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.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
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.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Microeconomic question help 10 pts!?
Microeconomic question 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
Economics - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
11 D 12. A 13. C 16. A, I think 19. Need to see the diagram. However, you can expect A and C to resemble demand curves and B and D to resemble supply curves 20. C 21. Probably D 22. C 23. C 24. A 25. should be C 26. A 27. D 28. A 29. D 30. B Hope this helps
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
Economics - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
11 D 12. A 13. C 16. A, I think 19. Need to see the diagram. However, you can expect A and C to resemble demand curves and B and D to resemble supply curves 20. C 21. Probably D 22. C 23. C 24. A 25. should be C 26. A 27. D 28. A 29. D 30. B Hope this helps
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
I am getting sued please help?
I am getting sued please help?
I got a letter in the mail today saying that if I don't pay over a thousand dollars, in 7 or so days, further legal action will be placed. This was from having a smartphone with Rogers, I also signed for my friend to have the same smartphone. I was 19, he was 17. We were young. He ended up calling his Norwegian girlfriend in Norway for hours+hours without any long distance plan. His bill was over a thousand dollars. Mine is big too because they are both canceled now and the cancellation fee $500 per phone. I was young and stupid, now I have to pay and I am soo broke, I just want to get a place with my girlfriend and start over! And I keep having to make the decision of having food on the table or giving all of my hard earned money to rich people. That I technically shouldn't even owe. What do I do? :'( I feel like crying / dying
Other - Business & Finance - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Bankruptcy
2 :
This is not a large sum, and you should not file bankruptcy or let this overwhelm you. It was, as you say, just stupidity, but it was your mistake. Stop avoiding the debt, and get a second job for a while to pay off the $1000. You can do that easily. It may delay your move, but not for long. Besides, you and your gal should have at least $4000 saved up before you head out on your own. That is necessary for emergencies and unexpected expenses. Be patient, and be diligent. This should be easily paid off in 2-3 months with a second part-time job. This is a very small hurdle to overcome, and you need to prove to yourself that you can pay your debts, be responsible for your own mistakes, and handle small crisis like this before you are ready to take on a life together with your girlfriend. That is just part of being a mature man. Good Luck. Chin up!
3 :
You signed for it, you owe it even if your clueless friend made the calls. If they do sue you, they'll win. You can't just start over except by filing bankruptcy, and that would be a real bad idea for an amount like that, since it will really mess up your life for a number of years.
4 :
Try not to worry too much as the senders of the letters use a lot of intimidation to try to get money. They actually have a very weak position when actually getting money through the court process. It costs them a lot, and usually at the end the people don't have the money to pay the money order. A way to avoid problems with your credit is to open as many current accounts and credit cards now. This means you can re-build credit more easily and have credit available.
5 :
First off only having a thousand or so dollars of debt is a godsend...some people would love to trade places with you. But as others said, do not fret over it or plan on going bankrupt. First off call them and explain the situation to them. They usually just want the money so they might be willing to work out a reasonable payment plan over a period of time that would still allow you to move in with your girlfriend. If they do not want to work out something then try your hand at getting a part time job to pay it off. Many fast food restaurants are hiring...use the net amount (minus any travel expenses) to pay this debt off. Also the part time job would help you save faster for moving out. In the mean time, get in touch with this friend of yours and see if he has any money to help with this. If he is being a jerk about it contact his parents...they might have a solution for you.
I got a letter in the mail today saying that if I don't pay over a thousand dollars, in 7 or so days, further legal action will be placed. This was from having a smartphone with Rogers, I also signed for my friend to have the same smartphone. I was 19, he was 17. We were young. He ended up calling his Norwegian girlfriend in Norway for hours+hours without any long distance plan. His bill was over a thousand dollars. Mine is big too because they are both canceled now and the cancellation fee $500 per phone. I was young and stupid, now I have to pay and I am soo broke, I just want to get a place with my girlfriend and start over! And I keep having to make the decision of having food on the table or giving all of my hard earned money to rich people. That I technically shouldn't even owe. What do I do? :'( I feel like crying / dying
Other - Business & Finance - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Bankruptcy
2 :
This is not a large sum, and you should not file bankruptcy or let this overwhelm you. It was, as you say, just stupidity, but it was your mistake. Stop avoiding the debt, and get a second job for a while to pay off the $1000. You can do that easily. It may delay your move, but not for long. Besides, you and your gal should have at least $4000 saved up before you head out on your own. That is necessary for emergencies and unexpected expenses. Be patient, and be diligent. This should be easily paid off in 2-3 months with a second part-time job. This is a very small hurdle to overcome, and you need to prove to yourself that you can pay your debts, be responsible for your own mistakes, and handle small crisis like this before you are ready to take on a life together with your girlfriend. That is just part of being a mature man. Good Luck. Chin up!
3 :
You signed for it, you owe it even if your clueless friend made the calls. If they do sue you, they'll win. You can't just start over except by filing bankruptcy, and that would be a real bad idea for an amount like that, since it will really mess up your life for a number of years.
4 :
Try not to worry too much as the senders of the letters use a lot of intimidation to try to get money. They actually have a very weak position when actually getting money through the court process. It costs them a lot, and usually at the end the people don't have the money to pay the money order. A way to avoid problems with your credit is to open as many current accounts and credit cards now. This means you can re-build credit more easily and have credit available.
5 :
First off only having a thousand or so dollars of debt is a godsend...some people would love to trade places with you. But as others said, do not fret over it or plan on going bankrupt. First off call them and explain the situation to them. They usually just want the money so they might be willing to work out a reasonable payment plan over a period of time that would still allow you to move in with your girlfriend. If they do not want to work out something then try your hand at getting a part time job to pay it off. Many fast food restaurants are hiring...use the net amount (minus any travel expenses) to pay this debt off. Also the part time job would help you save faster for moving out. In the mean time, get in touch with this friend of yours and see if he has any money to help with this. If he is being a jerk about it contact his parents...they might have a solution for you.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Why are many of the programs considered unncessary by American repubs, considered great in most other nations?
Why are many of the programs considered unncessary by American repubs, considered great in most other nations?
Considered necessary and even great in many of developed countries. These are the top 10 most livable countries in the world, according to the UN: Norway Australia Iceland Canada Ireland Netherlands Sweden France Switzerland Japan in the order listed, and almost all of them make use of programs that Conservatives consider so-called "entitlements". America, oddly enough, despite having a GDP higher than most other industrialized nations, spends more on building it's arsenal and staging wars abroad, than in providing those same funds to programs like healthcare & education. If America spent half as much money on social programs, as it did it's military and invading the 30 countries it has since 1950, it would have an unparralled healthcare & education system, instead Neo-Cons have found a way to convince the public that the poor deserve to be poor, the rich deserve to be richer, and if you don't like it get the f___ out. Now this would normally be simply a discussion of ideology , except for the fact that it has resulted in an American citizenry that , as a whole, cannot cope academically in the 21st century with most other countries, that is rife with poverty, and teetering off the edge of a cliff from which there is no return. In Norway, all citizens get free education & healthcare from kindergarten to University, the same applies to smaller or lesser degrees with almost all 10 countries, and each of these has a LOWER overall GDP per capita than America, but a higher standard of living, and higher educated & healthier citizenry America is ranked 13th in standard of living (and dropping), and 30th in overall education ( & dropping) For those suggesting why not move to one of those countries. I am not American (thank God) and i would never want to be. I do have friends & relatives who are Americans and i pity them tremendously, i am Candian By the way, Canada was the first country to bounce back from the recession; the U.S. still hasn't recovered.
Politics - 13 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Why haven't you applied for asylum in one of those countries?
2 :
Perhaps you should move to one of those countries. You all think it's wrong to be patriotic, yet you put other countries on a pedestal. Now, would our standard of living be declining as a direct result of crime? How much of that crime is committed by the illegals you think we should keep? How much is due to a very, very bad economy? And why don't our liberal politicians admit that they've had a huge hand in this mess? edit: Ugh! Canadian? What makes you think you have a right to comment on policies that only affect us in the first place? If Canadians hate America so much, why do so many drive across the bridge every day to work here?
3 :
Not to be too pithy....... We have the Consitution, they don't. The U.S. allows you all the freedoms in the world which includes the freedom to move anytime you want.
4 :
Yeap its a crying shame what the libs have done to this nation, but then you support that fool in office now, so I'm sure you'er ok with it. You might also want to see what the average person pays in taxes over in those nations you so happy with, then to make everyone happy, chose one and move.
5 :
and tell me who considers these things, common in all the listed countries "un-American:" -homogeneous culture -single national language -mandatory national service -state-controlled access to university-level education -restrictive immigration policies -benefit/property restrictions on foreigners -education system based on "the basics" rather than "building self-esteem" Why do people from all your "most livable" countries still come here year after year? Could it be that they recognize that economic control often requires a good deal of cultural control? Could it be that some people still see the U.S. as more "free" in many important ways? I for one would love to live in a system as stable as Norway....but as an American, I'm not comfortable am not willing to give up our superior diversity in terms of culture and simple life choices...
6 :
I noticed that GREECE wasn't on your list... There's a reason for that... Greece is the first RED FLAG that you can't have the people who WANT your money and the people who MAKE the money - not be the same group of people. As the socialism continues - the RECIPIENT will "vote themselves" ever increasing "stuff" that they have not contributed to providing... in ever increasing levels. This continues - until you run out of all the RICH GUYS money - then you spend money that you haven't MADE yet. Our GRAND KIDS will be OPPRESSED/ENSLAVED by OBAMA'S STIMULUS... which almost could be justified, at least SHORT TERM - if it worked. You would THINK a BLACK GUY - of all people, would KNOW BETTER. I bet he does... he just doesn't CARE.
7 :
I'm always glad to see Democrats PROVE they prefer using force to make everyone government PROPERTY instead of being Americans.
8 :
They're socialist countries; we are not and never have been. They also pay over 75% in taxes. I hate to break your bias bubble but not all Republicans are rich and not all Democrat liberals are poor. In fact, it's more to the contrary. Further, you've never met any of those poor who expect things to be given housing and food and medical care yet have $200 sneakers and the latest cell phone. I have. If you want to move to Norway, enjoy yourself. I prefer this country and the ability to make my own way. The reason our education system is so poor, is because you liberals decided that teachers needed to do more about false self-esteem rather than teach. That teachers don't deserve to be paid for what they do and that the responsibility of education is on them and not students to put in the effort of learning. You've taken discipline out of the classroom. It's your fault the educational system is bad in this country. You wouldn't find the types of things you insist on in the classroom in Norway. (England's education system isn't a whole lot better.) Interesting you didn't mention that you weren't an American until now. If you aren't an American, then I suggest you MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. It's of no concern of yours. And you know you pay much more in taxes than we do. Typical liberal: a liar.
9 :
A government, which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always depend on the support of Paul. -- George Bernard Shaw The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903) . A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -- Thomas Jefferson
10 :
I'd like it to work, but we have a larger population than these guys individual (and several of them put together). We also have a greater divide between the rich and the poor, even though most of our poor would be considered wealthy in most of the world. I just don't think it's feasible here.
11 :
So you are a Canadian? Do you have a JOB?? Do you know how much taxes do you pay? For me, I would rather IT IS ME who spends my hard earned money!
12 :
So why is the economy of many of those countries tanking? In point of fact, "livable" is a very subjective term. Sure as a typically oblivious individual, I'd love to have the government give me everything I need and that would certainly color my PERSONAL perception of the country. But if the country ultimately can't SURVIVE because of all of these entitlement program, how is the best interests of the citizens ULTIMATELY being served? PS: I find your comments about education VERY interesting. We spend MORE on educating our kids than any other major country... and yet we are 30th overall. So OBVIOUSLY entitlement programs really aren't the answer to a country's quality-of-life. Edit: "...By the way, Canada was the first country to bounce back from the recession; the U.S. still hasn't recovered... And yet, Obama is our President... the guy you think is so great. Considering how Obama is mimicking many of the mistakes made by FDR that extended the Great Depression, that we are not rising out of the recession today is, frankly, no surprise.
13 :
You are mistaken on many points. -First your comparisons are faulty. For example Norway has vast natural resources and is thus naturally rich. It is easy for them to afford these services. -Second, there are far more countries that use liberal social policies that are much worse off than America (Greece, Cuba, etc). -Third, the US spends far more on Social progams than on defense. Medicare is more expensive than Defense, Social Security is more expensive than Defense. -Forth, I don't trust any ranking by the UN. It is largely socialist itself!!! -Fifth, If the US didn't head more socialist under Obama it may have recovered as well. -Sixth, the current recession is the result of social regulation of mortgage lending.
Considered necessary and even great in many of developed countries. These are the top 10 most livable countries in the world, according to the UN: Norway Australia Iceland Canada Ireland Netherlands Sweden France Switzerland Japan in the order listed, and almost all of them make use of programs that Conservatives consider so-called "entitlements". America, oddly enough, despite having a GDP higher than most other industrialized nations, spends more on building it's arsenal and staging wars abroad, than in providing those same funds to programs like healthcare & education. If America spent half as much money on social programs, as it did it's military and invading the 30 countries it has since 1950, it would have an unparralled healthcare & education system, instead Neo-Cons have found a way to convince the public that the poor deserve to be poor, the rich deserve to be richer, and if you don't like it get the f___ out. Now this would normally be simply a discussion of ideology , except for the fact that it has resulted in an American citizenry that , as a whole, cannot cope academically in the 21st century with most other countries, that is rife with poverty, and teetering off the edge of a cliff from which there is no return. In Norway, all citizens get free education & healthcare from kindergarten to University, the same applies to smaller or lesser degrees with almost all 10 countries, and each of these has a LOWER overall GDP per capita than America, but a higher standard of living, and higher educated & healthier citizenry America is ranked 13th in standard of living (and dropping), and 30th in overall education ( & dropping) For those suggesting why not move to one of those countries. I am not American (thank God) and i would never want to be. I do have friends & relatives who are Americans and i pity them tremendously, i am Candian By the way, Canada was the first country to bounce back from the recession; the U.S. still hasn't recovered.
Politics - 13 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Why haven't you applied for asylum in one of those countries?
2 :
Perhaps you should move to one of those countries. You all think it's wrong to be patriotic, yet you put other countries on a pedestal. Now, would our standard of living be declining as a direct result of crime? How much of that crime is committed by the illegals you think we should keep? How much is due to a very, very bad economy? And why don't our liberal politicians admit that they've had a huge hand in this mess? edit: Ugh! Canadian? What makes you think you have a right to comment on policies that only affect us in the first place? If Canadians hate America so much, why do so many drive across the bridge every day to work here?
3 :
Not to be too pithy....... We have the Consitution, they don't. The U.S. allows you all the freedoms in the world which includes the freedom to move anytime you want.
4 :
Yeap its a crying shame what the libs have done to this nation, but then you support that fool in office now, so I'm sure you'er ok with it. You might also want to see what the average person pays in taxes over in those nations you so happy with, then to make everyone happy, chose one and move.
5 :
and tell me who considers these things, common in all the listed countries "un-American:" -homogeneous culture -single national language -mandatory national service -state-controlled access to university-level education -restrictive immigration policies -benefit/property restrictions on foreigners -education system based on "the basics" rather than "building self-esteem" Why do people from all your "most livable" countries still come here year after year? Could it be that they recognize that economic control often requires a good deal of cultural control? Could it be that some people still see the U.S. as more "free" in many important ways? I for one would love to live in a system as stable as Norway....but as an American, I'm not comfortable am not willing to give up our superior diversity in terms of culture and simple life choices...
6 :
I noticed that GREECE wasn't on your list... There's a reason for that... Greece is the first RED FLAG that you can't have the people who WANT your money and the people who MAKE the money - not be the same group of people. As the socialism continues - the RECIPIENT will "vote themselves" ever increasing "stuff" that they have not contributed to providing... in ever increasing levels. This continues - until you run out of all the RICH GUYS money - then you spend money that you haven't MADE yet. Our GRAND KIDS will be OPPRESSED/ENSLAVED by OBAMA'S STIMULUS... which almost could be justified, at least SHORT TERM - if it worked. You would THINK a BLACK GUY - of all people, would KNOW BETTER. I bet he does... he just doesn't CARE.
7 :
I'm always glad to see Democrats PROVE they prefer using force to make everyone government PROPERTY instead of being Americans.
8 :
They're socialist countries; we are not and never have been. They also pay over 75% in taxes. I hate to break your bias bubble but not all Republicans are rich and not all Democrat liberals are poor. In fact, it's more to the contrary. Further, you've never met any of those poor who expect things to be given housing and food and medical care yet have $200 sneakers and the latest cell phone. I have. If you want to move to Norway, enjoy yourself. I prefer this country and the ability to make my own way. The reason our education system is so poor, is because you liberals decided that teachers needed to do more about false self-esteem rather than teach. That teachers don't deserve to be paid for what they do and that the responsibility of education is on them and not students to put in the effort of learning. You've taken discipline out of the classroom. It's your fault the educational system is bad in this country. You wouldn't find the types of things you insist on in the classroom in Norway. (England's education system isn't a whole lot better.) Interesting you didn't mention that you weren't an American until now. If you aren't an American, then I suggest you MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. It's of no concern of yours. And you know you pay much more in taxes than we do. Typical liberal: a liar.
9 :
A government, which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always depend on the support of Paul. -- George Bernard Shaw The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903) . A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -- Thomas Jefferson
10 :
I'd like it to work, but we have a larger population than these guys individual (and several of them put together). We also have a greater divide between the rich and the poor, even though most of our poor would be considered wealthy in most of the world. I just don't think it's feasible here.
11 :
So you are a Canadian? Do you have a JOB?? Do you know how much taxes do you pay? For me, I would rather IT IS ME who spends my hard earned money!
12 :
So why is the economy of many of those countries tanking? In point of fact, "livable" is a very subjective term. Sure as a typically oblivious individual, I'd love to have the government give me everything I need and that would certainly color my PERSONAL perception of the country. But if the country ultimately can't SURVIVE because of all of these entitlement program, how is the best interests of the citizens ULTIMATELY being served? PS: I find your comments about education VERY interesting. We spend MORE on educating our kids than any other major country... and yet we are 30th overall. So OBVIOUSLY entitlement programs really aren't the answer to a country's quality-of-life. Edit: "...By the way, Canada was the first country to bounce back from the recession; the U.S. still hasn't recovered... And yet, Obama is our President... the guy you think is so great. Considering how Obama is mimicking many of the mistakes made by FDR that extended the Great Depression, that we are not rising out of the recession today is, frankly, no surprise.
13 :
You are mistaken on many points. -First your comparisons are faulty. For example Norway has vast natural resources and is thus naturally rich. It is easy for them to afford these services. -Second, there are far more countries that use liberal social policies that are much worse off than America (Greece, Cuba, etc). -Third, the US spends far more on Social progams than on defense. Medicare is more expensive than Defense, Social Security is more expensive than Defense. -Forth, I don't trust any ranking by the UN. It is largely socialist itself!!! -Fifth, If the US didn't head more socialist under Obama it may have recovered as well. -Sixth, the current recession is the result of social regulation of mortgage lending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)