First Prev
of 11
Next Last
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#203 Jan 7, 2013
Oh wow, really...that is what Adam Smith, ya know the father of capitalism?, explained in his theory of capitalism. Marx/Marxism came about after Adam Smith and the "birth" of the capitalism theory so you're saying Adam Smith was a Marxist. How interesting. You re-writing history to make Smith a Marxist.

If anything Marx took Adam Smith's theory of capitalism, and his warnings of it, and wove it into his (Marx) political theory on how capitalism can be used to subjugate others. Of which it has and is been used to do. But your reversing the time line of history and calling Adam Smith a Marxist is astounding.

There just is not more to be said here.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#204 Jan 7, 2013
Too bad they got rid of the line-item veto...so that the President could just draw a line through, the porkiest of the pork projects on a bill....wish they would identify the senators and reps, that sponsored the unwanted additions to these bills?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#205 Jan 7, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
Too bad they got rid of the line-item veto...so that the President could just draw a line through, the porkiest of the pork projects on a bill....wish they would identify the senators and reps, that sponsored the unwanted additions to these bills?
It was pretty well explained...as I understand it. Harry Read included some of the "pork" to satiate what he knew Republicans wanted (hopefully) staving off another disruptive filibuster unnecessarily delaying getting the aid to hurricane Sandy victims as well as the aid not yet addressed on the preceding disasters.

Interestingly enough the Republican/Tea Partiers are so staunch on the Federal Government not sticking their nose into state's business while after these natural disasters Republican governors are right there with their hands out for the rest of the country to bail them out. It would be most interesting to see what would happen if the Democrats/Liberals stood back and said, sorry but these (disasters) are state's business and they are just going to have to take the relief out of their own coffers.

Of course the "socialistic" democrats/liberals would be screaming it's our business to be coming to the aid of our fellow man, while the republican/tea party/conservatives, not directly in the damaged areas, would be saying it's about time those tear jerking liberals woke up and realized money is more important than human life.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#206 Jan 7, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
Oh wow, really...that is what Adam Smith, ya know the father of capitalism?, explained in his theory of capitalism. Marx/Marxism came about after Adam Smith and the "birth" of the capitalism theory so you're saying Adam Smith was a Marxist. How interesting. You re-writing history to make Smith a Marxist.
If anything Marx took Adam Smith's theory of capitalism, and his warnings of it, and wove it into his (Marx) political theory on how capitalism can be used to subjugate others. Of which it has and is been used to do. But your reversing the time line of history and calling Adam Smith a Marxist is astounding.
There just is not more to be said here.
Actually while Smith liked capitalism he didn't like capitalists, so yes, in that sense he and Marx were the same. The difference is that Marx (and the web site you keep linking) have the (false) idea that labor is what "really" creates the output we all live on and enjoy. In this view the farmers who feed us and the factory workers who clothe us and provide us with furniture and television sets, while a variety of other workers build the homes we live in. Marx took this vision further by depicting capitalists, landlords and investors as people who, in one way or another were enabled by the institution of capitalism to take away what labor had created - that is to "exploit" labor.

And while Smith was the father of laissez-faire economics by the late 19th century economists had given up the notion that it is primary labor that determines the value of goods, since capital, management and natural resources all contribute to output and must be paid for from the price of that output. At the same time labor, like all other sources of prodution costs, was no longer seen as the source of value.

Basic ecnomics says that it is the value of goods to the consumer that makes worthwhile to incure costs required to produce those goods or services, provided the consumer is willing to pay enough to cover the production costs.

Costs don't create value. It is value which causes purchasers to be willing to pay for the costs incurred in the production of what they want. Two cars may cost the same to manufacture but one can have a value $50,000 more than the other because people are willing to pay more for a Lexus than a Camry.
Linda

United States

#207 Jan 7, 2013
Once again you racist stop acting like a negro potted little pig faced you boy with a little bit and I'm just a lazy because he said he wouldn't do it after to later because you to go out at at at at little boy with a little bit of dipstick and said he wouldn't go there and Roses you to stop being a damn it girl Negro in drag. Understand what I'm talking about Jason?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#208 Jan 7, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually while Smith liked capitalism he didn't like capitalists, so yes, in that sense he and Marx were the same. The difference is that Marx (and the web site you keep linking) have the (false) idea that labor is what "really" creates the output we all live on and enjoy. In this view the farmers who feed us and the factory workers who clothe us and provide us with furniture and television sets, while a variety of other workers build the homes we live in. Marx took this vision further by depicting capitalists, landlords and investors as people who, in one way or another were enabled by the institution of capitalism to take away what labor had created - that is to "exploit" labor.
And while Smith was the father of laissez-faire economics by the late 19th century economists had given up the notion that it is primary labor that determines the value of goods, since capital, management and natural resources all contribute to output and must be paid for from the price of that output. At the same time labor, like all other sources of prodution costs, was no longer seen as the source of value.
Basic ecnomics says that it is the value of goods to the consumer that makes worthwhile to incure costs required to produce those goods or services, provided the consumer is willing to pay enough to cover the production costs.
Costs don't create value. It is value which causes purchasers to be willing to pay for the costs incurred in the production of what they want. Two cars may cost the same to manufacture but one can have a value $50,000 more than the other because people are willing to pay more for a Lexus than a Camry.
Though your arguments are "rational" they defy cause and effect. Believing that because the theory is sound the effect must be. And it's just not that way. Ignoring the effect because it doesn't fit into the theory.

Using your example of a Lexus and a Camry costing the same to produce yet the Lexus costing so much more to purchase. That is an engineered value. A false value. A perceived value. Not a true value. A study of the demographics of the car buying public proves out that while there will be fewer that can afford the Lexus creates a shortage of buyers available. Thus the "law" of supply and demand causes the price to be that much higher than the Camry. An engineered value. A constructed value. A false increase in value. A created inequity.

It's the same with the labor market. It's a created inequity in labor requirements and compensation. I have seen many many instances where someone with many years of experience in a particular "job classification" were refused employment for lack of a college degree. Even when it was advertised none without a degree need apply. Why(?) because it's an accepted philosophy that those just starting out in a particular employment should just accept lower compensation because they lack the experience. A created disparity for lower compensation sake.

And when there is a glut of labor available the compensation value goes down because there are those willing to be compensated less just to put food on the table, keep from losing EVERYTHING they have, get the "experience", etc. Not because the value of the position is decreased. All to bolster the profit margin and decision makers income.

Whatever reason(s) you espouse for it being acceptable to maintain the status quo does not make it acceptable. That's like saying because it continues to advantage the criminal means their actions are worthy. No matter that their actions put the rest of the population at risk. It falsely degrades the health of the overall economy and concentrates into a particular sector.

http://rationalrevolution.net/blog/
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#209 Jan 7, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
It was pretty well explained...as I understand it. Harry Read included some of the "pork" to satiate what he knew Republicans wanted (hopefully) staving off another disruptive filibuster unnecessarily delaying getting the aid to hurricane Sandy victims as well as the aid not yet addressed on the preceding disasters.
Interestingly enough the Republican/Tea Partiers are so staunch on the Federal Government not sticking their nose into state's business while after these natural disasters Republican governors are right there with their hands out for the rest of the country to bail them out. It would be most interesting to see what would happen if the Democrats/Liberals stood back and said, sorry but these (disasters) are state's business and they are just going to have to take the relief out of their own coffers.
Of course the "socialistic" democrats/liberals would be screaming it's our business to be coming to the aid of our fellow man, while the republican/tea party/conservatives, not directly in the damaged areas, would be saying it's about time those tear jerking liberals woke up and realized money is more important than human life.
Harry Reid lies on a daily basis and you believe him?? I just love how the progressives buy into the "evil Republicans" theory and blame the Republicans for the pork they put in the bill??? they treat you like you are stupid and you just accept it. wow!
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#210 Jan 7, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Harry Reid lies on a daily basis and you believe him?? I just love how the progressives buy into the "evil Republicans" theory and blame the Republicans for the pork they put in the bill??? they treat you like you are stupid and you just accept it. wow!
Wow. That's truly amazing. Someone points to the Democratic leader of the Senate for putting in the port and you still gripe about it.
Amazing.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#211 Jan 7, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
Too bad they got rid of the line-item veto...so that the President could just draw a line through, the porkiest of the pork projects on a bill....wish they would identify the senators and reps, that sponsored the unwanted additions to these bills?
Good point!

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#212 Jan 8, 2013
Thanks SIB for the counter-points. I would argue that it is you who is ignoring cause and effect and more importantly reality because it doesn’t fit your theory. You argue that because the Lexus and Camry cost the same to produce, the difference in price is “a false value. A perceived value. Not a true value.” Quoting from Basic Economics.“The most fundamental reason why there is no such thing as an objective or “real” value is that there would be no rational basis for economics transactions if there were. When you pay 50 cents for a newspaper, obviously the only reason you do so is that the newspaper is more valuable to you than the 50 cents is. At the same time, the only reason people are willing to sell the newspaper is that 50 cents is more valuable to them than the newspaper is. If there were any such thing as a “real” or objective value of a newspaper—or anything else—neither the buyer or seller would benefit from making a transaction at a price equal to the objective value, since what would be acquired would be of no greater value than what was given up. Why bother to make the transaction then? On the other hand, if either the buyer or the seller was getting more than the objective value from the transaction, then the other one must be losing—in which case, why continue to get cheated? Continuing transactions between buyer and seller make sense only if value is subjective, each getting what is worth more subjectively.”
The same is true with jobs. They have no absolute value or true value only subjective value. I have no need of a blacksmith therefore he has no value to me so I wouldn’t pay him anything. Someone else has a need and therefore they are willing to pay some amount for their services. Today I have no need for a lawyer but if I’m accused of a crime with the possibility of going to jail, suddenly a lawyers value to me goes from $0 to much more because of the alternative.
Even when there is a glut of labor available compensation does not always go down. When a business has competition it will pay higher wages to get better people than the competitor. A McDonalds with four competitors within walking distance will pay more than one without any competition nearby. Another aspect is that while there may be a glut of labor in one area there is often a lack of labor in another area. And I have never seen folks complaining when they are getting paid higher wages because of a lack of competition for the job.
What you are missing in all this is real life and the aspect of competition. Can you name any job at any time in history where everyone received the exact same wage? Businesses compete with other businesses for people and folks compete with other folks for jobs. And while it’s not perfect it beats the alternative of having a Council of Vocations assign everyone to their jobs and setting all wages.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#213 Jan 9, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
Thanks SIB for the counter-points. I would argue that it is you who is ignoring cause and effect and more importantly reality because it doesn’t fit your theory. You argue that because the Lexus and Camry cost the same to produce, the difference in price is “a false value. A perceived value. Not a true value.” Quoting from Basic Economics.“The most fundamental reason why there is no such thing as an objective or “real” value is that there would be no rational basis for economics transactions if there were. When you pay 50 cents for a newspaper, obviously the only reason you do so is that the newspaper is more valuable to you than the 50 cents is. At the same time, the only reason people are willing to sell the newspaper is that 50 cents is more valuable to them than the newspaper is. If there were any such thing as a “real” or objective value of a newspaper—or anything else—neither the buyer or seller would benefit from making a transaction at a price equal to the objective value, since what would be acquired would be of no greater value than what was given up. Why bother to make the transaction then? On the other hand, if either the buyer or the seller was getting more than the objective value from the transaction, then the other one must be losing—in which case, why continue to get cheated? Continuing transactions between buyer and seller make sense only if value is subjective, each getting what is worth more subjectively.”
The same is true with jobs. They have no absolute value or true value only subjective value. I have no need of a blacksmith therefore he has no value to me so I wouldn’t pay him anything. Someone else has a need and therefore they are willing to pay some amount for their services. Today I have no need for a lawyer but if I’m accused of a crime with the possibility of going to jail, suddenly a lawyers value to me goes from $0 to much more because of the alternative.
Even when there is a glut of labor available compensation does not always go down. When a business has competition it will pay higher wages to get better people than the competitor. A McDonalds with four competitors within walking distance will pay more than one without any competition nearby. Another aspect is that while there may be a glut of labor in one area there is often a lack of labor in another area. And I have never seen folks complaining when they are getting paid higher wages because of a lack of competition for the job.
What you are missing in all this is real life and the aspect of competition. Can you name any job at any time in history where everyone received the exact same wage? Businesses compete with other businesses for people and folks compete with other folks for jobs. And while it’s not perfect it beats the alternative of having a Council of Vocations assign everyone to their jobs and setting all wages.
Your quoting from "Basic Economics"; “The most fundamental reason why there is no such thing as an objective or “real” value is that there would be no rational basis for economics transactions if there were" goes to prove what I said before. That economics is an assumption and arbitrary. Economics being based in subjectivity, not in objectivity.

SO, no substantial, or rational, especially rational, argument can be made saying "that defies basic economics". To state that something is the way it is because it has to be infers static "rules".

Therefore to argue some economic strategy can not be changed because it is the way it is because it has to be, is a political stance. Not an absoluteness.

You ask, "can you name any job at any time in history where everyone received the exact same wage?" Actually I can, taking into consideration the local economic demographics, but that is the reason the right is so against unions. They enjoy the idea that each and every human being is in conflict with the rest.
No I am not promoting Socialism or Communism. Nor is capitalism the complete answer.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#214 Jan 10, 2013
When i was a kid, i delivered papers for awhile....everyone recieved the exact same pay, for the exact same size route....moved on to mowing lawns and learned, my earnings were completely limited, only by how much gas i could carry....lol....

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#215 Jan 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Your quoting from "Basic Economics"; “The most fundamental reason why there is no such thing as an objective or “real” value is that there would be no rational basis for economics transactions if there were" goes to prove what I said before. That economics is an assumption and arbitrary. Economics being based in subjectivity, not in objectivity.
SO, no substantial, or rational, especially rational, argument can be made saying "that defies basic economics". To state that something is the way it is because it has to be infers static "rules".
Therefore to argue some economic strategy can not be changed because it is the way it is because it has to be, is a political stance. Not an absoluteness.
You ask, "can you name any job at any time in history where everyone received the exact same wage?" Actually I can, taking into consideration the local economic demographics, but that is the reason the right is so against unions. They enjoy the idea that each and every human being is in conflict with the rest.
No I am not promoting Socialism or Communism. Nor is capitalism the complete answer.
It's not just economics, it is life that is subjective, which is what you keep ignoring. What tastes good? What is pretty? What is fun? Who should you marry? How many kids? What's a good movie? Did you give your kids "objective" names or "subjective" names?

So yes, true economics is based on what people actually do; they pay more for the Lexus than the Camry. Liberal economics is based on what people should do; no one should buy the Lexus because there is no economic reason. But lots of people do buy the Lexus.

You said "Therefore to argue some economic strategy can not be changed because it is the way it is because it has to be, is a political stance. Not an absoluteness." Nope, not what I said. Any economic strategy can be changed politically. It will only be effective if it adhears to human behaviors. Creating an economic policy (Obamacare) that defies human behavior will crash and burn.

You said you could name a job where everyone received the exact same wage and yet you didn't. You said a union job but that doesn't work because a 3rd grade teacher in New York City makes a very different wage than a 3rd grade teacher in West Virginia. And they are both union workers. And of course they make a very different wage than a 3rd grade teacher in China.

People aren't in conflict for positions, we are in competition - big difference. And some people like competition and do even better and some people don't and do better in other areas.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#216 Jan 10, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not just economics, it is life that is subjective, which is what you keep ignoring. What tastes good? What is pretty? What is fun? Who should you marry? How many kids? What's a good movie? Did you give your kids "objective" names or "subjective" names?
So yes, true economics is based on what people actually do; they pay more for the Lexus than the Camry. Liberal economics is based on what people should do; no one should buy the Lexus because there is no economic reason. But lots of people do buy the Lexus.
You said "Therefore to argue some economic strategy can not be changed because it is the way it is because it has to be, is a political stance. Not an absoluteness." Nope, not what I said. Any economic strategy can be changed politically. It will only be effective if it adhears to human behaviors. Creating an economic policy (Obamacare) that defies human behavior will crash and burn.
You said you could name a job where everyone received the exact same wage and yet you didn't. You said a union job but that doesn't work because a 3rd grade teacher in New York City makes a very different wage than a 3rd grade teacher in West Virginia. And they are both union workers. And of course they make a very different wage than a 3rd grade teacher in China.
People aren't in conflict for positions, we are in competition - big difference. And some people like competition and do even better and some people don't and do better in other areas.
Competition is (a form of) conflict. Don't watch football?..semantics.

You missed where I clearly stated "consideration (of) the local economic demographics". Meaning if it costs less to live in Grand Rapids than it does in LA, or New York City, China is a global issue and not relevant here, the 3rd grade teacher's pay is going to reflect a base lifestyle. So what you'll normally find is the lifestyles of the teachers in Grand Rapids, LA and New York City are not going to be dramatically different regardless if one is making more or less dollars than the other(s).

And as you yourself said, the market sets the wages. In why should you pay more than the going rate for a position even if you can afford to pay more without it affecting your "competitive" position in your field. For higher profit(s) alone.

As supply and demand are manipulable. If it costs the same to manufacture the Lexus and Camry but the economic demographic is there are fewer who can afford the higher end Lexus, then fewer Lexus' will be manufactured keeping the price higher...and to decrease the number of unsellable Lexus' caused by the higher price because they know fewer can and/or will afford to pay the higher cost of the Lexus than the Camry.

The same in a product can be manufactured cheaper in China and shipped here than it can be in the U.S., the cheaper cost of manufacture and shipping will be reflected in the beginning price. As the domestic manufacture "competition" is driven out of business the price will be increased to the level of the prior domestic costs...without an increase in manufacture and shipping.

To get back to the original point. Economies are a theory. An assumption. Maneuverable and manipulable by those in power to do so. Those in power also meaning those who have the most and can affect it toward their advantage alone.

Also proving the "law" of supply and demand as it applies to all markets are not statics. They are maneuverable and manipulable.

Side bar: So as it's acceptable to price and sell products based on ability to pay, why is it so wrong to tax based on the ability to pay? Factually it's NOT wrong. Especially when it's perceived to not be wrong in the "market place". Especially in the moralistic sense. In the moralistic sense it's wrong to not tax based on affordability as long as it's not wrong to price based on affordability. Remember I said this is a side bar. Though it is relevant to "the market place".

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#217 Jan 10, 2013
If one moves from competition to conflict on the football field it is a 15 yard penalty and ejection. Happened in one of the bowl games. So the semantics are important.
I didn't miss your point about demographics, I just used a simple example. However, my daughter went to the mall last weekend, applied for the same job (sales associate) at multiple locations and the pay was different, even though the job was the same and the location was the same. Yes, the difference was $0.25 and less than $2 between the top and bottom offer, but they were different.
Oh, and having lived in LA, Grand Rapids and a dozen other places, a 3rd grade teacher in LA has a very different lifestyle than a third grade teacher in Grand Rapids. You can get a 4/3 with 2200 sq feet in GR for $150K. That same house would cost $400K+(I checked) in LA.
Economics aren't manipulated by those in power, they are influenced by everyone of us. Every time you go to the store and buy something you are influencing the price of what you buy and don't buy. And under capitalism when prices get out of wack, there is always someone around to COMPETE and bring the price down. If X is charging you $6 for a gallon of milk, someone else will figure out a way to get it to you for $3 as long as they can make some profit on it. So if someone can manufacture that shirt for less here in the states and make a profit, then the manufacturing will return. Same reason why people and business leave one state for another, just on a larger scale.
"So as it's acceptable to price and sell products based on ability to pay.” Wrong. As I said before, when you go to the store you don’t show your tax forms and then pay $4.19 for a gallon of milk, the person behind you pays $3.59 and someone else pays $2.99. And just as importantly you have a choice. If you don’t want the expense of the Lexus, buy the Camry. If you don’t want that expense, buy a used Lexus for less than a new Camry. With taxes I don’t get to pick and choose which ones I pay and which ones I don’t. If I don’t want to support a big military budget I can’t deselect that. If I think the UN is a joke I can’t deselect that.
Since it is wrong to charge people a different price for the same thing based on their income, why is it ok to charge people more, for fewer services (most government services go to those who can’t pay for them) based on their income?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#218 Jan 10, 2013
I will concede on the pay vs lifestyle for a 3rd grade teacher in GR as opposed to LA. Both $58,000. Another reason I wouldn't live in LA.

I'm just not into another dissertation on the rest.

A couple of short points though. When was the last time you saw a $.5x price difference in gas like you exampled using milk. And I personally have never seen that spread for milk.

And no one, not me anyway, is talking about one person in line being charged differently than the next. That wasn't the point at all. It was about charging different prices for goods that cost the same to produce. Yes we all have choices. Some have the choice of to buy food, or pay rent, or pay the utilities. Choice is always a good thing.

There is no feasible correlation of being able to match the cost of manufacture between the U.S. and China. Until the Chinese rise up further than they have been doing and demand a greater share of what they produce.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#219 Jan 11, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
I will concede on the pay vs lifestyle for a 3rd grade teacher in GR as opposed to LA. Both $58,000. Another reason I wouldn't live in LA.
I'm just not into another dissertation on the rest.
A couple of short points though. When was the last time you saw a $.5x price difference in gas like you exampled using milk. And I personally have never seen that spread for milk.
And no one, not me anyway, is talking about one person in line being charged differently than the next. That wasn't the point at all. It was about charging different prices for goods that cost the same to produce. Yes we all have choices. Some have the choice of to buy food, or pay rent, or pay the utilities. Choice is always a good thing.
There is no feasible correlation of being able to match the cost of manufacture between the U.S. and China. Until the Chinese rise up further than they have been doing and demand a greater share of what they produce.
I checked at http://www.grandrapidsgasprices.com/Price_By_... and today there is a $0.5x difference in the price of gas (same grade) around the state. In GR the difference between the lowest and highest is $0.25. When I lived in Cincinnati a few years ago when gas prices were moving up fast the prices would swing 30 cents in one day. I have also seen stations that raise their prices in the morning during rush hour, then drop them from 10-3 to attract a few extra customers, then raise them again during the evening commute to make a few extra bucks. All of it was done by computer and the attendent didn't do a thing. All done by the main office.

There is probably $1 or more difference between a gallon of milk at Meijer and at a small non-chain convenience store. And I've seen people go into the gas station that is in front of a Meijer and come out with milk or Coke's, even though it was more expensive rather than go into the regular store. We the consumer put different value on goods not the manufacturer. People buy $1,000 shoes from Nike. They are the ones who put all that value on the shoe, not Nike. You and I would probably never buy $1,000 pair of Nike's because we don't put that much value into a pair of shoes.

Yes, for some they have to choose between paying the rent and buying food. But they also had the choice to stay in school, not get pregnant, not take drugs, etc. Chronic poverty (staying in poverty) is rare, with just 4% of the population being in poverty for 24 months. Most folks (including me) are there for a short period and then move out.

Also, how you and I think of poverty is very different from what it really is. Today's poor have a house, car, air conditioning, TV, DVD, cell phone, etc. In fact, today's poor would be upper-middle class by the standards I grew up with. We don't really have, contrary to the President an issue with the have's and have-nots. In our country it is the have's and the have a lot. If you want to see true poverty go outside the US.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.p...
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#220 Jan 11, 2013
Seriously? Gas price differences around the state? So gas being $.50 per gallon cheaper in say Big Rapids than it is in GR, or vice-versa, I should drive to the other city to get the savings?

I normally get my milk from inside the store. Just for kicks, a couple of times, I checked the price difference between the Meijer convenience store and the main store and there was no difference. To say that is a constant would be in error. But then again one has to look at Meijer is able to buy their goods in much larger quantities than say the corner party store.

There was a time when the telephone was a luxury. Then it evolved into a necessity. When electrical service was a luxury. Then it evolved into a necessity. When the car was a luxury. Then it evolved into a necessity. The time came where auto insurance rates depend on the safety features of the car being driven. The older the care the less safety features the higher the insurance rate.

To say that everyone has a choice to get a college degree is ludicrous. Common sense should tell you that without any need for posting citations. There are people that for no fault of their own could never obtain a college degree. At that at no other time in history has anyone going through college and coming out of it been saddled with such debt for it. And at that there are many many with college degrees that are working at jobs and earning far below what their degree should be making them because there are no jobs in their field of choice. Because they, and those who are incapable of getting a college degree, for whatever reason, deserve to starve in live in less than adequate conditions and circumstances. But they do have the choice to become a criminal. Even if they get caught and send to prison everything will be provided for them. That is a choice after-all.

But lets, again try to get back to the crux.
What I am hearing you say is we shouldn't be raising the taxes on those at the top because it would hurt them in some way and that's just not equitable. We don't like the word fair, now do we.
We shouldn't even return their tax rate to what was designated to be a temporary reprieve in the first place because that would be a tax increase.
I mean those who have more have worked SO MUCH HARDER than those who don't have as much.
We should increase the taxes on those in the lower brackets to make it more equitable for those who make more. Again because those who have more have worked SO MUCH HARDER than those who don't have as much.
We should lower the benefits promised and paid into for.
Or to be totally equitable we should just leave it all as it is and see what happens so one side can say to the other, I told you so.

You can have the last word on this. I'm done. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. Welcome to congress. It will be as choices make it a conflict to see who wins. Oh wait, we don't like the word conflict. Competition then.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#221 Jan 11, 2013
I just want to add one more comment to this "choices" subject. Many years ago my doctor wanted to run a test that involved surgery because he wanted to "rule out" what he thought might be a problem.

Before I go any further I want to make certain that he was one of the best doctors in Grand Rapids and the head of department at Blodgett.

I questioned if this procedure was really necessary as none of the other findings pointed to it being necessary. He responded with "how much is your health worth...and, you have insurance to cover it. I said my health is worth as much as until I run out of money now isn't it. His look and silence told me I was right.

The results were there wasn't the issue he thought there might be. And luckily I did have insurance to cover it.

The point being is yes people always do have choices. In this case, for someone without insurance to cover it, the choice to take the doctor at their advisement and be under the financial gun for god knows how long or risk possible death. A choice really? Technically yes. But really no.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jesus Steals Christmas Back From Satan 4 hr Baphomet 5
pope-a-dope 7 hr John Lennon sucks 2
Experience a historical Christmas in downtown G... 8 hr DrX 71
Review: Kitten Flower Boutique 13 hr Brit 1
welcome to the new black america 15 hr Oneal 5
Al Sharpton's Marchers in New York City Chant "... 15 hr Oneal 8
AAD Annie Fri bobolinq 1
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:46 am PST

Bleacher Report 8:46AM
What Are Experts Saying About Vikings?
NBC Sports 9:08 AM
Calvin Johnson, Joique Bell present at practice
Bleacher Report 9:09 AM
Expect Packers to Continue Lambeau Dominance vs. Lions
NBC Sports11:06 AM
Mike McCarthy: No concerns about Aaron Rodgers
NBC Sports11:28 AM
Bears extend Roberto Garza through 2015