I agree there is some bad luck involved, but in this country, if your poor, you can go to college for free. I will say this as point of fact as I can say it:

If you don't have a degree, there is no one responsable for that fact, other then yourself (unless your someone of low IQ).

I know a woman who raised 2 kids, worked a full time job, and went to medical school full time (school was free based on her income and having 2 kids). I thought to myself "no way in hell could I do that", and then I realized "of course I could". There are not more hours in her day then there are in mine. She just does more because she wants it more. 

The quality of life she is willing to sacrifice today, for a better tomorrow is more then I am. That's important to realize. putting in the time and energy to get an education is a sacrifice.

Now I talk about education, because right now the unemployment rate for college graduates in 4.4%. When it's bad, it's 5%.

Durring this recession, very few people have had to go without work if they have a degree, and everyone without a degree chose not to get one....

So, sorry if I feel less willing to help those who chose not to help themselves.

Word pronunciation? 

<p>Well I hope you have a good life.</p>

Well ... but I don't think that's the question.  What is being asked is not whether the government may/should take more taxes from those more able to pay more, or fight injustice in the workplace/wages, or confiscate ill-gotten gains, etc.; but whether government should work to the end that people do not have as much disparity in income.  Not as a side effect:  as a goal.  Not in certain cases of injustice:  as a rule. 

I mean, I guess you could say that "inequality" could be referring to a sexist pay scale or the like, but you can't say that the word does double duty in the same phrase to speak of people just making different amounts in general.  It's two different definitions.  So unless you're saying that people against discrimination shun charities...  I guess you'd know what the topic of the survey was, which way people would be interpreting "inequality" when they heard that question, but I seriously doubt you can have it both ways. 

The question reminds me very much of the one Mafoo says he polled people on. 

Either way, a lot more people agree with it then you likely believe.

When asked that 33% of people say it is the governments duty to do so.  43% disagree.  If your right and it is "as a rule".  Mafoo likely has a point for leaving.    33% is scary high if taken as just in general even if people earn it and we don't need the extra money. 

Either way....

There is also a huge gap when controlled for everything else when asked

“the government has a basic responsibility to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves."

75% of people agree with that.

The 25% who disagree with that give away far more to charities, both secular and nonsecular.

The implicatons seem clear... and really only make sense so long as you accept the position that "nobody wants people to die out in the street."

Okay, okay.  If it's 33%, maybe it really is the other meaning of inequality, or they don't read the question the same way I do.  Other than that I guess all I have to add to that is: 

inb4 "yeah, (bogeyman) wants them swept out of sight"

The problem with that statement, is government taking over the job of taking care of people, is going to kill more people in the end then if they just let us do it.

When government was not feeding and housing people, people in this country were not dying in the streets. They were being well fed, well houses, and in much safer environments. A larger portion of this group of people also contributed in some fashion.

It was a much better system. I hate it when people think because I don't want government doing something, that it means I don't want it done (I know that's not you Kasz). 

Think tanks...

Thinking... Well good luck in your new country.

I would say your making out good leaving so early, as for myself I'll be riding this out until the last minute and leave by 2015 if things keep deteriorating.

Mr. Think tank would you consider this for a moment.

That your statement is white washing.

The founding fathers of America had an idea; Jefferson to be exact that a small revolution was needed every generation and that the constitution on a federal level should be  a living document. America's history should not dictate it's future, after all the dead should not be obliging their contracts on the living. Currently what Jefferson has stated as Generational Tyranny is the normal of Americans and maybe that could be the reason for the mindset clash.

Someone above said: Americans are just different - and I beleive that is very true. Americans represent difference, there are so many different cultures and shades of people in one country that work together in a way that you will not find in present day anywhere else in the world. It's impossible for there to be a group think mentality with such variation.

I know that it is far more likely that the back bone of America, the document used to represent the values of Americans from 200 years ago no longer do so and that indeed a small revolution is needed. As for putting the blame on Americans due to a survey that shows they preffer mediocraty over being overtly ambitious, well that mentality would be the result of being spoiled and that alone speaks up of the value of life in America.

I'm sure if you did the same type of test with starving people in India they would all be shooting for the 100 range and for some of them that 100 would be a 30 to some Americans. ^_^ Perspective.

But anyway take care.

Just an example:

I can’t remember the exact statistics, but because my local food bank partners with large producers, has a warehouse that was donated to them, and all the labour is volunteers the cost of feeding an individual through this charity is (roughly) the cost to produce the food. In a large part because there is only a small gain from scamming a system like this, fraud is very minimal and the food bank doesn’t have to expend any effort to preventing fraud. Since few people are ever turned away, people don't need to meet some arbitrary guidelines to receive help and few people fall through the cracks.

In contrast, systems like food stamps or welfare feed people at the full retail cost of the food and have large bureaucratic organizations to prevent fraud because defrauding these systems is easy and widespread; this means that the cost of delivering aid can be nearly an order of magnitude more expensive through the government than through charity. Because these systems are full of arbitrary guidelines needy people are often turned away; consider whether an individual who earned $80,000 a year would receive food stamps if they had 4 children in college and a spouse who had cancer.