Skip to comments.Poll: If you could abolish income inequality, or poverty, but not both, which one would you choose?
Posted on 12/08/2013 9:14:28 AM PST by grundle
If you could abolish income inequality, or poverty, but not both, which one would you choose?
Scenario #1: Income inequality has been abolished, but poverty remains.
Scenario #2: Poverty has been abolished, but income inequality remains.
(Excerpt) Read more at danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com ...
No hits for you, cupcake.
This is a trick question and not worth answering.
Pretty stupid proposition isn’t it?
The poor you will always have with you.
Try effort inequality.
The Left doesn't care if there are poor people -- they just want everyone to be at the same level.
The Rigth doesn't care if some people have more success than others -- they just want a viable path out of poverty.
I thought the Left claimed they were one and the same?
I would vote for Admin Moderator.
Well, to be fair...communist revolutions do tend to make most people equally poor (aside from those in power), making scenario #1 kinda/sorta happen.
Stupid question both statements mean the same thing.
It’s designed to make socialists feel good about themselves.
I would take all the money and run!
Obviously inequality would be much less of a potent selling point if no one were actually poor...
If I could just abolish stuff, everyone would be going around saying, “Remember the Democrat party?”.
The biggest inequality is not between the man who has ten dollars the the man who has ten million it is between the man who has a biscuit and the man who has none.
I don’t understand the premise of the question.
Poverty in America is far different from poverty in 3rd world countries. The poor in America have a basic social safety net.
We’ve done a lot in that whole war on poverty area. Not sure what else we can do to eliminate American poverty. Which as noted, is far better than being poor in the 3rd world.
Regarding income inequality, tougher, more difficult jobs, jobs with higher levels of responsibility pay more than low paying “hired help” types of jobs. I don’t see that inequality as any sort of problem to be solved. I want corporate CEOs and neurosurgeons to earn far more than clerks in a store.
What if you could get rid of economic ignorance?
Who gets to define “poverty” and “income inequality?”
Where does the ‘income’ come from? Hard work? Luck? The government (taxes)?
For true income equality, the beginning McDonald’s employee would have to get the same amount as the speaker of the House. I don’t think the politicians will go for that.
You can attempt to do either at the Point of a Gun. A famous Commie said something like that I hear.
That’s an idiotic question. I refuse to participate.
Poverty, obviously. Income inequality doesn’t hurt anyone, but poverty can.
Of course, that is what Conservatives and Libertarians have been trying to do all along - create opportunity for all.
Liberals, Progressives, and Socialists on the on the other hand want to eliminate income inequality - they want everybo
Sort of my point... you want income equality and you get poverty... you can’t have both at the same time.
It is something that happens but the majority of the sheeple don’t understand or believe.
I would ban falls alternatives and and all use of stupid premise
“Would you rather pimp my blog or be in before the Zot?”
I would not abolish either one. (I did not read the article.)
It’s a dog eat dog world, and you can either work hard and succeed, or lie on your butt and starve AFAIC.
It’s time to rid the country of welfare as a way of life—in a lot of families, it’s been that way for generations.
It’s long passed time to cut this stuff out.
Women having kids out of wedlock? The kids’ should immediately go to a government run orphanage to perhaps be adopted out—or to go to a mandatory school when they’re old enough, where if they do the work and graduate, they may have a chance in this life.
Some might do better off in trade school—and we do need well trained tradesmen.
As long as we are paying large groups of people to have babies out of wedlock, we will never conquer this problem.
That's the best answer, but in keeping with the thread, I'd have to know, first, which side of the "income inequality" I'm on before I answer.
“I was all for Obamacare, before I knew I was the one that was going to be paying for it.”
Somehow, I think that’s the correct answer to this condundrum.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveriesThere is no way to enforce equality of result without imposing tyrannical limitations on the ambitious. And such limitations would be felt first in the loss of initiative for progress, so progress would wither on the vine. Worse, as Tom Peters In Search of Excellence instructs us, failure to try to progress does not merely stagnate but will actually reverse progress.
In the last two days you have posted 11 threads with no response on the threads from you.
You obviously have no respect for Free Republic posters as you seem much too elite and important to engage in conversations with us.
Which also shows that you don’t think your posts are important enough to support with communication.
If you are really interested in getting interest in your threads perhaps, in the case of this one, you could post the results of the poll every time change occurs.
If you do not do that, don’t expect any respect shown to you by those that you disrespect by just posting threads and being-obviously—much too self important to engage in a little back and forth with the posters here at Free Republic.
If you just want hits to your blog, you are on the wrong forum.
It’s *still* a RuPaul fan. What do you expect other than abuse of FR posters and forum? It hasn’t hit “Reply” since Dec 5.
Who controls the language controls the debate. Let’s agree that income equality, as with every form of legislated “equality” means the lowering of all income so that we are all equally miserable in our collective income level.
So try rephrasing the question so that it seems legitimate.
I would be in favor of minimum wage for Congress members and their staff members.
Of course he doesn't have any idea what is posted on his threads as he never looks back at them.
Liberals are so full of themselves they don't even see the picture, much less the BIG picture.
Oh and here is where he got his name:
Looks like he can't decide if he is a d*** or a butthole...grundleWeb definitions
- In human anatomy, the perineum is a region of the body including the perineal body and surrounding structures. There is some variability in how the boundaries are defined, but the term generally includes the genitals and anus.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundle
The Man is always right.
Most liberals would choose to end inequality, even if it means everyone is poor.
Heh. That’s a good laugh for the day. It’s inspired me to get started on the laundry and assembling some snacks to take to work this week.
You, sir, are one of my heroes.
“Probably bloggers. “
Bloggers be pimpin', I react to it.
Cause and effect.
It is not an either/or question.
If you have income equality, then everyone will be poor. Where is the incentive to improve yourself?
Poverty is not a fixed state. People enter and exit poverty all the time. Or I should say, before the great society created a new form of poverty, people for various reasons find themselves in poverty (look at the 1930s and the dust bowls). Without a safety net the population moved to where jobs could be found. Almost all those that were in poverty managed to re-enter middle class later.
It is a trick question because both sides of your choices lead to the same point, but there are other options.
You want to get rid of poverty, do away with welfare, minimum wage, reduce regulation to the minimum, lower taxes, allow freer competition.
...and in general get government out of the way(when possible, I understand the need for some regulation, but truth is we are buried under laws, restrictions and regulation).
“Try effort inequality”
Capitalism doesn’t ban that, but it does reward or punish it
No hits for you, cupcake.
Yes, but would you hit a tart?
I guess he should be called by his nickname, Taint.
Just to make him feel like we really know what he is.
There is historic precedent for that, yes...
For there to be a path from poverty, there still must be poverty. As for the initial post, removing either means exactly the same thing; those who wish to do nothing will have exactly the same as those who do everything. It is exactly as others have said, a trick question.
The real problem, everywhere in the 'civilized' world, is that while the situation for those in 'utter poverty' are constantly having their standard of living raised, those who have crawled out of poverty hit the wall of high taxation and costs and are unable to breach further. And the only way to reinspire innovation and creativity is to stop stealing so many resources to simply hand to those who will do nothing.
Give the man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.. until you take all but one fish to feed to those who won't bother.
And stupid poll conductors!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.