her giving women rights but leaving men out.
6 :
Dude, Susan B Anthony designed the first American flag.....f*ck tard! She wasn't some pro-woman's rights nut.....read a history book!
Sunday, January 1, 2012
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)