The socialism question made me wonder about this. Many of you seem to think that greed, which is a sin, is the only way that a government can work. Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist, but I don't think that's a fact. I mean, it doesn't seem to be working so well here, it is for a few, like 1 percent, but there are 37 million in poverty, according to the U.S. census. and the median earning for the U.S. is only a little more than $40,000 for a household (census). That's a WHOLE LOT of people working a lot for a little (20,000 each for two people working in a household). And anyone that thinks half of the population is just lazy, that's horribly naive. \nIt doesn't sound like it's working too well right now to me?
212546
Excellent question.\n\nGreed weakens the economy.\n\nPeople need to work together, appreciate one another for what they are worth.  That is the right way to get rich.
633789
Is GW looking out for anyone who isn't in the upper classes best interest? \n\nHe has done exactly what any Republican would do, make it easier on the rich and harder on the poor. Their theory is that the money will 'trickle down' to us, eventually helping the economy more than if it were controlled by the government. \n\nIt's great in theory, but unfortunately most of it will sit in offshore accounts, earning ungodly amounts of interest. Those at the top have a habit of keeping hold of their money, not trickling it downward our way.
643591
My problem is that we live in the only country in the world who DOES NOT NEED ANY BODY'S HELP. We have it all. Yet, a little country like Japan who has no natural resources but for fishing industry, is beating us in the economy by 26.64%\nIt is not how much money you make, but how much money you save. How in a household, like that in a country too. If we pay so much in taxes of every kind, that this country would be a really model in every way if the money was put back in it. why do we have to spend all of it on stupid wars. If we did not go to war for only 5 years, we would have so much money, we could create jobs for 70% of all the army. This is a horrible the way we are.\nSwitzerland, Australia, all are doing better than us, and those are the ones that never go to wars. I hope our next president is a pacifist.
217220
I disagree.  This is basically a communist idea.  The Universal Living Wage would cause america to lose a ton of jobs to lower wage countries.  We are already having problems competeing with counrtries that pay their workers 500 dollars a year.  This would drastically raise unemployment which is bad especially for poor people.  We would be looking at unemployment rates like those found in France and Germany of around 12 percent.  It would also stunt long term growth.  Everyone in America can eat well enough.  I have know obese people who were on welfare.  People in America are well off, poverty is more of a relative thing.  Poor people in America still have a lot more than people in the Sudan.  It is only when compared to insanely rich people in Manhattan that they seem so poor.  That is not to say that poverty is not a problem in America it is, but a Universal Living Wage would amplify this problem not fix it.
32833
That is an interesting view of things.  I have always had an inclination the exact opposite direction, that is, to help my family first, then my town, then state, country, the world.  I'm not saying this is right and the way you are talking about is wrong.  I guess it's just that when I have some money to donate, and I look around, and right there is my own family member who is barely getting by, then how can I let him starve while feeding a stranger?\n\nBut what you are saying is a good philosophy.  For if I were to help the country, then perhaps there would be this "trickle-down" effect to my own family member.  I think there may be something to that.  I just wish I was a billionaire and could help everyone!
489271
No.  People have differing priorities, and differing work ethics.  Some work very hard to become educated, and then work very hard at their jobs.  They earn their higher standard of living.  Others choose not to pursue education at all,  but work extremely hard to compensate, and still do well.  Others choose to focus on having children, whether or not they can support them.  Some don't work at all.\n\nIn the USA, lifestyle is very much about choices people make in their lives.  Not everyone has the same range of choices, but it is still very possible to go from rags to riches, or at least comfort and security, purely because one works hard.  \n\nThere are far too many people ready and willing to simply exist, and let others do all the work.  They are already an unfair burden to society; your proposal would guarantee their numbers would increase dramatically.  Additionally, with no hope of reward, the inventive, pioneering, adventurous spirit of so many Americans, encouraged by our current society, would be suppressed, and oppressed, in yours.\n\nI'm not advocating money as God, or capitalism over democracy.  Socialism does have it's place, in certain applications.  A equal-for-everyone health care system, for instance, or a flat tax for all Americans over the poverty level, no exceptions, would do much to solve some of the problems we face today.  Extending it to an entire social system is doomed to failure, however, for the very simple reason that all people are not created equal when it comes to their willingness to work.  Those who won't do not merit the rewards of those who will.
92239
People's personal blights, ie poverty or education, or not the responsibility of goverment. It is that person's choice where they are in life. In modern american society it seems that everyone wants to blame someone for the way they ended up, or make an excuse for why someone else is doing better than them. \n\nIt is a fact that some people will do nothing more than what is ABSOLUTELY nessacary for survival on that particular day. Some people will do more, and some will do everything they can to get better off than others. \n\nTo directly answer the poverty % quest... It all comes down to what the person doing the survey wants the number to be. A person living in per-say Montana with a small farm grwing there own food not really having a need for money is in poverty. But if you ask them they may say they are doing fine as all of their needs are met. A multi-millionaire that has no job (doesn't need it duh) and has no investment income (poor economic move) is considered in poverty by IRS standards. So it all comes down to what poverty number do you want to have?\n\nOn a side note, I fix up houses as a business. With the way the tax code is structured I can write off almost all of my income to business expenses. IRS paper work I made $9300 last year for a family of 3 (sole income earner). My actually net from the business for the year was $102,000+(not rubbing it in). I have been contacted multi times for Gov't assistance because we are POOR. LOL
271186
Poor workers still take more from the system, education, health, etc. then their taxes put in, even if they pay income taxes.  The middle class pays most of the benefits through taxes.  That is why all countries limit how many people without economic resources can come in, regardless of how hard they work.  The problem is that the employers aren't held accountable for those costs as they should be.\n\nImmigrants need to stand in line and come in legally.  The reason the line is so long is because our middle class so highly subsidizes services for the poor. We can't pay for the poor of the entire world.\n\nAnd if our people are so lazy, how did we come up with the sort of economy they are so desperate to join?  We pay them, don't we? And we work hard for that money.\n\nThey really tick off people who might be sympathetic when they steal our services, ruin the education for our kids that we, not they, pay for, then say we are lazy.
542627
It's a tough problem.  Almost everyone wants to help someone who is genuinely down on his (or her) luck.  But if people know assistance is there, some will rely on it and not try hard enough to better themselves.  Even FDR said welfare has a "narcotic" effect.\n\nChanges in laws change behavior.  We "reward' poverty and so we may get more of it.\n\nI guess in an ideal world, everyone would ignore the possibility of government transfer payments, or somehow there'd be a mechanism where only those who "truly tried their best" get government support.\n\nSome states have stopped raising benefits when a "welfare mother" has another child.  But then again, it's not the kid's fault.
115431
Economist always look at the bottom spectrum of the scale, which never includes people or their welfare. In a perfect world like the Romans had for Centuries even will collapse. They used War and slavery to build their empire. The Slave owners of the DEEP SOUTH, During the Confederacy used these same principles to build the DEEP SOUTH of America. The Republic of China, and the Communist are a mirror of this same type of Government. Same thing in India. World Markets can't compete with an in-slaved Government system, and I say it should be opposed. China right now is putting pressure on the U.S. Auto-makers with this labor situation. I think it was poor investment; because you gave all your bargaining power away, and are at their mercy now to what they will. I believe that with a free market, which includes the vote of the populous, and their concerns. The market will thrive, and you attain greater returns back into the market. That's my observation.
34899
nope, not a long as they can hold down the poor with outrageous prices. That and its one way of comiting legal genocide. See if you get sick in this country and you can't afford the OUTRAGEOUS health insurance premiums chances are you make too much to get public assistance. By the time you do qualify? The cancer or what ever it is thats killing you will be too far advanced to do anything about.I have asthma. I can't even buy health insurance, life insurance or any other kind of insurance..and as you may have guessed ...I can't afford the medicines I need either. I am but one of millions with this problem.. Until we do something about our current government structure.. NOTHING will change. The rich will become richer the poverty stricken will starve and the middle class?.. well they slipped below the poverty line years ago. They just set things up so that you make one or two dollars too much to qualify for assistance yet can't afford health insurnace. MEAN time? they pump billions of dolars into forein counties that hate us..bolstering their programs while Americans do without!
68300
Because the government is not responsible for individual success or failure. As Americans, we have the right to prosper or fail, but it is up to us what happens. \n\nI know I do not work to benefit someone who does not want to. It is not my problem or responsibility if you make $10/hour or $200/hour. The government is there to PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE the general welfare. Nor am I here to promote someone else's welfare by force.\n\nThose of us who like to help others have the choice to help through personal charitable contributions (which I do give). But that is my voluntary choice, it should not be forced.
240735
it's true what you are saying about people taking advantage...but not everybody ...some people are really poor and need the help..laws just have to catch those that take advantage of welfare ..because not everybody should pay....the laws need to tighten up on those individuals...that are taking advantage...but give welfare to the poor especially with really sick parent that cannot work,and need food for their children.
140231
My answer is how many billions does it take to live comfortably. It is greedy to be a billionaire while people suffer in the streets, the billionaires will move their plants overseas to make even more billions. You are right in saying that capitalism is greed in disguise and god has no part of it. We have a president that has cut taxes to the very rich while waging a war that is being paid for by the poor and middle class. He is no man of god that is for sure even thought that is what he run on.
156438
Well in a capitalist system there are many losers the US government is a money making government that has its own agenda its not about you, look how our country was developed and the principles of their wealth. A person can have a vision but the person will need labor/money to achieve that vision so now that slave labor is no longer legal they must us the next best thing paid slave labor, people forced to work for minimum wage or less like many USA born citizens migrants they have no choice at the time so they will slave for the crumbs and no one thinks anything about it because we know they are getting paid the American workers need to wake up,our children's lives are at stake, we need to curtail the migrants movement and force the push on minimum wage
34369
The system is imbalanced.  If you don't have money you don't have the same representation, that would make it a bit unjust.  However, the system is much better than other nations systems.  That doesn't mean we can't work on it, and the best place to work on it is by becoming part of it.
207754
For our friends that pick communism Explain why it failed.  I grant you the fantasy sounds great.  The reality produces less for all.\n\nPure Capitalism will not work either not one is greedy enough.  Greedy enough means being willing to work hard enough to make sure no one else can restrict your life style.\n\nBy that definition pure capitalism is very inefficient both for labor and capital.  The US with all its faults maybe the best we are going to get.\n\nOur Taxing policy is a bit funny also.  The individual (except maybe for the extremely high payed ones)are paid by what society feels they are worth. Then the taxman says since society feels you are so valuable you can donate by force money for the good of the rest. \n\nEnjoy the 1st Worlds life style while you can.  When the energy that makes it possible drys up so will the economy! There are 2 caveats to this statement we could go Nuclear or  the economics of Renewable Energy has to change.  Renewable Energy will never be directly economically viable unless our energy bill skyrockets after the infrastructure is installed or 2 international governments donate/invest a large enough plot of land to make private investor set up and take notice.  This land must be of little value for the politician's constituents to allow it, but the designer must see a way to change the value that is large enough to subsidize the infrastructure.