Nation is already poor. 20% are rich. 1% is REALLY rich.

 

They EARNED the money. I didn't. I have no right to their money.

 

I'm not in the 20% nor the 1% but I don't consider myself poor. Middle class and I'm fine with that.

That's only part of the sell, the other is what I posted.

 

Parts of the ACA need to be repealed. Device taxes for one. Another is it does not do the consumer any good to have the insurance if the deductibles to be met are so high. It's the same as not having any insurance unless you have a catastrophic illness or injury.

 

Sounds great then your party needs to do something other than try to start all over every time.

It is not a word salad, but it is a non-sequitur and red herring. Our nation is not having any debate, pro or con, about whether attorneys and architects should unionize or not. You might literally be the only person in America focusing on this.

 

Quite the contrary, most CPAs and attorneys would love to fix their prices and wages but justifiably cannot because doing so is anti free trade as a refuge to your assertion that union members banding together is some form of free trade which I assert is false, free trade is when everyone competes with each other and those that offer the best service make the most ie there are some CPA s who make more than I do, the markets has assessed their service is better than mine. There are CPA s who make less than I. The market has assessed my service is better than theirs. That is free trade.

Quite the contrary, most CPAs and attorneys would love to fix their prices and wages but justifiably cannot because doing so is anti free trade as a refuge to your assertion that union members banding together is some form of free trade which I assert is false, free trade is when everyone competes with each other and those that offer the best service make the most ie there are some CPA s who make more than I do, the markets has assessed their service is better than mine. There are CPA s who make less than I. The market has assessed my service is better than theirs. That is free trade.

 

Jeez. Did you take any classes other than cyphering numbers? First, fixing prices is not the same as joining a union. Second, I have never in my life heard a single attorney talk about "boy we should have a union". Third, "when everyone competes with each other and those that offer the best service make the most" is just flat out nonsensical to apply to a factory situation. I mean, you are delusional if you think companies are going to walk around and figure out which worker is out-competing the person next to him. In fact, without some sort of regulations, or the ability to collectively bargain, companies will just pay the least amount possible, to every one. Always. Every time. The least amount possible.

Why are the jobs going to China? Because they want to pay the least amount possible. Why are children around the world working for pennies a day? Because companies want to pay the least amount possible.

If you think some factory owner is gonna walk around his non-union factory and give raises to people who appear to be working hard, you have lost your mind. If you studied macroeconomics at some point, did they ever talk about the necessity for being able to distinguish reality from fantasy?

They EARNED the money. I didn't. I have no right to their money.

 

I'm not in the 20% nor the 1% but I don't consider myself poor. Middle class and I'm fine with that.

 

Unless your income is growing you won't be in the middle class much longer.

 

Listen, man, this trend has only been happening for the last 35 years. Something is wrong.

And spare me the condescension regarding understanding macroeconomics. I may not understand it on the level some of you do. Bit for the majority of Americans, macroeconomics is the theory that is used to justify high profits for companies, while those creating those profits trudge through life with stagnant wages and bear the brunt of the political clout related to the value of corporate profits over the quality of life for workers.

 

Macroeconomics is not a theory, it is a science. And so far it is a science which has concluded that no economic system raises the overall standard of living for people like free trade capitalism. Does it do so equally, no. But in the US, even the poorest in our system fare far better than in pretty much all socialist societies. Look at what Hugo Chavez did to his country when forced socialism. Out of control inflation and nation wide shortages destroyed the standard of living in Venezuela. As probably the greatest leader in the 20th Century stated, "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of blessings, socialism is the even distribution of misery" Winston Churchill

 

Noble Prize Winner Milton Friedman stated such when he made the comment that no system has been able to pull people out of grinding poverty like free trade. Hong Kong is the greatest example. Despite having virtually no natural resources, since gaining economic independence in the mid 1940's, they went from being a 3rd world country to one of the very few countries with a standard of living equal to and probably higher than the US and despite having almost zero welfare spending, their poor have higher standard of living than the US's poor.

Unless your income is growing you won't be in the middle class much longer.

 

Where is your proof? We have been hearing this for as long as I can recall and well before I was born but it never occurs. Such worrisome belief just make great media so that's all we hear.

 

Listen, man, this trend has only been happening for the last 35 years. Something is wrong.

 

This bogus trend has supposedly been going on all the way back to Karl Marx and before him. They were wrong then as they are still today. If you think the Bernies of the world will pull the poor up, it's not going to happen. They will just pull everyone down like Chavez did in Venezuela and like Europe is seeing to some degree.

Unless your income is growing you won't be in the middle class much longer.

 

Listen, man, this trend has only been happening for the last 35 years. Something is wrong.

 

I like the way you just ignored the fact that they earned their money and you or I have no right to it.

The most frustrating part of commenting on this site is seemingly educated people with a complete lack of understanding of economics.

 

There are numerous smart educated people who only know of economics what they see/hear in the media. Unfortunately most journalists know virtually nothing about economics either. The problem is economics is not a subject taught in schools which it should be, just like math, science, history, grammar, etc.. So many times, when someone asks why did the election to the way it did, people reply, the economy stupid but most Americans have no understanding of why the economy acts as it does.

 

I HIGHLY encourage Anyone who wants to get a better understanding of economics to go on YouTube and watch Milton Friedman on the Donahue show. What he says in 1979 is just as applicable today as it was then. You can't miss it, it is in 5 10 minute sections and he is wearing an ugly 1970's yellow blazer. Maybe tan and the film is bad. He masterfully discusses economics in a very easy to understand method. His commentary on greed in American business really eye opening. When asked to speak at Columbia University, he goes into even further. I could watch his videos repeatedly because I always learn something new.

I like the way you just ignored the fact that they earned their money and you or I have no right to it.

 

I didn't ignore it. The money they have EARNED :puke: over the years really can't be touched, but those same luxuries don't have to be given in the future.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]54480[/ATTACH]

 

Question for you:

 

I am a multi-millionaire. I made my money by working for it. Made some good investments and they have paid off. I pay my taxes and give to charity.

 

Are you entitled to any of my money?

I didn't ignore it. The money they have EARNED :puke: over the years really can't be touched, but those same luxuries don't have to be given in the future.

 

Why? If they work for it, why shouldn't they reap the benefits? You do in your job. I do in mine.

 

Why are you or I entitled to any that we haven't worked for?