Discussion in 'Politicants' started by VolDad, Mar 29, 2019.
Anyone doesn’t mean everyone
I quoted the wrong post, but the point stands
Please start at the beginning of the thread. You will see how this came up. It was stated a few different ways that anyone can be a millionaire, AND that one person having money doesn't affect another's. That last part is key, because it was why some thought the GPA-money comparison was valid, and some didn't. Because if one person having money does affect someone else, it isn't the same thing-- and as I pointed out, money is technically finite. It is also elastic. Other people absolutely affect each other's relative buying power, which goes back to why this analogy doesn't work. It is not even possible for everyone to have a million dollars, so clearly at some point not "anyone" can be a millionaire.
The leading cause of bankruptcy is medical bills. And the majority of those bankrupted had insurance.
Actually it started with Norris saying that the money he makes affects the money someone else makes, which isn’t the same thing. Norris creates a very tiny ripple in a very big ocean. His gain or loss of money is inconsequential.
24% are under 18 years old. I don't think they should be included in your numbers.
21% are 19 - 34. It takes time to create wealth so exclude them.
You can count on the majority of whats left not wanting to put forth the effort. Just because they won't put forth the effort does not mean it is an impossibility for them.
I think we can all be reasonable and admit this comparison is flawed. There’s no such thing as inherited GPA.
That said, I’ll take capitalism over socialism (though I agree with unimane, it’s not supposed to be one extreme or the other).
It doesn’t have to be possible for “everyone” to make it possible for “anyone”
And the fix for that is strict regulations that prevent insurance companies from reneging on catastrophic coverage. We don’t need to reinvent our economic system.
Okay, this is just nuts to me. I don't get how you can believe this. This is kind of dangerous thinking, as it means you see a direct relationship between money and merit. Which means something without monetary value has no merit. I.e., resources that don't translate into a commodity. That's just not tenable. That's Easter Island level thinking.
But even inheritance, what’s the problem there? Does me inheriting a million dollars make it harder for you to make a million?
So the free market only exists when it is convenient? Because I would think Norris' labor is part of the free market, and what he makes absolutely has some meaningful incremental impact. His gain or loss is not "inconsequential," as the whole system is made up of those ripples and collectively make up the system.
Holy leaps in logic, Batman.
Norris could win the lottery or die tomorrow and it would zero impact on my income.
Hoping for lottery for him, but I’ll be ok financially either way.
They say they can't make money that way, and will fold. It is a good analogy for the "we can't pay people a living wage of 15 dollars, people will lose their jobs if we do that and we will shut down." What you suggested would, in effect, "reinvent our economic system" to the same degree the 15 dollar wage idea would-- which I would say is to not much of a degree at all, but some would.
I know all about bankruptcy and the ability to rise after it. Everyone has peaks and valleys. Bankruptcy isn't the end.
Nope. The people who aren't wealthy over 34 just aren't willing to put in the effort. That's what he said. That's a nice way of saying they are lazy. I.e. everyone gets what they deserve, so those without... and if someone or something isn't monetarily valued...
BCBS isn’t going out of business anytime soon. They could handle that, there simply isn’t anyone willing to make them do it.
Separate names with a comma.