On Wednesday, January 19th, the house voted 245-189 (all Republicans, and 3 Democrats) to repeal the Healthcare Law. I was curious as to what AG's response would be to this.
People work together without the government constantly. It's unavoidable. However, without government telling us what to do, we have even more opportunities to help each other without having to be forced.
Instead of the government forcing you to help the poor, you do it without force. But if there is no incentive to help the poor, and no punishment not to, you are really only using the poor as a means of profit.
Explain how you see the entire situation. Explain how the "rich" use the "oor" as a means of profit.
You see, I have 100 dollars. I use that 100 dollars to make 100 bathtub duckies. People want my bathtub duckies and I sell my duckies for 2 dollars each. I sell all 100 duckies, I make 200 dollars. I then use that 200 dollars to make 400 duckies, and I keep using my money to make duckies to give the people what they want until they stop demanding duckies. Now I have about 1,600 dollars and most other people have only around 200 or 300. I have more money than them, which automatically makes me a d-bag. I mean, I don't need 1,600 dollars. I should give my money to everyone else who has less money than me until I only have 200 or 300 dollars, right?
No Noname, you are a jackhole if, when making 1600, you pay your employess only 3 cents a day.
Where does he mention that?
Explain how you see the entire situation. Explain how the "rich" use the "oor" as a means of profit.
What NoName said, but I would like to add since there is no incentive for the man who makes 1 600 dollars to help the poor, then he wouldn't do it. Thus, a large poor population and a large rick population. I want a small upper class, and a small working class, but a large middle class.
You see, I have 100 dollars. I use that 100 dollars to make 100 bathtub duckies. People want my bathtub duckies and I sell my duckies for 2 dollars each. I sell all 100 duckies, I make 200 dollars. I then use that 200 dollars to make 400 duckies, and I keep using my money to make duckies to give the people what they want until they stop demanding duckies. Now I have about 1,600 dollars and most other people have only around 200 or 300. I have more money than them, which automatically makes me a d-bag. I mean, I don't need 1,600 dollars. I should give my money to everyone else who has less money than me until I only have 200 or 300 dollars, right?
But it's inevitable in a free market that to earn wealth, you must have benefitted someone else's life (because of mutually beneficial trades - obviously, false advertising should not be legal) to the extent of the wealth earned, thus making a contribution. The maker of the duckies in the example only benefitted (in the example) from mutually beneficial trades - he made duckies through hiring workers, who agreed to the terms of the contract or whatever - they consented to exchange their labor for wages: they thought that working for him was the best possible choice they could make when they were making the decision. He then sells them to people who consent to his trade - the best possible thing they could do with their money at the point at which they bought the ducky was to buy that. Thus, he is extremely altruistic - he has benefitted others' lives.
But it's inevitable in a free market that to earn wealth, you must have benefitted someone else's life (because of mutually beneficial trades - obviously, false advertising should not be legal) to the extent of the wealth earned, thus making a contribution. The maker of the duckies in the example only benefitted (in the example) from mutually beneficial trades - he made duckies through hiring workers, who agreed to the terms of the contract or whatever - they consented to exchange their labor for wages: they thought that working for him was the best possible choice they could make when they were making the decision. He then sells them to people who consent to his trade - the best possible thing they could do with their money at the point at which they bought the ducky was to buy that. Thus, he is extremely altruistic - he has benefitted others' lives.
But think of that as healthcare. You should not be forced to pay those $200 for a service that costs $100.
I am wondering in what sense you are using the word - are you referring to the cost it is to the healthcare company? Are you referring to what you think it should cost?
I am wondering in what sense you are using the word - are you referring to the cost it is to the healthcare company? Are you referring to what you think it should cost?
I was referring to the example NoName used. He said he paid $100 to make them but sold them for $200. Do you forget everything you read like five minutes after or what?
Do you forget everything you read like five minutes after or what?
Umm...I can't remember.
Anyway, you said earlier that we are "forced to pay" as if it is coercive and you don't have a choice. You only buy something if you think it is the best use of your money. Anything other than that would be irrational.
So if he wants to sell them for $200, then why would someone have a problem with that. If consumers think it's the best use of their money, they'll buy them. If not, then they won't buy them.
There is nothing that the guy in Noname's example did that is bad in any way. He's providing a service to all buyers, and those who choose to not buy are unaffected.
What NoName said, but I would like to add since there is no incentive for the man who makes 1 600 dollars to help the poor, then he wouldn't do it. Thus, a large poor population and a large rick population. I want a small upper class, and a small working class, but a large middle class.
I can understand wanting a small lower class, but the size of the upper class should matter none what-so-ever.
Actually, one of the biggest complains is that the upper class makes up too small a portion of the population in America.
Anyway, what you said about the rich man having no incentive to help the poor is partially true. Understand that many rich people do donate a lot money without making any profit in return. Sometimes the amount they donate is only a small percentage of what they own, but they still donate a lot more money than what anyone in the middle class can and does offer.
But let's say someone who is rich decides not to help the poor at all. That's his decision and his money. Him not helping the poor does not harm the poor in any way. In fact, the best way to help the poor is to give them jobs. If you can't provide the poor with jobs, then all they can do is take and take.
I have no empathy for the poor who choose not to work and don't even try to find a job. Others probably do. Because we have different opinions, we should be allowed to choose who we help with out money (if we decide to even do so) rather than someone tell us who to help.
Like I said, maybe I want to spend that money on myself, my family, my friends, my co-workers, my pets, or someone else who gains no aid from the government but needs it?
