So reducing the subsidy you were getting is "taking money out of your pocket?"

I guess.

I don't see how you can really be upset that your subsidy got smaller so that someone else could also have a subsidy.

I have more taxable income without having more income.

What part of that confuses you?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2014 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Also, that quote is correct. More people having more money is great for everyone.

Is me having less money also "great for everyone"?

If you had less money, would that be "great for everyone"?

I guess some people having less money is "great for everyone".

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2014 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Also, that quote is correct. More people having more money is great for everyone.

Except is it really MORE people?

How many people have benefited from Obamacare?  Let's say 12 Million have insurance that previously didn't.

How many Middle Class people are being negatively effected by it? If it is more than 12M is it still "great for everyone"? 

At what point does it become a net loss? 24M? 36M? 60M?

Please don't smear feces all over BL's rose-colored glasses.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2014 2:18:00 PM (view original):
So reducing the subsidy you were getting is "taking money out of your pocket?"

I guess.

I don't see how you can really be upset that your subsidy got smaller so that someone else could also have a subsidy.

I have more taxable income without having more income.

What part of that confuses you?

You're like the farmers who ***** when corn subsidies are cut. Sometimes subsidies go away. I understand you not liking it but reducing subsidies in some places allows us to pay for subsidies in other places.

Posted by mchales_army on 10/22/2014 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2014 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Also, that quote is correct. More people having more money is great for everyone.

Except is it really MORE people?

How many people have benefited from Obamacare?  Let's say 12 Million have insurance that previously didn't.

How many Middle Class people are being negatively effected by it? If it is more than 12M is it still "great for everyone"? 

At what point does it become a net loss? 24M? 36M? 60M?

I wasn't referring to Obamacare there. The goal of the ACA isn't to allow more people to have more money. It's to allow more people to have health insurance.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2014 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Also, that quote is correct. More people having more money is great for everyone.

Is me having less money also "great for everyone"?

If you had less money, would that be "great for everyone"?

Where did I say that it was great for you to have less money?

In order for "more people to have more money", that "more money" has to come from somewhere,

I assume it's not just falling from the sky.  I'll further assume that it is being taken away from other people.  Robin Hood's "take from the rich to give to the poor".

So when you, or Obama, says "more people having more money is great for everyone", does "everyone" include those people who are having money taken away from them?

They can afford to have money taken from them.

Duh.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2014 4:21:00 PM (view original):
In order for "more people to have more money", that "more money" has to come from somewhere,

I assume it's not just falling from the sky.  I'll further assume that it is being taken away from other people.  Robin Hood's "take from the rich to give to the poor".

So when you, or Obama, says "more people having more money is great for everyone", does "everyone" include those people who are having money taken away from them?

I think he's referring to better balance in the economy. If wealth is concentrated in a very small percentage at the top, the economy is more unstable, more people need government assistance, there are less jobs, etc.

How to get there is the complicated part. Sure, that could involve higher taxes/reduction in subsidies at the top. It could also include policies that drive wages up, tax cuts on people in the bottom 80%, etc.

And, to your last question, it could. It goes back to marginal utility. If you have $10 billion and the country is an unstable mess, aren't you better off if you have $9 billion and the country has a stable, thriving economy?

In many ways it's much better to be lower middle class in the United States than fabulously wealthy in Somalia.

Of course, if you're fabulously wealthy, you can just leave Somalia.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2014 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2014 4:21:00 PM (view original):
In order for "more people to have more money", that "more money" has to come from somewhere,

I assume it's not just falling from the sky.  I'll further assume that it is being taken away from other people.  Robin Hood's "take from the rich to give to the poor".

So when you, or Obama, says "more people having more money is great for everyone", does "everyone" include those people who are having money taken away from them?

I think he's referring to better balance in the economy. If wealth is concentrated in a very small percentage at the top, the economy is more unstable, more people need government assistance, there are less jobs, etc.

How to get there is the complicated part. Sure, that could involve higher taxes/reduction in subsidies at the top. It could also include policies that drive wages up, tax cuts on people in the bottom 80%, etc.

And, to your last question, it could. It goes back to marginal utility. If you have $10 billion and the country is an unstable mess, aren't you better off if you have $9 billion and the country has a stable, thriving economy?

I hardly consider myself and my economic peers to be "the top".

So why is money being taken out of my pocket?

How is hurting the middle class "great for everyone"?

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/22/2014 6:08:00 PM (view original):
In many ways it's much better to be lower middle class in the United States than fabulously wealthy in Somalia.

Of course, if you're fabulously wealthy, you can just leave Somalia.

Exactly.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2014 6:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2014 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2014 4:21:00 PM (view original):
In order for "more people to have more money", that "more money" has to come from somewhere,

I assume it's not just falling from the sky.  I'll further assume that it is being taken away from other people.  Robin Hood's "take from the rich to give to the poor".

So when you, or Obama, says "more people having more money is great for everyone", does "everyone" include those people who are having money taken away from them?

I think he's referring to better balance in the economy. If wealth is concentrated in a very small percentage at the top, the economy is more unstable, more people need government assistance, there are less jobs, etc.

How to get there is the complicated part. Sure, that could involve higher taxes/reduction in subsidies at the top. It could also include policies that drive wages up, tax cuts on people in the bottom 80%, etc.

And, to your last question, it could. It goes back to marginal utility. If you have $10 billion and the country is an unstable mess, aren't you better off if you have $9 billion and the country has a stable, thriving economy?

I hardly consider myself and my economic peers to be "the top".

So why is money being taken out of my pocket?

How is hurting the middle class "great for everyone"?

I'm not calling you the top. We're talking about two different issues.