jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (96 posts)

Ten Things that the Super Rich Will not tell you.

  1. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago

    https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/ … sone_share

    1. Only 3 percent of the super rich are entrepreneurs. Most entrepreneurs come from the middle classes.

    2. America is No 4 from the bottom in terms of equality.

    3. 50% of the USA GDP is untaxed and held by rich Americans oversease.

    4. Corporations found a way of cutting their taxes in half at the onset of the depression.

    5. $50 billion was made by just ten Americans last year.

    6.Taxing the rich would pay 100% of the deficit.

    7. Single Black or Hispanic women have a networth of $100. I have a network of $0.

    8. The Elderly and disabled receive the full food allowance $4.30 per day.

    9. American public paid about $4 trillion to bail out the banks...

    10l Young people are now worth only 1/3 of what they were worth in 1984.

    This is all called the dribble down effect...

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I always refer to it as the trickle up effect, Sophia. The money trickles from our pockets at the bottom of the human scrap heap,  then defies the law of gravity and trickles up to the billionaires. Sleight of hand, perhaps?

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Hollie, you just made me roar with laughter. I call it the blast up effect. smile

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          smile

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Total confiscation of the wealth (wealth, not income) of the 400 richest people in the country will barely equal the deficit.

      Just what are you considering a tax, and what do you consider "rich"?

      Don't forget, too, that if you do confiscate that money that the next year it is gone while the spending of our esteemed congressmen will double because they had all that money last year.

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Wilderness, have no idea. The article is doing the rounds. Both political sides are guilty of fudging facts. The moment I read it, the most glaring error that hit me was that taxing the rich would absolutely not kill the entire debt of the USA. Having lived through one bankrupt country, I think the USA has so much debt that I'm not sure it's repayable.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Well, it does say "deficit", not "debt", but even so is grossly out of line with reality and that isn't the only place, either.  50% of the GDP is owned by Americans overseas?  Total nonsense, and the only way America can be 4th from the bottom in wealth inequity is by very carefully choosing what countries will be considered and eliminating the majority of them.

          1. profile image0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            It's 4th from the bottom for 150 countries. I can't remember the exact number of countries in the world, but I seem to remember it's something like 200 countries - or thereabout anyway. I think it might mean that it's 4th from the bottom for the developed countries. I


            Juist found it!

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … tries.html

            It's the bottom third - not 4th from the bottom!


            The other thing is that America lost in two ways this year. It dropped out of the number one position for 'soft influence,' and the UK took first position. That is the first time it happened. The other one is that America dropped out of the ten most prosperous nations in the world. It is now number 12.

            I think what a lot of people do, and it doesn't matter what their religion, politics, or business do is take the something of the truth and mix it with something that suits their purpose more...

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Most common guess seems to be 196 countries, but I don't believe the US is 48th from the bottom there, either.  The link was for 34 countries; it should not be too hard to find 30 that are above us. 

              Nor am I particularly concerned to find that the US is now number 12 in GDP per capita; the recession easily did that much damage.  In addition, if you eliminate the oil producing nations that offer little else in GDP, the US will be at or very near the top.  If, instead, the wealth of the people is considered instead, I find it very doubtful that the US is not in top place.  It's too easy to twist statistics and figures to say whatever you want them to say.

              1. profile image0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, I agree things can be twisted, and there were a couple of instances here, but not all. The inequality in America is greater than any other well developed country.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  "Well developed".  As in China, approaching the worlds largest GDP?  Don't think so.  As in Brazil, with possibly the most well designed and functional city in the world but also with tribes of natives still living without a shred of electronics?  Don't think so.  How about Australia?  Don't they still have extremely primitive aboriginal tribes?  India, with nuclear weapons and a large percentage of homeless people?  Don't think so either.

                  I'm sure you're right, but only if you carefully handpick the countries to be compared against.

                  In any case, inequity is a virtually inevitable result of free enterprise.  I don't think you will find any socialistic, or trending toward socialism, country with the average standard of living that US citizens enjoy.  Such things as an average ownership of large quantities of land, ownership of an average of several large ticket items (cars, expensive TV's, refrigerator/freezer, common computer ownership, etc.), or anything like the size of average home in the US. 

                  Free enterprise produces inequity, but it also produces a higher average standard of living and is not all bad.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    In any case, inequity is a virtually inevitable result of free enterprise.  I don't think you will find any socialistic, or trending toward socialism, country with the average standard of living that US citizens enjoy

                    Well, having read about a number of hubbers here, who have sound themselves homeless because they lost their job, or got sick- even women alone and in their 50's and 60's, (there's a hubber here who has been sleeping in a tent in Nebraska, because she broke her ankle and then lost her job and couldn't pay the rent) I'd have to say, that the less fortunate in the UK are definitely treated with more respect and definitely have a better standard of living of then many US citizens.

                    Many young people are treated badly in the Uk, but we do at least try to take care of our older people, the US has quite an appalling record in that regard.

      2. mio cid profile image66
        mio cidposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        The hyperbole you and most pseudo conservatives are so fond of have reported the right wing huge political benefit so far, but I think after reaching its highest point is starting to be seen as what it is by a lot of people,a smart way to dupe the simpleton voter.I don't know of any serious LBRL politician that advocates confiscation all of anybody's wealth,or even half of it,hell they would be happy to be able to tax them just one or two points more than they are now when we are at the lowest tax level in history.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Do you disagree with what I said, then?  The information came from Forbes, can you provide any other that gives a rebuttal to the idea that total confiscation of the wealth of the richest 400 citizens will pay the deficit for only one year?

          Guess I don't really understand what you're saying, except that you don't believe it and therefore it is wrong and nothing but a conservative lie to dupe the voters.

          1. mio cid profile image66
            mio cidposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            what i said is simple,There is no serious LBRL   politician in this country advocating for the confiscation of anybody's wealth,so i say hyperbole because you start off from a false premise.

            1. profile image0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Yup. That's what's difficult to handle. One says one sentence, and all of a sudden, there is a line of reasoning attached to that that was not even close to what one said!

              I was one speaking to a conservative and he asked me what I thought would improve lifestyle. I said a greater sense of community.

              He then said, "No, Communism won't work. It's a failed system."

              My jaw dropped and I asked the man how he got from community to communism. He never did answer that, but I suppose the words sounded similar to him.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Sorry I missed your post, Mio.  My point was that total confiscation of wealth cannot stop the deficit, and it is thus obvious that a fraction of the yearly income won't even come close. 

              I did not mean to indicate that anyone was proposing confiscation of wealth.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Picking up on the last, added, sentence - don't be silly.  Taxing the rich another 2% of their income isn't going to even dent the deficit and won't make anybody happy.  If total wealth confiscation won't solve it that tiny additional tax won't either.

          It's going to require pretty major tax cuts to do anything with that.  Cuts like 30% of all welfare programs to even start, followed by 30% of the military budget to make a good dent.  Add in every single earmark and a big tax increase and we might break even with a balanced budget.  At least until the bill for Obamacare comes in...

    3. Shadesbreath profile image85
      Shadesbreathposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      lol. That is so grotesquely inaccurate.

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Glad you picked it up. So did I. Even if we took all the money of the rich and put it together, it would not kill America's debt. smile

    4. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Lol.  I like dribble down.

  2. Xenonlit profile image60
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    If we end those two wars, recover the funds that Bush II looted from the treasury, end subsidies to firms that are making record profits, outlaw oil and gas speculation, stop fraud, waste and abuse by Congress and then tax the doggone rich at a decent rate... we would be fine.

  3. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    The article linked to gives no references to support the claims.

    1. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, it doesn't. Your comments?

  4. CMHypno profile image92
    CMHypnoposted 4 years ago

    I think that the current 'rich people are bad, take all their money and give it to the deserving poor and all the world's problems will be solved' notion that seems to have taken a grip these days is both simplistic and dangerous.

    1) 'Taking' someone's money is stealing - whether they are rich or poor - and that is wrong
    2) Taxing rich people at a higher rate usually leads to a drop in tax receipts, not an increase
    3) In the UK the top 10% of earners already pay more than 60% of all tax collected
    4) High earners do pay more in tax - 20% of £200,000 is a lot more money than 20% of £20,000, and there are 40%, and 50% tiers in the UK
    5) It's up to governments to close tax loopholes and collect tax receipts - nobody likes paying tax, so the majority of individuals will pay the least possible
    6) Even if all the rich people's money was taken away and 'redistributed' to the rest or us, within a decade most of it would be back in the hands of those same people
    7) Not all rich people are bad and not all poor people are good

    There are some questions which are rarely asked:

    1) Why should you pay more tax just because you are rich?  After all you are just one person/family and are actually likely to be less of a burden on the state because you are more likely to pay for private health care, education for your kids etc.

    2) Rich people are private citizens, not charities.  Why do people think that the rich have a responsibility for the welfare of other citizens.  Isn't that the job of government? Or of the citizens themselves?

    3) Would you be prepared to give over 50%, 75% on a portion of your earnings to government?

    Now before you all start howling in outrage, I think that most of us agree that we should all pay tax as countries need infrastructure, services, policing, defence etc.  But the empowerment of the poorest in our communities will not happen by dragging everyone in the world down to the same impoverished level.  Governments need to be more efficient in the way they collect taxes and shut down any loopholes and pursue tax evaders.  Then those tax receipts need to be well spent on providing the best education possible for all children, providing them with the best healthcare and on creating apprenticeships, business mentoring and anything kids need to get their feet on the first rungs of their career ladders.

    As for rich people, encourage them to become philanthropists and help them create employment for young people.  Engage with them so they do contribute to culture, welfare and humanitarian projects.  But his has to be voluntary - educate and show all more prosperous citizens the benefits of giving and working in their communities.  Because if governments just go on treating them like cash cows, they will stop producing and become even more creative at moving their money around.

    The politics of envy is corrosive and nasty. Shifting all the blame onto one section of society only leads to trouble, divides countries, and alienates those people. And lets governments off the hook! Maybe the question we should all be asking is how much am I giving back to my community and the world, before we start throwing rocks at a group of people about whose financial affairs we actually know very little.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well said, although I hope you are a fast runner.  The socialists of the forums will be beating on your door in a heartbeat, with a rope in hand.

      Seems to me that one of the problems is that govt. has created all the loopholes, primarily as a tool for social engineering.  Make an effort to "improve" inner cities with jobs = far less taxes than the effort costs kind of thing.  Quit doing that, spend the money as necessary (in the open for all to see, unfortunately) and the tax income will go way up.  The problem, of course, is that "in the open for all to see" thing.

    2. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      CMHypno, the uK is a very different country to the US. The US is a dog eat dog society where there are no social welfare programs worth anything. You'd be stunned at what people think is social welfare here. Having lived in both countries for a considerable amount of time, there is no comparison. In the USA, the rich do not pay 60% of their income. They pay less than 15% and most of it they don't pay tax on at all.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Come now, Sophia - millions upon millions of people are feeding themselves on the charity of the US govt.  They get free (or reduced cost) housing, free medical care and free schooling.  Many can get free utilities and free home improvements.  They can even get free cell phones!  Or at least if it's not actually free (nothing ever is)they aren't paying for it themselves.  That's hardly dog eat dog even though it isn't the full socialism that many seem to want.

        If all that isn't worth something to the people getting it, perhaps we should simply stop all those programs and put the funds into reducing the deficit.  That is certainly something worth doing and if it isn't reduced soon there will be no economy to provide all that welfare anyway.

        1. profile image0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          wilderness, what you consider welfare in the US would be considered heartless in the UK. As I have lived in both countries, and you haven't, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know about that - we both seem to have said the same thing.  The US gives billions in charity each year, the UK (per capita) gives more.

            That doesn't make those billions of no value, but it does say the UK is further down the socialist road than the US.  You can see this, too, in the average wealth per capita of the two countries as the inevitable result of socialism is not only to equalize wealth between individuals but to decrease it overall.

            1. profile image0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Actually, it's not the socialism that's kiliing the UK. The Scandinavian countries are heavily socialistic and have just been declared the most prosoperous countries in the world. I'd be interested to know how you define socialism.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Sorry, Sophia - I missed your post.

                In relation to the debate here, socialism is redistribution of wealth.  I fully recognize that that is far from a full definition, but it seems the important part of the discussion here.  Take from the rich to provide a "safety net" (or total life support in many cases) for someone else.  It means requiring a few to provide the majority of support for what the society wants for all, whether that is food, public transportation, health care, military and police, or anything else that society wants for everyone.  An inequity in payment to provide equity in "prosperity" smile, if you will.

                1. profile image0
                  Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Socialism is NOT, NOT, NOT the redistribution of wealth. There is one helluve difference between being paid a livable fair wage and being involved in wage slavery. People are NOT, NOT, NOT asking for a redistribtuion of wealth. They are asking to be paid what their labor is worth.

                  If big corporations paid the same kind of wages and salaries that were paid in this country 50 years ago, then the government wouldn't have to subsidize their wages by giving them food stamps.

                  Wilderness, I don't have the time and interest to pursue this with you. You hold the same views which half of Americans hold, and quite honestly, having lived internationally, they're antiquated and irrelevant.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Hogwash.  Value of a persons work is set by the market place, not by someone declaring that any work at all is worth a "living wage".  Someone flipping burgers simply isn't earning that living wage, no matter how much you may wish it.

                    As far as 50 years ago, I worked then and earned less in terms of buying power than beginning workers (or that burger flipper) do now.  That statement is patently false.

                2. profile image0
                  Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, then I think you better get reeducated. I understand that members of the GOP have been brainwashed to believed that socialism is the redistribution of wealth but that is absolutely and utterly NOT what socialism is.

                  That is pure ignorance on your part, and the fact that you're speaking to people who also think that it means a redistribution of wealth doesn't mean that if everybody is ignorant, that makes it the correct definition. This is why I just can't handle speaking to people like you. I'm accustomed to a certain level of edcucation..

                  As for your comment, "When the word was introduced to the thread I took it for a totally different meaning that what Sophia (the first poster of the term) meant, that's all.  I thought of money and material things, she was thinking of social aspects she considered important and valuable with absolutely no concern for the materialism Americans so prize."

                  As far as I know, the world over, when one speaks about prosperity, one is speaking about money, and I absolutely and utterly meant that people in socialist countries had more financial wealth and a better quality of life than Americans have. America used to be the top of that particular survey. It is now number 12, and this has been gradually happening over the past twenty or thirty years.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Sophia, that survey had almost nothing to do with money or material wealth; it was all about how and where what wealth there was is distributed and how society is set up.  Did you even bother to look at the categories?  Some were about quality of life, but that has little to do with material wealth, either.  It DOES have much to do with what one considers a "good" government or society, but not material goods.

                    If we look at GDP per capita (at least a semi decent replacement for actual wealth) the US is #8 and every single country above it is a tiny nation that does not choose to spend but very little on such things as a military - add that huge category to personal income and the income of individual Americans will easily top the list.  Now explain once more how that silly chart of "prosperity" actually shows material wealth?

                    I, too, am accustomed to a certain level of education, and that includes the concept of reason and not simply spouting whatever one finds on the web that agrees with a pre-ordained ethical stance.  Stances like imagining that anything but what a buyer is willing to pay determines the value of something, including labor.  To put it bluntly, a workers efforts are worth whatever he can sell them for, not some manufactured "living wage" value made up by a third party.

                    Now that we've sufficiently insulted each other, it's my bed time.  May we meet again when we're both in a better mood.

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    And I stand corrected; the term socialism may commonly be used in the manner I did, but that is an incorrect usage. 

                    I DO, however, stand behind the usage of "redistribution of wealth"; any time a government uses a graduated tax schedule in order to give money, goods or services to poorer people it is by definition a redistribution of wealth and that is exactly what our welfare program does as well as any European government that provides "free" health care or any other form of aid to the poor.  It is also exactly what is demanded by citizens throughout both the US and Europe; free health care, free food stamps, free education, free this and free that.  All paid for by richer people than the recipients.  The wealth of the rich is redistributed to the poor.

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Actually Wilderness it doesn't. The UK gives billions in overseas aid, although it's not aid per se, it merely secures the dependence of poorer nations, and secures profits and control for the 1%. Would you like me to offer some stats?

              In fact, the majority of welfare benefits given in the UK are to the working poor, not the unemployed. The only thing that is socialistic about the Uk at the present time, is how the tax payer subsidizes large corporations who refuse to offer a living wage.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Overseas aid was never in the equation, just charity to UK (or US) citizens, although perhaps it should be.

                Are you saying that the UK equivalent of US welfare is less per capita than the US puts out?  That would disagree with what I've picked up from other threads, though it could certainly be true.  In this matter, I refer to monies received by an individual from the govt for any purpose, that are unearned.  The recipient did no work to earn them.  It would also include any "freebies" such as health care where the money is actually paid to a third individual that has earned it.  Is the UK budget for that, per UK citizen, less than the US?

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  UK spending projections for 2013.
                  £/ billion population 63.5 million
                  Welfare 117 9.8 of which  is spent on unemployment benefits
                  Pensions 138.1
                  Education 96.2
                  Healthcare 126.2

                  Source: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_we … ng_40.html

                  US projections 2013.

                  $/billion Population 316.8 million

                  Welfare 750.1 of which 77.6 is spent on unemployment benefit.
                  Education 915.4
                  Healthcare 1,138.7
                  Pensions 1,095.9

                  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_ … ng_40.html

                  Within the US welfare budget however, 171.4 is allocated for unemployment trust, in addition to unemployment benefits where 77.6 billions is allocated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't welfare trust given to high income business owners and professionals who wish to reduce taxation, and not unemployed people claiming welfare? If I am correct, and we are discussing welfare for the unemployed then I think we can safely deduct 171 billions from the amount that is actually spent on, dare I say, real welfare.

                  Furthermore, within the US  projections 21.8 billion is also allocated to the workers compensation program. A scheme, correct me if I'm wrong, which is designed to compensate those who have suffered work related illness or injuries? In the UK, those who have suffered work related illness or injury are normally compensated through their employer. However, if the injuries/illnesses are long term, then they may be entitled to certain disability benefits.

                  So, if we deduct 171.4 and 21.8 billions from the welfare budget of the US in terms of welfare in comparison to the UK, we are left with a little over 550 billion dollars spent by the US on welfare. Then we convert £s to dollars because the figures are given in each nations currency, we are left with:

                  UK projected expenditure for unemployment benefits 2013.

                  $15.7 billion

                  US projected expenditure for unemployment benefits 2013

                  $77.6 billion and the US has what, a population approximately 5 times larger than the UK? So, yes, per person I think we can safely say that the UK spends more on unemployment benefits than the US per head.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Wow.  Hollie, we have a problem here in that the concepts of welfare are SO different.  Some explanation:

                    Unemployment insurance is paid for by the employer, and the amount paid depends on past history of the business.  Producing lots of unemployed people results in a higher charge for that insurance program, keeping people employed results in a much lower premium.  It is not paid for by the govt. although it is run and operated by govt.  It is not generally considered a form of welfare in the US.  Unemployment insurance in my state is maxed out at $360 per week - not enough to live on, let alone make a house and car payment.  Another point here is that if you haven't worked (they look at the first 4 of the last 5 quarters earnings to determine amount of benefit) you don't get it.  Unemployment insurance is also very limited in the number of payments; 26 weeks is probably the most common maximum duration. The employer contribution can be looked as a part of your compensation, although the govt. takes it to fund the program.

                    Workmans compensation is the same; an insurance program run by the govt. but paid for by specific premiums paid by the employer and those premiums depend on past history of claims.  As in the UK, long term disability results in welfare payments rather than workmans comp.

                    Pensions are not paid for via the tax base, except for those earned by government workers - a result of the job contract.  It is not considered welfare, either.  Social Security insurance is funded by contributions levied on both employer and employee and could be considered a form of pension, but does not come from the general tax base.  The earnings history (read as contribution history) defines the amount of payment, exactly as it would in a company is paying a pension rather than the government.

                    Education in the lower grades is free and required of every citizen; there are no particular groups (such as poor) that receive any particular benefits.  While it is definitely a redistribution of wealth, it is not a welfare program simply because it is both required of everyone and given to everyone.  Welfare is given only to the poor.

                    "Welfare" in the US will include such things as food stamps (free food), housing allowance (free or subsidized housing), free medical care (for children or disabled only), Free or subsidized utility bills, Free lunch at school for children.  All things funded from the general tax base and that the recipient has not paid for in any way.

                    Other entitlements, with a name change, could also be considered as welfare.  Poor college students can receive "Pell Grants" - money to pay for college expenses that comes from the general tax base and is not earned by the student.  College loans with the interest subsidized by the government could be considered welfare, I suppose.

                    There is very seldom any "corporate" welfare, although the recent bailouts are a huge exception.  Rather, the taxes of some (or most) companies are played with by politicians to "encourage" certain activities.  Investment, R&D, inner city employment, veterans employment, etc. can all reduce the taxes paid by corporations and while it is often claimed to be "welfare" it isn't - those corporations provide a service wanted by govt. and are "compensated" via a lower tax bill for those services.  I suppose some companies receive help (welfare) after a disaster, but we've got enough in just these topics without opening another to confuse the issue.

                    It seems like your "unemployment" benefits are our "welfare" - payments to individuals that have not been earned but are paid because they are poor and cannot make it without them.  I would add your free medical care; only tax paying citizens pay for it, while everyone gets it.  At least in the US that is the entire purpose of "Obamacare"; to provide medical insurance for those that can't pay for it themselves.

                    Pretty massive differences, isn't it?  I think it would take more than a simple forum post to actually answer the question of how much "welfare" the UK citizen pays for vs the US citizen.

            3. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              HAHAHAHA so Obviously Norway is less socialist than America big_smile because it is richer per capita the UK gives more per capita because it's a more responsible and caring nation for the well being of it's citizens that is why it's quality of life is significantly better than ours.

              http://nationranking.files.wordpress.co … 1-qli2.png

        2. gmwilliams profile image81
          gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          +10,000 percent.   The social welfare programs in the United States are quite generous.   I would say, overly generous.    There are people who purchase lobster and other luxuries on food stamps.  I have seen this with my own eyes.    Wilderness, you are correct, they live good off the government.    That is why the government is cutting down on welfare programs, requiring people to go on workfare, particularly in New York.    The conditions of the program is that one must work in order to continue receiving welfare payments, which is only fair.

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Food stamps can be used as currency so it's quite possible those food stamps were used at a small business and then that small business owner used them to buy a lobster. The average full food stamp allotment is $5.50 a day, good luck surviving on that if you are buying lobster.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Odd - I've always understand it was illegal to trade or sell food stamps.  That you could only "spend" those that were issued to you.  Oh well, what's a little fraud between friends, eh?

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            As I recall, that (workfare type of thing) was tried a few years ago throughout the nation.  Didn't work - it was demeaning to work and besides, they put a limit on how long you could get food stamps and such and that meant you couldn't live your entire life on govt. charity.  Not acceptable.

    3. gmwilliams profile image81
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      To CMHYPNO, +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!   Totally agree with your premise and spot on analysis regarding the issue.   IT IS NOT THE RICH who is the problem.   They are self-supporting and they generate businesses for others!

  5. Dame Scribe profile image61
    Dame Scribeposted 4 years ago

    I once suggested on a news site about Canada's deficit lol if Canada uses '3rd Party Management' for First Nations for mismanagement of funds - gov't's should look at applying the same tool. Maybe have the UN do that? tongue lol

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Is there still a 5 year limit to getting welfare in the US? The last study I read said that, but it was written in 2003.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Good question.  I seem to recall that that was a part of welfare reform years ago, and seem to remember that it mostly died a natural death as welfare recipients complained that they were entitled to a lifetime of support, but I don't actually know that.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I'm actually replying to your post above Wilderness because it wont let me up there. Tony Bliar adopted the what works and New deal approach from Bill Clinton, which did, by all accounts, work well for the US when you consider the strength of the US economy at the end of Clinton's two terms. And had we not entered into those bloody stupid wars and allowing bankers to behave like they were at a roulette table with an endless amount of chips to gamble away, who knows where both the US and the UK might be now.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          You can change the ability to reply by going to the "chronological" view.  I don't like it and lost several comments yesterday that way, but at least you can reply.

          Don't blame the bankers, at least in the US, for the housing debacle.  That came primarily from politicians declaring that everyone had an innate right to a house of their own and then providing govt. loan guarantees while pushing banks to make substandard loans.  What banker in his right mind would go against the wishes of strong politicians while losing money from doing it?

  7. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago

    Measures of prosperity: America vs the rest of the world.

    From the Telegraph in London, the most conservative newspaper in the UK. This was 2010. America is no 10.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ … tures.html

    This link is from the LA Times and it is the 2012 most prosperous countries in the world. America is No 12.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/worlds-top-10-mo … ies-859412

    Heres' the same article from the International Business Time which puts Norway (a socialist country) into the number one slot.

    Norway has the 4th highest per capita income in the world, and is heavily socialist.
    http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in … alism.html

    Every single nation in the top ten of prosperous nations is socialist to a greater or lesser extent, and that is measuring prosperity by how much money and possessions everybody has.

    ^^^

    And here's yet another measurement. It's the happiness index. It measures three things - well being, long life, and the eco footprint. Guess what. America is near the bottom.

    http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Still trying to prove America is a dog, Sophia?

      From your first link, the categories being measured:

      "economy, entrepreneurship, governance, education, health, safety, personal freedom and social capital"

      Which of these is a measurement of "money and possessions" that you say is prosperity?  Safety?  Social capital?  Personal freedom?  Are any of them a measurement of "how much money and possessions everybody has?  Doesn't seem like it to me...

      re: the happiness index.  Do you really think that, in the land of the Big Mac, Phillip Morris and Pizza Hut, Americans care more about well being and long life than they do about what they stuff in their mouth?  Or that, in a country of a quarter billion automobiles (and millions of SUVs), that Americans really care about the eco footprint?

      Why don't you find stats on the number of bottles of beer per house, or flat screen TV sets with couches nearby?  It would be a more accurate measurement of American happiness. smile

      Seriously, though, a measurement of the number of motorcycles, boats and RV's might be appropriate. The number of acres of wilderness land or national parks.  Houses with 1,000 sq ft per resident.  The number of dogs and cats. 

      These are what make the American Dream, and what people save for and buy, not long life, health or a small eco footprint for goodness sake!  Not 1 in 10,000 Americans cares one whit about their eco footprint - why would you ever measure that as an indication of their happiness?

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Yoiu  really don't get it, do you?

        :"the happiness index.  Do you really think that, in the land of the Big Mac, Phillip Morris and Pizza Hut, Americans care more about well being and long life than they do about what they stuff in their mouth"

        "Seriously, though, a measurement of the number of motorcycles, boats and RV's might be appropriate. The number of acres of wilderness land or national parks.  Houses with 1,000 sq ft per resident. "

        Those things are important to plastic, shallow people, and if you're really proud of that, so be it. However, for a growing number of people, there are other things that are a lot more important than those things.

        Thankfully.

        If you read my article on why the Dems will take 2016, you'll understand more about those demographics.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Do you believe that individual Americans spend more on buying big ticket toys or on reducing their eco footprint? 

          It isn't ME making that call, it is the American people, and it isn't just the Republicans.  Somehow I don't think that another Democratic election will change that demographic, although it is faintly possible that when it doesn't you may realize that you simply don't understand much about America or its people - that you just can't project your own wants and desires onto everyone around you.

          You're right - ONE of us just doesn't get it.  You seem intent on degrading America for some reason and will stoop to almost anything to "prove" it.  You don't like it when the foolishness is exposed for what it is, and promptly produce an insult that Americans are plastic and shallow.  Well, if loving our national parks and a quiet trek through the wilderness is shallow, so be it.  I still appreciate and support both.  Along with my RV, and hang the eco footprint.  Although I don't have 1000 feet per person, I like my home and wouldn't care to trade it for a tiny apartment in the UK.  I even like my Prius, and though it is the cleanest car in the country (barring the new electrics when the engine isn't used) I didn't buy it for that.

          I give up, Sophia.  For some reason you apparently hate everything about America and Americans and refuse to make the slightest effort to understand either..  I won't "bother" you again here - you can project all the "statistics" and "studies" you want without comment from me. 

          I wish you lots of "happiness" in learning to live with a low eco footprint.

          1. profile image0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            The kind of people you mention are rapidly becoming a minority in America. They might have been the majority at one time, but that is changing.

            Next, I've spent an awful lot of time trying to understand some Americans, and I finally got it. They're Republicans.  That said, I just don't think that buying big ticket items, having homes that are a 1000square feet, and living off big macs are particularly what's going to enable the world to be a better place in the future. And it's irrelvant to me that some Americans think that's heaven on earth.

            And I'm sorry that you do.

            So, yes, we'll part company.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              As I say, I wish you the best in your life.  Not in changing my homeland into your version of Utopia, because I don't like the lifestyle you want, but certainly in your chase of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

              Have a good evening, Sophia.

              1. profile image0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I cannot change your homeland. I'm not a citizen and don't wish to be. I don't vote. That was never the issue. My only issue is in what is ethically right and wrong i..e. the common good.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  No it isn't.  Your issue is that YOU know what is best for the masses, and in exactly the same manner that the Christian masses do.  A different reason perhaps (you've made it clear in other forums what you think of religion in general) but with the same self assured attitude that only know how everyone else should live their lives

                  You actually DO want a nanny state, at least as long as it is you determining what "good" and "bad" is, but America is founded on individual freedom and still possesses that to a large degree.  It is disappearing as more and more people try to assert they have all the answers, insisting that only their version of right and wrong is correct, but it is still far from gone. 

                  May personal freedom, choice and responsibility live long and prosper here, regardless of what happens in Europe, South Africa or the rest of the world.  Humankind is too smart and too good to simply submit to the dictates of any self proclaimed guru of good and evil.

                  1. profile image0
                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Actually, Wilderness, you must be speaking about someone else.

                    Wow! What an assumption. I can understand why you respond to me the way you do if you think that.

                    In psychology, it's called projection. You don't actually hear what someone is saying. You hear what you think they are saying.

  8. tussin profile image59
    tussinposted 4 years ago

    They will not tell you what it feels like to take a bath in a pool full of gold coins.  Believe me, I have tried to ask and they always send a gardener to shoo me off the property with a high-pressure hose.

  9. gwinnettwright profile image60
    gwinnettwrightposted 4 years ago

    All Super Rich people are stupid if they think all Black or Hispanic women are worth only 100. I know some other races of people worth less than a penny,"except" they don't know it. Like the ignorant person who felt this was some vital information to share. I pray that all people that see others in the status of color and class all are shipped to Ignorant Island. Because you have a sickness that needs to be removed from society.

  10. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Uh oh.
    More super top rich peoplesecrets revealed!
    Has Jimmy Carter's grandson been eavesdropping again?
    This time at Bohemian Grove?
    lol lol

 
working