By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why I am leaving the US...

HappySqurriel on 18 July 2010
tingyu said:

Its funny someone who is employed with a choice to relocate to a foreign country make fun of his government trying to help 10% of the unemployed population to get some kind of unemployed benefit as socialist effort. Well, people are well off can always ignore the 10% since they are down in the hell hole simply because they did not try harder and a lazy bunch, and snot at the gov that always rob the hard working community to help them.

But the truth is, the market has shrink and is not ever coming back, some people are just unlucky to be caught up in the brink of the storm and has no way to come back to the employment since no company is hiring. The lucky ones can do their best to ignore them but please do not splay salt on their wounds by saying 'oh, im going to emigrate, so long for u bunch of loser that try to steal from the rich and try to redistribute my hard-earn wealth'.

The United States government spends nearly as much as many "Socialist" countries, with the vast majority of that money being directed towards social programs that are worse run and more corrupt than most other developed nations, had a similar crisis to what happened in Japan at the beginning of the lost decade, and is following the same approach that was ineffective in Japan at restoring the economy but increased the debt to 200% of GDP.

At the current rate, the United States will be in far worse shape than most of the PIIGS countries sometime between 2012 and 2016. Realistically, no matter how bad things are today they will be far worse if the US defaults or is put into a forced Austerity program to prevent default.



Around the Network
fastyxx on 18 July 2010
Kasz216 said:
fastyxx said:
mrstickball said:
fastyxx said:

Right.  But if you look at the voting records in the Senate, especially, this never happens, especially on the Republican side, but true for both major parties.  The thought that cutting taxes for the rich will stimulate jobs and wealth trickling down to the rest of the country has utterly failed.  It only furthered the re-distribution of wealth in the upper 1/2 of 1% of the country.  And they cry about Obama or whomever "redistributing wealth" as if it's a criminal concept - - when that's what they themselves have been doing since 1980 (with the aid of Clinton, to an extent, once he had loss of the Congress midway through.)  

To be fair, there is ample proof that when Reagan slashed taxes for the rich (as well as everyone), there was a great correlation with more of the tax burden being put onto the rich. as opposed to the poor. So you are very, very wrong about the redistribution of wealth. In fact, the most egregious levels of disparity took place under Hoover and FDR's watch in the 20th century - at the time when taxes were highest.

They've squeezed out the moderates in the Republican party in a race for the money that comes from the extreme social conservatives who are trying to cling to a fundamental  Christian model for the country:  which of course is ironic in that Christians are taught to care for others and the poor and the weak and they turn around and cut every support possible and treat the poor like their own personal slave labor force.

Ah, but there is a fundemental problem with your wrong assumption:
Christians don't believe that government should redistribute wealth, help the poor, feed the hungry, ect. They think that they need to do it...Not the government.

 Their response is that the private sector and charitable organizations will pick up the slack through donations, but it's just not the case, especially in economic situations like our current one.  Charitable donations are way down except in the case of a disaster, like Katrina or Haiti.  

Don't forget that under Obama, charitable giving rules have tightened, so one could argue that the correlation between giving and the economy may not be the answer, but taxation does.

People just don't feel like they have the extra money because the short term future is so uncertain.  But the people claiming the moral purity are largely using that as a front - - they delivered very little on that front throughout the Bush years.  Their larger goals are really to protect their money and the corporate structures they all have large investment and stake in and that fund their campaigns.  (The latter is true for most of both sides.)  You only need to look at how they handle reform on Wall Street, the banking crises and the BP oil spill to see this.  



The percentage of wealth owned by the top 1% of the nation grew in large percentages throughout the Bush years, following policies laid in motion during Reagan and Bush Sr.  There is no debating that.  Find me a reliable source that says otherwise.  It doesn't exist.  

The middle class is rapidly shrinking, and it's not because people are moving up the ladder.  Under Bush II was the first time in U.S. history that children could expect to end up worse off than their parents.  And the economy tanked, and people want to pursue the exact same principles that exacerbated the problem in the first place.   Ludicrous.   

 

Gini Coeeficent in 2000 46.6.

Gini Coeeficent in 2009.  45.0

The way the Gini coeffcient works is... the higher the number.  The more income inequality present.

There was less of a gap between the rich and poor in 2009 then there was in 2006.

It's all really quite obvious... when we all go foward the rich people make the most money... becuase they've invested it and have drove the growth.   When we all go backwords... those with the most money lose the most... because they are the ones most directly tied into said markets.

They're the ones creating and losing wealth.

Nice cherry-picking of data.  2000-2008 were the highest 8 years on record in terms of gap since 1929 and the crash.  And the gap has been growing steadily since 1980, just like I said.  Until 2009, when the markets cratered and the top lost a good chunk of wealth on paper rather quickly.  You're backing up my point, not disputing it.  We were in the 30 range like most other western developed nations, and now our numbers more closely countries with what we normally look at as poverty-stricken class, like Mexico and African nations and Haiti and Uganda.  

 

Gini indices for the United States at various times, according to the US Census Bureau:[4][5]

  • 1929: 45.0 (estimated)
  • 1947: 37.6 (estimated)
  • 1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
  • 1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
  • 1970: 39.4
  • 1980: 40.3
  • 1990: 42.8
  • 2000: 46.2 [6]
  • 2005: 46.9
  • 2006: 47.0 (highest index reported)
  • 2007: 46.3
  • 2008: 46.69

[edit]
 



Can't we all just get along and play our games in peace?

Kasz216 on 18 July 2010
fastyxx said:
Kasz216 said:
fastyxx said:
mrstickball said:
fastyxx said:

Right.  But if you look at the voting records in the Senate, especially, this never happens, especially on the Republican side, but true for both major parties.  The thought that cutting taxes for the rich will stimulate jobs and wealth trickling down to the rest of the country has utterly failed.  It only furthered the re-distribution of wealth in the upper 1/2 of 1% of the country.  And they cry about Obama or whomever "redistributing wealth" as if it's a criminal concept - - when that's what they themselves have been doing since 1980 (with the aid of Clinton, to an extent, once he had loss of the Congress midway through.)  

To be fair, there is ample proof that when Reagan slashed taxes for the rich (as well as everyone), there was a great correlation with more of the tax burden being put onto the rich. as opposed to the poor. So you are very, very wrong about the redistribution of wealth. In fact, the most egregious levels of disparity took place under Hoover and FDR's watch in the 20th century - at the time when taxes were highest.

They've squeezed out the moderates in the Republican party in a race for the money that comes from the extreme social conservatives who are trying to cling to a fundamental  Christian model for the country:  which of course is ironic in that Christians are taught to care for others and the poor and the weak and they turn around and cut every support possible and treat the poor like their own personal slave labor force.

Ah, but there is a fundemental problem with your wrong assumption:
Christians don't believe that government should redistribute wealth, help the poor, feed the hungry, ect. They think that they need to do it...Not the government.

 Their response is that the private sector and charitable organizations will pick up the slack through donations, but it's just not the case, especially in economic situations like our current one.  Charitable donations are way down except in the case of a disaster, like Katrina or Haiti.  

Don't forget that under Obama, charitable giving rules have tightened, so one could argue that the correlation between giving and the economy may not be the answer, but taxation does.

People just don't feel like they have the extra money because the short term future is so uncertain.  But the people claiming the moral purity are largely using that as a front - - they delivered very little on that front throughout the Bush years.  Their larger goals are really to protect their money and the corporate structures they all have large investment and stake in and that fund their campaigns.  (The latter is true for most of both sides.)  You only need to look at how they handle reform on Wall Street, the banking crises and the BP oil spill to see this.  



The percentage of wealth owned by the top 1% of the nation grew in large percentages throughout the Bush years, following policies laid in motion during Reagan and Bush Sr.  There is no debating that.  Find me a reliable source that says otherwise.  It doesn't exist.  

The middle class is rapidly shrinking, and it's not because people are moving up the ladder.  Under Bush II was the first time in U.S. history that children could expect to end up worse off than their parents.  And the economy tanked, and people want to pursue the exact same principles that exacerbated the problem in the first place.   Ludicrous.   

 

Gini Coeeficent in 2000 46.6.

Gini Coeeficent in 2009.  45.0

The way the Gini coeffcient works is... the higher the number.  The more income inequality present.

There was less of a gap between the rich and poor in 2009 then there was in 2006.

It's all really quite obvious... when we all go foward the rich people make the most money... becuase they've invested it and have drove the growth.   When we all go backwords... those with the most money lose the most... because they are the ones most directly tied into said markets.

They're the ones creating and losing wealth.

Nice cherry-picking of data.  2000-2008 were the highest 8 years on record in terms of gap since 1929 and the crash.  And the gap has been growing steadily since 1980, just like I said.  Until 2009, when the markets cratered and the top lost a good chunk of wealth on paper rather quickly.  You're backing up my point, not disputing it.  We were in the 30 range like most other western developed nations, and now our numbers more closely countries with what we normally look at as poverty-stricken class, like Mexico and African nations and Haiti and Uganda.  

 

Gini indices for the United States at various times, according to the US Census Bureau:[4][5]

  • 1929: 45.0 (estimated)
  • 1947: 37.6 (estimated)
  • 1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
  • 1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
  • 1970: 39.4
  • 1980: 40.3
  • 1990: 42.8
  • 2000: 46.2 [6]
  • 2005: 46.9
  • 2006: 47.0 (highest index reported)
  • 2007: 46.3
  • 2008: 46.69
[edit]  

Yeah, then you should know the Gini coefficent is ALWAYS going up.  It actually went up FASTER under Clinton.

Gini coefficent actually has very little to do with poltical policy and EVERYTHING to do with economic growth.

You know... that's the whole point of the previous post.



heruamon on 18 July 2010

If someone DDN'T leave the US under the last Bush Admin, I can fathom why you're leaving now...



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

HappySqurriel on 18 July 2010
heruamon said:

If someone DDN'T leave the US under the last Bush Admin, I can fathom why you're leaving now...


What was wrong under the Bush administration that has gotten dramatically better under the Obama Administration?



Around the Network
fastyxx on 18 July 2010
Kasz216 said:
fastyxx said:
Kasz216 said:
fastyxx said:
mrstickball said:
fastyxx said:

Right.  But if you look at the voting records in the Senate, especially, this never happens, especially on the Republican side, but true for both major parties.  The thought that cutting taxes for the rich will stimulate jobs and wealth trickling down to the rest of the country has utterly failed.  It only furthered the re-distribution of wealth in the upper 1/2 of 1% of the country.  And they cry about Obama or whomever "redistributing wealth" as if it's a criminal concept - - when that's what they themselves have been doing since 1980 (with the aid of Clinton, to an extent, once he had loss of the Congress midway through.)  

To be fair, there is ample proof that when Reagan slashed taxes for the rich (as well as everyone), there was a great correlation with more of the tax burden being put onto the rich. as opposed to the poor. So you are very, very wrong about the redistribution of wealth. In fact, the most egregious levels of disparity took place under Hoover and FDR's watch in the 20th century - at the time when taxes were highest.

They've squeezed out the moderates in the Republican party in a race for the money that comes from the extreme social conservatives who are trying to cling to a fundamental  Christian model for the country:  which of course is ironic in that Christians are taught to care for others and the poor and the weak and they turn around and cut every support possible and treat the poor like their own personal slave labor force.

Ah, but there is a fundemental problem with your wrong assumption:
Christians don't believe that government should redistribute wealth, help the poor, feed the hungry, ect. They think that they need to do it...Not the government.

 Their response is that the private sector and charitable organizations will pick up the slack through donations, but it's just not the case, especially in economic situations like our current one.  Charitable donations are way down except in the case of a disaster, like Katrina or Haiti.  

Don't forget that under Obama, charitable giving rules have tightened, so one could argue that the correlation between giving and the economy may not be the answer, but taxation does.

People just don't feel like they have the extra money because the short term future is so uncertain.  But the people claiming the moral purity are largely using that as a front - - they delivered very little on that front throughout the Bush years.  Their larger goals are really to protect their money and the corporate structures they all have large investment and stake in and that fund their campaigns.  (The latter is true for most of both sides.)  You only need to look at how they handle reform on Wall Street, the banking crises and the BP oil spill to see this.  



The percentage of wealth owned by the top 1% of the nation grew in large percentages throughout the Bush years, following policies laid in motion during Reagan and Bush Sr.  There is no debating that.  Find me a reliable source that says otherwise.  It doesn't exist.  

The middle class is rapidly shrinking, and it's not because people are moving up the ladder.  Under Bush II was the first time in U.S. history that children could expect to end up worse off than their parents.  And the economy tanked, and people want to pursue the exact same principles that exacerbated the problem in the first place.   Ludicrous.   

 

Gini Coeeficent in 2000 46.6.

Gini Coeeficent in 2009.  45.0

The way the Gini coeffcient works is... the higher the number.  The more income inequality present.

There was less of a gap between the rich and poor in 2009 then there was in 2006.

It's all really quite obvious... when we all go foward the rich people make the most money... becuase they've invested it and have drove the growth.   When we all go backwords... those with the most money lose the most... because they are the ones most directly tied into said markets.

They're the ones creating and losing wealth.

Nice cherry-picking of data.  2000-2008 were the highest 8 years on record in terms of gap since 1929 and the crash.  And the gap has been growing steadily since 1980, just like I said.  Until 2009, when the markets cratered and the top lost a good chunk of wealth on paper rather quickly.  You're backing up my point, not disputing it.  We were in the 30 range like most other western developed nations, and now our numbers more closely countries with what we normally look at as poverty-stricken class, like Mexico and African nations and Haiti and Uganda.  

 

Gini indices for the United States at various times, according to the US Census Bureau:[4][5]

  • 1929: 45.0 (estimated)
  • 1947: 37.6 (estimated)
  • 1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
  • 1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
  • 1970: 39.4
  • 1980: 40.3
  • 1990: 42.8
  • 2000: 46.2 [6]
  • 2005: 46.9
  • 2006: 47.0 (highest index reported)
  • 2007: 46.3
  • 2008: 46.69
[edit]  

 

Yeah, then you should know the Gini coefficent is ALWAYS going up.  It actually went up FASTER under Clinton.

Gini coefficent actually has very little to do with poltical policy and EVERYTHING to do with economic growth.

You know... that's the whole point of the previous post.

You are ridiculous.  One post you're pointing out how the number went DOWN in 2009, and then you're saying it's always going up.  It has also dipped elsewhere in the past.  Nothing can go up forever.  It's mathematically impossible, not to mention socially and economically impossible. One minute you're using the statistics to make a point in response to the political nature of the discussion and then you say it has nothing to do with political policy.  it's the typical response from the right.

It's like Rove today criticizing Harry Reid for not getting ENOUGH stimulus money to his home state of Nevada, when all he has done is criticize the stimulus (which worked, by the way, and would've done more had the states and locals followed suit.)  

And as far as the GINI numbers go anyway, they are showing income gaps, not WEALTH gaps.  It measures the income over the period, not accumulated wealth.  And we're discussing WEALTH -  - and that gap is enormous.  

It's true that the biggest financial gaps in terms of accumulated wealth occurred in the mid 90's boom years under Clinton (which always blows my mind that the rich right hated him so much when they were making money hand over fist.)  It was when the GOP Congress took power and deregulated everything (with Clinton's non-veto, of course) that things started to decline.  Both sides are culpable, but the Bush/Cheney/Rove trio really screwed us royally.  



Can't we all just get along and play our games in peace?

Rath on 18 July 2010
dahuman said:


uh, retirement is only going to get more and more harsh the newer the generation atm, I hope you are thinking really far ahead instead of looking at your own ideals, there are a lot of factors you need to consider these days espeically for somebody your age right now, and you need to leave your mom out of this, use the world as a base, not your mother, would be a pretty good start. again, just friendly advices, hope I'm not once again judging the hell out of your family rofl.


Actually with those higher taxes I'd be expecting a socialist society where everybody is fairly well looked after in retirement by a government pension.



Kasz216 on 18 July 2010
fastyxx said:
Kasz216 said:
fastyxx said:
Kasz216 said:
fastyxx said:
mrstickball said:
fastyxx said:

Right.  But if you look at the voting records in the Senate, especially, this never happens, especially on the Republican side, but true for both major parties.  The thought that cutting taxes for the rich will stimulate jobs and wealth trickling down to the rest of the country has utterly failed.  It only furthered the re-distribution of wealth in the upper 1/2 of 1% of the country.  And they cry about Obama or whomever "redistributing wealth" as if it's a criminal concept - - when that's what they themselves have been doing since 1980 (with the aid of Clinton, to an extent, once he had loss of the Congress midway through.)  

To be fair, there is ample proof that when Reagan slashed taxes for the rich (as well as everyone), there was a great correlation with more of the tax burden being put onto the rich. as opposed to the poor. So you are very, very wrong about the redistribution of wealth. In fact, the most egregious levels of disparity took place under Hoover and FDR's watch in the 20th century - at the time when taxes were highest.

They've squeezed out the moderates in the Republican party in a race for the money that comes from the extreme social conservatives who are trying to cling to a fundamental  Christian model for the country:  which of course is ironic in that Christians are taught to care for others and the poor and the weak and they turn around and cut every support possible and treat the poor like their own personal slave labor force.

Ah, but there is a fundemental problem with your wrong assumption:
Christians don't believe that government should redistribute wealth, help the poor, feed the hungry, ect. They think that they need to do it...Not the government.

 Their response is that the private sector and charitable organizations will pick up the slack through donations, but it's just not the case, especially in economic situations like our current one.  Charitable donations are way down except in the case of a disaster, like Katrina or Haiti.  

Don't forget that under Obama, charitable giving rules have tightened, so one could argue that the correlation between giving and the economy may not be the answer, but taxation does.

People just don't feel like they have the extra money because the short term future is so uncertain.  But the people claiming the moral purity are largely using that as a front - - they delivered very little on that front throughout the Bush years.  Their larger goals are really to protect their money and the corporate structures they all have large investment and stake in and that fund their campaigns.  (The latter is true for most of both sides.)  You only need to look at how they handle reform on Wall Street, the banking crises and the BP oil spill to see this.  



The percentage of wealth owned by the top 1% of the nation grew in large percentages throughout the Bush years, following policies laid in motion during Reagan and Bush Sr.  There is no debating that.  Find me a reliable source that says otherwise.  It doesn't exist.  

The middle class is rapidly shrinking, and it's not because people are moving up the ladder.  Under Bush II was the first time in U.S. history that children could expect to end up worse off than their parents.  And the economy tanked, and people want to pursue the exact same principles that exacerbated the problem in the first place.   Ludicrous.   

 

Gini Coeeficent in 2000 46.6.

Gini Coeeficent in 2009.  45.0

The way the Gini coeffcient works is... the higher the number.  The more income inequality present.

There was less of a gap between the rich and poor in 2009 then there was in 2006.

It's all really quite obvious... when we all go foward the rich people make the most money... becuase they've invested it and have drove the growth.   When we all go backwords... those with the most money lose the most... because they are the ones most directly tied into said markets.

They're the ones creating and losing wealth.

Nice cherry-picking of data.  2000-2008 were the highest 8 years on record in terms of gap since 1929 and the crash.  And the gap has been growing steadily since 1980, just like I said.  Until 2009, when the markets cratered and the top lost a good chunk of wealth on paper rather quickly.  You're backing up my point, not disputing it.  We were in the 30 range like most other western developed nations, and now our numbers more closely countries with what we normally look at as poverty-stricken class, like Mexico and African nations and Haiti and Uganda.  

 

Gini indices for the United States at various times, according to the US Census Bureau:[4][5]

  • 1929: 45.0 (estimated)
  • 1947: 37.6 (estimated)
  • 1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
  • 1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
  • 1970: 39.4
  • 1980: 40.3
  • 1990: 42.8
  • 2000: 46.2 [6]
  • 2005: 46.9
  • 2006: 47.0 (highest index reported)
  • 2007: 46.3
  • 2008: 46.69
[edit]  

 

Yeah, then you should know the Gini coefficent is ALWAYS going up.  It actually went up FASTER under Clinton.

Gini coefficent actually has very little to do with poltical policy and EVERYTHING to do with economic growth.

You know... that's the whole point of the previous post.

You are ridiculous.  One post you're pointing out how the number went DOWN in 2009, and then you're saying it's always going up.  It has also dipped elsewhere in the past.  Nothing can go up forever.  It's mathematically impossible, not to mention socially and economically impossible. One minute you're using the statistics to make a point in response to the political nature of the discussion and then you say it has nothing to do with political policy.  it's the typical response from the right.

It's like Rove today criticizing Harry Reid for not getting ENOUGH stimulus money to his home state of Nevada, when all he has done is criticize the stimulus (which worked, by the way, and would've done more had the states and locals followed suit.)  

And as far as the GINI numbers go anyway, they are showing income gaps, not WEALTH gaps.  It measures the income over the period, not accumulated wealth.  And we're discussing WEALTH -  - and that gap is enormous.  

It's true that the biggest financial gaps in terms of accumulated wealth occurred in the mid 90's boom years under Clinton (which always blows my mind that the rich right hated him so much when they were making money hand over fist.)  It was when the GOP Congress took power and deregulated everything (with Clinton's non-veto, of course) that things started to decline.  Both sides are culpable, but the Bush/Cheney/Rove trio really screwed us royally.  

No... the real problem is... you aren't actually bothering to read my posts.

The Gini coeefficenet goes up when times are good and goes down when times are bad.  Distribution of income and wealth has literally zero to do with Republcicans and Democrats.

Every modern nation more or less has a rising gini coeeficient when times are good... and declinging when times are bad.

It's pretty simple why.  Economic growth is driven by the rich, therefore when economic growth succeeds they see more benefit... and when it fails, they lose more money or should anyway.  The gini coeeficent should of shrunk even more but the bailouts happened.

It only makes sense.

Your entire point is moot.


Wealth gaps in general are largely pointless because wealth is transitory.  50% of rich people today won't be rich 10 years from now.  It's not some small wealthy cabal keeping themselves seperated from the poor people.   It's an ever changing group of people who worked their buts off to become rich.

Everyones lives are improving in real terms (outside of the financial crisis) so it's rather quite pointless.

Better to have increasing inequality with increased life standards...

then for it to be constantly like the financial crisis but wealth and income gaps getting closer together.

Besides, rich peoples "wealth" is all tied back into the system creating jobs and investments.

In reality if Bill Gates suddenly becomes 20% richer by creating more wealth chances are the rest of the country is more helped by that Bill Gates actually is.

You've got to realize wealth isn't "static".

I mean given the option that you and I were going to receive some money today from the site... which option would you perfer?

You get 50 dollars and I get 100...  or you get 150 dollars and I get 1000?



Final-Fan on 18 July 2010
Kasz216 said:
Yeah... one telling piece of information is found in the research

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

These are percenteges of income as well.

That's the exact quote? 

That's a pretty ... specific viewpoint.  I mean, a responsibility to keep the GINI coefficient down? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 18 July 2010
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Yeah... one telling piece of information is found in the research

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

These are percenteges of income as well.

That's the exact quote? 

That's a pretty ... specific viewpoint.  I mean, a responsibility to keep the GINI coefficient down? 

Specific how so?  I actually agree with it because of how unspecific it is.  I think it's the governments responsibility to reduce income inequality if it's shown that income inequality is caused by unfair means.  For example due to breaches in civil rights, racism, sexism etc.

But yeah I beleieve that's the direct quote.