I'm torn between terrorism and Russia. Really, there is no threat that could actually have an impact large enough to destroy the country. If America collapses, it will be from the inside, but don't blame "moneybags".
What endless greed? They've worked hard for their money and have been blessed with luck. And even if it is greed that got them their money, which it isn't, how are they tearing apart the United States?
You don't understand economics in that case. Markets can't sustain themselves when the 1% holds all the money. If you don't understand the danger, then observe. http://www.politifake.org/image/political/small/1201/class-warfare-democrats-liberals-revolt-republicans-greed-politics-1326183549.jpg
Also, lets face it. The reason Barack won because he was black. This may seem racist, but the fact that people always said that it would never happen and then he started running is the number one reason he won.
ChosenWolff, how would someone be disillusioned for voting terrorism? It's the only option on this poll that has actually threatened national security so far. I think you do have a point about Class Warfare, though, but I don't see that as an immediate concern. Sorry if I come off as rude, it's hard for me to convey a polite tone on the internet.
You have not explained how it affects national security. Also, you claim that the one percent control all the wealth and it is now but an aristocracy and there is no consumer market. LOOK AROUND YOU! You are typing to me on a computer that you bought from a consumer market. Owned by a man in the 1%, and guess what... Your not his surf. The middle class of our country, is the upper class of most third world countries.
Here's the thing, vast wealth inequality is bad for ALL of us. When the wealthy control too much money, they also posses a great deal of the power within a country. They can influence politics, own resources and land, and can abuse their ownership of these resources to harm the American people. One of the biggest issues with wealth inequality is the fact that it allows the generation of monopolies. When a single group of people or companies posses a lot of wealth, they also have the ability to crush any and all of their competition. They can afford to create better products, temporarily lower prices, or as they so often do, purchase smaller companies within the same field. Capitalism, as we all known, functions on a few primary principles. One of these is the idea of competition within the market place. Without competition, capitalism cannot stand. Given a model where the rich posses a great deal of the wealth, and thereby have the ability to crush or purchase their competition, the select group of enormous companies that survive would have monopolies in their given fields and would dominate the economy. Once they posses this monopoly, they can do anything with their products and resources that they want, become even more rich, and the cycle of corruption repeats. Another huge issue with wealth accumulating in a small group of people and corporation's hands is that it eliminates the middle class. Every day within America, as the rich get richer, our middle class slowly disappears. The American economy has revolved around the idea of having a majority of people that don't have too much much money, but have enough money to purchase items within the marketplace. In a world in which the wealth is held by a select group of people or corporations, the masses inevitably will get poorer as a result. This means that those that are poor and don't have the enormous amount of wealth and power that the upper class has, will be unable to purchase the products sold within the marketplace by these aforementioned monopolies. If the masses don't possess the majority of the money, then the masses don't posses much purchasing power, and therefore don't have the ability to keep the economy thriving. Those that already posses wealth will be able to do just fine, because they have the money, resources, and power that they need and want. The economy itself would not grow, and while the rich are getting by just fine, the poor would be living in more and more abject poverty. Yet another issue with letting the money accumulate with the extremely wealthy is that trickle-down economics don't work. It is an interesting idea, that's for sure, but they have yet to work. Ever since we have instated the ideas of trickle-down economics, we have seen inequality within the US skyrocket. The rich have gotten much richer, and the poor have gotten poorer. Workers are working much harder now than they were a few decades ago, yet their wages have not risen. The wealth has not trickled down, and we are currently seeing the rich obtaining more and more money as the economy and the 99% watch as their wallets suffer through a ridiculously slow growth. One of the biggest issues though, is that nations with huge amounts of wealth inequality never survive. The poor always revolt and turn the system on its head. Have we learned nothing from France? Or Russia? Or how we, Americans, separated ourselves from the British empire because the wealth and power, that we had worked hard to get, was being taken away and accumulated by the few within the royal family? These systems never stand for long, and always end in revolt. We must attempt to fix the system before any of these horrible scenarios come to pass.
How the housing bubble began and why it burst? A few reasons. The biggest one was a lack of regulation. Glass-stiegal was repealed little while before the bubble began, along with a lot of regulation laws that particularly applied to banks. The lack of regulation allowed for banks to spend money that they didn't have. When this was coupled with the fact that they setup a scheme in which they loaned money to people who couldn't afford to pay them back, you wound up with the crash. This was on top of the low interest rates which, to an extent, contributed, but wouldn't have been an issue had it not been for the lack of regulation.
As for Obama being elected because he was black... Well, it was part of the reason. A lot of people voted for him because they wanted change and liberal ideals though.
Seido doesn't copy and paste. I already ran it through google. The housing bubble burst because the economy was doing fine under Bill Clinton. We had a huge population surplus and higher income families, until 4 years of bad conservative policies ended up giving bbillions of subsidies to the Housing industry. 100,000's of high income housing were created, but people started getting poorer, and had less children. We were left with massive ghost towns that were designed for wealthy 100,000 + families. That's how the housing bubble burst.
You do know that the Republican committee has a policy of large monopolies, right? If anything, big business needs to be broken up. People in the middle still make the same income, its just one guy on top needs to actually compete for his money.
And by the way, Chosen, those that voted for terrorism and Russia aren't entirely wrong. Both Russia and terrorists pose a direct threat to the United States. Neither of them, at least not under realistic circumstances, could destroy the US though. When people think threats, they tend to think immediate. Wealth inequality is a long-term, slow growing, and not always apparent problem.
Look, the housing bubble began with the federal reserve putting an artificial interest rate at if I remember correctly 3%, were as the actual market value was at 1%. The fed had the wonderful idea of trying to create a boom in the housing market, so they tweaked the interest rates from what they actually were. And I don't need to explain how the bubble burst, you got that down pretty well.
I understand Russia. I almost voted for them, as everyone on this site knows I'm a Russophobic. They help anyone who opposes the US. Including Al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Novosibirsk, North Korea, and China to a lesser extent (China is only our enemies in the classical sense).
I'd actually say that it began primarily because banks had the ability to spend money that they didn't actually have, could gamble with other peoples' money, and created a setup that was built for failure. The interest rate was just the cherry on top of the horrible decisions that were made.
If you are truly worried about wealth inequality, the we owe the federal reserve about 40% our all our debt. It is not a government institution, but rather a private bank. If you are able to find a replacement for the fed, and then dissolve it, you will drastically change income inequality.
The fed is the reason why banks can become as big as many of them are through I believe it was called factual reserve banking. I am telling you, eliminate the fed and you will eliminate a lot of our problems.
Changing how the Fed works is part of the solution, not the entirety of it. Higher taxes are required. More money for infrastructure is required. More social services are required. In general, the US needs to get out of its cold-war phrase in which it was more concerned with building up the military-industrial complex and trying to oppose the Soviet Union's Communism by becoming more capitalistic. It needs to move into the new era and try to fix things with actual change in our policy and how we run the country. If we want to become the #1 country that we once were, and so often claim to be, we need to set aside our fantasies, grow up, and change things for the better.
To be honest, I'd suggest that you guys read "For Us, the Living" by Robert A. Heinlein. He's a brilliant science fiction author and political theorist. He created an entire world with an amazingly interesting political system that I believe the US would benefit immensely from if it were to adopt some of its policies.
Oh, and do you want to know what the actual fix to income inequality will be? It's a two step process. The first step is to replace all humans with robots in medial labor jobs. Any job that doesn't require human intelligence or creativity can be replaced with a robot. It will increase efficiency, production of vital resources, and will allow us to focus on thinking, innovation, science, and culture as opposed to finding enough resources and manufacturing enough things to satisfy everyone. The second step is to turn all of those industries that are operated in by robots into a socialist-like model. Resources will be gathered and products will be made efficiently by the robots, and then fairly distributed amongst the American people. Meanwhile, the American public can spend its time on activities that are fun, benefit us culturally, help increase our scientific ability, or further increase our robots' efficiency.
I am looking at the here and now. You want to fix the issue of income inequality? Take some of the ridiculous amount of money we spend on our military, or the money we give to the farming industry that is far overgrown, or to big oil that only harms our environment and keeps us dependent on foreign countries, and put it into the sciences. We should be pushing for scientific innovations, particularly in the field of robotics. We cannot simply say that something like robotic socialism is for the future and must be ignored until then. We should be doing anything and everything that we can to push for it, to help it along its way, and to prepare for its arrival.
It's over excessive. We have to rate our spendings to our needs. We have a power index higher than the 20 nations below us combined, and spend more on our military, than the 15 nations below us combined. You don't call that over excessive?
Per year, we spend 500 billion on education. More than every nation in the world combined. We are also, number 24 in education. We need a complete recess of what we are spending on, cut out what we are not, and fix the education system.
"With all our enemies" What enemies are we fighting right now that require an army this big? Terrorists? No, we need a more efficient military if we want to combat terrorism. That would involve shifting our funding from having a huge military to having a smaller, more technologically focused one. Russia? We aren't at war with them, nor should we be. China? They wouldn't declare war on us in a million years. Their economy and stability are dependent on us. Middle Eastern countries? You mean all of those that don't even spend a tenth of what we do and have a power index lower than ours even when all of them are combined? North Korea? They're under the control of China and could easily be crushed with a military half the size of ours. There is no one right now that we are at war with that requires this large of a military. If we enter a conflict with a country like Russia or China, we can always jack up spending once again and beat them. Hell, if we halved our spending, we likely could still beat both Russia and China if it was necessary. Having a big military is nice, and we should always keep an edge up on our enemies and our allies, but having an enormous one when no actual threat is at war with us, and when we have better places to spend the money, is just silly.
Our active military is a little above a million. Its not that large compared to India, china, or DPRK. Hell Russia has more active troops than us. The reason we spend so much is because we ARE really effective already.
Infantry numbers do not represent military power or spending. We not longer exist in the 19th century. Much of our spending goes towards technological weaponry, including our enormous air-force, navy, and artillery.
I just said that. Look, you say that we should make our military more efficient, it's the most efficient on the planet. Its just that our effentiency costs us quite a bit of money. It would be extremely hard to make it any better.
If you want to fight terrorism, we need to change how we handle our military in general from that of the 20th century to the modern world of technological warfare. If you want to fight any other country on Earth, we could do it just as well with a smaller military. Our military power and spending exceed even the closest countries by far over two times, and could easily combat any opponent with a military that has the spending of half of what we spend now. As stated previously, we can always ramp up our spending if it is necessary, but our current level of spending does not correlate to the current threat level that surrounds us in the world.
@Labarum In regard to education, need I remind you that the US' population far exceeds that of any European country, and thus needs far more spending for even an adequate level of education? Comparing raw numbers about how much we spend is foolish and will only lead to inaccurate conclusions. If you could provide me with a statistic from a reliable source about how much we spend per capita in comparison to places like Finland, perhaps I'll take your point into mind.
Those dirt poor nomads are the only reasons that cities can exist. You know since we make your food, mine your minerals, transport your water, and house most of all energy projects. What do cities do for us again? Take all our resources converts it to trash, calls us dumb and makes us pick their waste, and they look down upon us as inferiors as their city streets run rampant with drugs, crime and prostitution. Who is uncivilized again?
People pursue home school education or private colleges to escape their terrible, poverty ridden countries. While some scrap the money and take education seriously, most are left in the serf esque farms, because their families can't afford it. That is the kind of lifestyle people like Laubarum want. Let me ask you, if education was privatized, would people be forced to go?
Two primary differences, Labarum. Firstly, China is a Communist country. Outside of Hong Kong, all services are owned and funded by the state in their entirety. Secondly, the entire culture about education there is different. I've actually spent some time speaking with people who have taught in China, and it is amazingly scary how school overwhelms everyone's lives. Kids spend their entire middle-school and high-school career working in school and prepping for the standardized test that they take at the end of their high-school career. They have no social lives, and are stunted socially by the time that they get to college. In addition, their system is entirely focused on reiterating facts as opposed to any analysis, culture, or free-thought, which results in many of the kids being unable to do anything other than reiterate what they've memorized. They have a very different outlook on education and hold the value of it very differently than we here in America do.
In regard to buisnesses moving to the south... Your point? There is a serious difference between a business moving from one place to another within a country, and moving between countries entirely. Also, I'd like a source on that.
Let me tell you how kids view education in America, we don't care and we blow it off. Besides, I am not asking to be like china, I am just pointing out that they do better than us and a far lower cost.
Look, I am not asking for a cultural revolution, I am just asking that we remodel our education system to something more cost effective and with higher results than what we have currently. It is obvious that we can do it. I am simply vying for it now.
The indivial mandate really screwed a lot of people over because now, the insurance company is charging them the same price for fewer service options, few prescriptions, and fewer hospitals. Its called a narrow market, and half of all insurance companies have become this since 2012.
@Labarum LOL! Sorry, but that is one of the most factually incorrect republican talking points that I've heard in quite some time. Obamacare provides people with healthcare? It provides people with the same, and usually MORE healthcare. Heck, Politifact did an article about this, I'll go grab it.
I do have some issues with Obamacare, I mean I was one of the people that had their rates skyrocket because of it, but that was mostly the fault of my health-insurance provider. Did some people lose their doctors? Yeah, that was kinda unfair. But, overall, it cheapened the price most people have to pay for healthcare, fixed the issue of ridiculously high rates for those with pre-existing conditions, helped the insurance industry as a whole to make money, and provided more people with health-insurance.
My primary issue with it is that I think we should change health-insurance and health-care even more. I support a three pronged approach to it. The first prong is a bit of tort reform. Don't make the amounts people can sue for too strict, but put some limits and standardizations in to help reduce the amount of tests and paperwork that's done. That'll lower the cost of healthcare. The second prong is getting rid of private health-insurance providers. They generate a lot of paperwork and end up raising the price that we pay for health-care in general. The last prong is to replace private health-insurance with nationalized health-insurance. That would make sure that everyone could afford health-care and health-insurance.There should be an option to use private health-insurance, but not subsided at all by the government.
And another horrible talking point. It isn't illegal, nor is it against our constitution. As was said by the supreme court, it's a tax, and therefore is legal. http://www.nfib.com/cribsheets/individual-mandate/
I did not say that people were paying more, I said that they were receiving less. Which if you would like I could provide you even more sources, and my source didn't require a sign up, at least not for me. And if I recall...
You read your politifact, which was only focused on the claim that people are paying more for less. However, the Modernhealthcare, proved that people are paying the same for less. I never said that they were paying more.
Two ways to look at that statement.
1) Technically speaking, he's right. It isn't a tax increase. It's a new tax altogether that actually ends up lowering everyone elses' taxes. We spend an inordinate amount of tax money fixing up people that get into accidents without insurance. By forcing people to contribute through an individual mandate, you are covering their healthcare without using the same amount of taxes from everyone else.
2) He's a politician, he plays with words, and the supreme court made the decision, not him. Get over it.
Too much wealth inequality.
>Money begins to accumulate in the hands of 1% of the country's population.
>These wealthiest people accumulate an increasing amount of the total currency in circulation.
>There is less money for everyone else.
>The FED keeps printing money. Inflation accelerates.
>The middle class's wages don't keep up with inflation. The middle class shrinks.
>The middle class is a tiny minority. There is a massive lower class, and a tiny upper class that owns everything.
>Eventually, most people can no longer afford most of the products of America. The wealthy stop making money.
>Either the upper class leaves America, tries to turn the country into a plutocracy, or is destroyed by proletarian revolution.
I like how the Russophobes out there like to neglect the worse things America does to the world. Know how many people were killed in the Crimea invasion? One. One guy who had the idiocy to fire on GRU Spetsnaz.
Funny how I knew whoever posted this pole wouldn't include something along the lines of "ourselves", or "national banks", or maybe even "our own overinflated military". No, instead of all these things, the uneducated, sitcom watching, ignorant sheep herd that is America would rather worry about false claims of "terrorism"
1: Maybe the Middle East wouldn't hate us if we didn't overthrow countries, kill innocents, tamper with foreign countries who we have no business tampering with.
2: Bombing and killing people isn't going to make them stop hating us? Seriously, it's like nobody has even thought of this?
3: If we're going to fight "terror", at least don't supply weapons to it. Why would we give weapons to the Mujahideen in the 70's if we knew there was a possibility of them turning right around and fighting us as the Taliban.
@Qurinius: As a person who has done research on this subject, I commend you for that response. You watch the news enough and don't actually do enough research and you start to realize that "terror" is not the problem. Admittedly, it was more of a problem in Japan during 1945.
This is a great poll. But the option I was looking for is not on here. I was looking for something like- domestic destruction- because I believe that the greatest threat to us is ourselves. Not one individual, not the rich, not another country but our selves as a whole. We would do this by electing a leader that runs our nation into the ground- *cough cough/hint hint* witch in turn can weaken us to be open to foreign threat. But our own destruction will be by the hands of our friends, family and the un/mis-informed along with those put in power by them.
It would be our government itself. Creating ridiculous policies, invading countries. I bet if we would've never invaded the Middle East, we wouldn't have terrorism as a problem. Think of it like this: North Korea invades part of the US. Do you think you'll automatically like North Korea? The government can do so many things that invades our security like listening on our phone calls. Basically turning us into socialists and mindless pawns thinking whatever the government does is good.
Seido, SHUT UP the US does not control china and Russia and its not BY far the strongest country. Russia and China could beat the US together and i don't think they are that scared of the US, Just because Russia doesn't want a war does not mean its Scared of the US. Just means its smart unlike the US.