News Is Mitt Romney the Right Choice for the GOP in 2024?

[ThomasT]

Do you mean dictating the price? I suspect if an ambulance company is only allowed to get paid $50 per ride, most will just quit the business. Or should the government also force people to work the jobs and force the pay rates too?

I think that the government, as far as it is paying, can force the pay rates to be lower, ie., more reasonable, less inordinately inflated.

 

[ThomasT]

You think the average ambulance pickup takes 7 minutes and that's all you're paying for?

Of course not. But I think they should charge commensurate with what's actually done. And that the government, insofar as it's paying those charges, shouldn't be paying $1000 for something that obviously isn't worth that. The costs of healthcare services and items is ... unreasonable. Isn't there something that the government, insofar as it's paying for those, can do about that?

 

[russ_watters]

...and an increase in the minimum wage to, say, something more than $12/hour. I think this would be a boon to the general economy as well as improve the lives of millions of working Americans.

How would we deal with the millions of Americans it put out of work by making it too expensive to employ them?

 

[ThomasT]

Do you mean dictating the price?

Basically, yes.

 

[ThomasT]

How would we deal with the millions of Americans it put out of work by making it too expensive to employ them?

I don't think that would happen. Who are the largest employers of minimum wage workers? Not small businesses. If, say, Walmart was forced to pay it's workers a minimum of, say, $12/hour do you think that would put Walmart out of business? I don't think so. But it might decrease their bottom line by a billion dollars or so.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course not. But I think they should charge commensurate with what's actually done. And that the government, insofar as it's paying those charges, shouldn't be paying $1000 for something that obviously isn't worth that.

I think if you really put some thought into what that was paying for, it would start to look a lot more reasonable. But that's really the secondary point to me: the primary point being that that's a pretty heavy-handed/extreme level of government control. A big part of the reason Republicans are against government-run healthcare is we are pro freedom, including economic freedom.

 

[ThomasT]

Then again, where do most Walmart workers spend lots of their money. At Walmart and places like that? I think so. So, maybe Walmart's bottom line wouldn't decrease in proportion to the increase in wages it pays.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think that would happen. Who are the largest employers of minimum wage workers? Not small businesses. If, say, Walmart was forced to pay it's workers a minimum of, say, $12/hour do you think that would put Walmart out of business? I don't think so. But it might decrease their bottom line by a billion dollars or so.

I didn't say it would put anyone out of business (it would a few, but that's not the biggest impact), I said it would put people out of work. Walmart would just fire a portion of its employees.

 

[ThomasT]

I think if you really put some thought into what that was paying for, it would start to look a lot more reasonable.

I don't think that a specific service or item should cost more than that specific service or item. If a hospital can't stay in business charging reasonable rates, then, imo, it should be nationalized.

But that's really the secondary point to me: the primary point being that that's a pretty heavy-handed/extreme level of government control. A big part of the reason Republicans are against government-run healthcare is we are pro freedom, including economic freedom.

Economic freedom for the masses means reasonable, not arbitrarily inflated, prices for goods and services, and a livable minimum wage. This is the conundrum. The society can't be free, in the same sense, for the rich and for the masses at the same time. So, we have to make a choice. Do we advocate maximization of freedom for the rich, or maximization of freedom for the masses?

 

[ThomasT]

I didn't say it would put anyone out of business (it would a few, but that's not the biggest impact), I said it would put people out of work. Walmart would just fire a portion of its employees.

I disagree. Anyway, it's a question that can be answered by raising the minimum wage to, say, $12/hour and see what happens to the economy. My prediction is that it would have a positive effect on the general economy.

 

[ThomasT]

I didn't say it would put anyone out of business (it would a few ... )

Like who?

 

[WhoWee]

You think the average ambulance pickup takes 7 minutes and that's all you're paying for?

To elaborate, a basic ambulance costs about $60,000 - here's a link that demonstrates the cost of a recent expenditure.
http://www.remsinc.org/
"On January 13, 2011 REMS received notification from Congressman Paul Tonko’s office that it was the recipient of a grant through FEMA’s Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program. That notification was followed by the award announcement on FEMA’s AFG website (www.firegrantsupport.com) on January 14. REMS has been awarded $118,215.00 to purchase 2 new ambulances, which is the full amount requested less the 10% cost share required for such a grant. Currently, we are fortunate enough to be one of only forty-seven agencies to be awarded a grant under this program in New York State."

Plus you'll need specially trained and certified operators of the equipment.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think that would happen. Who are the largest employers of minimum wage workers? Not small businesses. If, say, Walmart was forced to pay it's workers a minimum of, say, $12/hour do you think that would put Walmart out of business? I don't think so. But it might decrease their bottom line by a billion dollars or so.

Why do you think it would cost WalMart a billion? Why wouldn't they raise their prices accordingly?

 

[ThomasT]

Why do you think it would cost WalMart a billion? Why wouldn't they raise their prices accordingly?

Because then they'd lose maybe a lot of customers who shop there because of the low prices? I don't know. Maybe they'd raise their prices accordingly, and all those people who are making $12/hour instead of $8 or $9/hour would go somewhere else that didn't raise their prices. It's a competitive market. I'm guessing that if the minimum wage was raised, then Walmart, and certain other businesses, would sustain a certain decrease in their bottom line (maybe not all that much), and the general economy would benefit as a result. It's an empirical question that can be tested.

 

[ThomasT]

To elaborate, a basic ambulance costs about $60,000 - here's a link that demonstrates the cost of a recent expenditure.
http://www.remsinc.org/
"On January 13, 2011 REMS received notification from Congressman Paul Tonko’s office that it was the recipient of a grant through FEMA’s Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program. That notification was followed by the award announcement on FEMA’s AFG website (www.firegrantsupport.com) on January 14. REMS has been awarded $118,215.00 to purchase 2 new ambulances, which is the full amount requested less the 10% cost share required for such a grant. Currently, we are fortunate enough to be one of only forty-seven agencies to be awarded a grant under this program in New York State."

Plus you'll need specially trained and certified operators of the equipment.

So? We're talking about a two block ride in an ambulance, and a five minute cursory examination in an emergency room. Cost ... $1000. Imho, that's exorbitant, and, imo, the federal government should not pay anything near that for a medicare/medicaid patient.

 

[WhoWee]

Because then they'd lose maybe a lot of customers who shop there because of the low prices? I don't know. Maybe they'd raise their prices accordingly, and all those people who are making $12/hour instead of $8 or $9/hour would go somewhere else that didn't raise their prices. It's a competitive market. I'm guessing that if the minimum wage was raised, then Walmart would sustain a certain decrease in their bottom line (maybe not all that much), and the general economy would benefit as a result. It's an empirical question that can be tested.

I'm curious why you want a MINIMUM wage for hourly workers - why not a MAXIMUM hourly wage based on the average compensation of workers around the world? Actually, (using your earlier analogy of the $50 ER visit) why should ANY hourly worker make over $50,000 per year? The hourly worker doesn't risk capital or personal assets (such as their home) as a small business owner typically does - to buy a job.

 

[WhoWee]

So? We're talking about a two block ride in an ambulance, and a five minute cursory examination in an emergency room. Cost ... $1000. Imho, that's exorbitant, and, imo, the federal government should not pay anything near that for a medicare/medicaid patient.

How much do you think your state pays to drive junkies to get their methadone fix?

 

[Jasongreat]

Because then they'd lose maybe a lot of customers who shop there because of the low prices? I don't know. Maybe they'd raise their prices accordingly, and all those people who are making $12/hour instead of $8 or $9/hour would go somewhere else that didn't raise their prices. It's a competitive market. I'm guessing that if the minimum wage was raised, then Walmart would sustain a certain decrease in their bottom line (maybe not all that much), and the general economy would benefit as a result. It's an empirical question that can be tested.

Where are they going to go? If you raise the minimum wage, the cost of every product produced by minimum wage workers goes up, or workers get let go. It seems to me the thing big government advocates forget is things work differently in a market, in government the cost really doesn't matter, which is why governmental budgets continually get risen. In a market, the purpose of owning a buisiness is to make a profit. If your bottom line says you can hire 100 workers at 8.00 an hour, then that rate goes to 12 an hour, the amount to pay the workers is the same, therefore some workers have to be let go. A buisiness can only still afford to pay the 800 dollars an hour for labor, at 12 dollars an hour, 50% of the workforce would have to be let go. On the otherhand if the company needs all 100 workers, their prices would have to be raised, therefore the raise is only on paper and benefits no one, since those workers will be paying more for every product they buy.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm curious why you want a MINIMUM wage for hourly workers ...

Because without that you would have what exists in China and Southeast Asia, etc. Basically slave labor and indentured servitude on a massive scale. Is that what you want?

... why not a MAXIMUM hourly wage based on the average compensation of workers around the world?

This makes no sense to me. Please explain.

Actually, (using your earlier analogy of the $50 ER visit) why should ANY hourly worker make over $50,000 per year?

Not $50 per ER visit. Payment should, imo, be commensurate with services. If you have to be transported 20 miles, and extensive testing has to be done, and you're administered various drugs, whatever, then, of course, it should cost more.

Anyway, I don't get the connection between the cost of an ER visit and a cap on what ANY hourly worker should make.

The hourly worker doesn't risk capital or personal assets (such as their home) as a small business owner typically does - to buy a job.

That's not the point. The point is that there is a decreasing aggregate demand in the general economy. The masses of people have, in general, less money to spend in the general economy. The buying power of the majority of workers is continually decreasing. The hypothesis is that one way to help reverse that trend is to increase the income of minimum wage workers.

 

[WhoWee]

This is something that never gets headlines, but is a major force in the erosion of our economy. People of modest means spend all of their money, and they tend to spend it locally. Erode their buying power, and you erode the economies in their neighborhoods. If Mitt doesn't care much about the poor, then he doesn't understand local/regional economies, and can't be trusted with the Presidency. I don't want a President that is overly concerned with the health of Wall Street (we already have one!) but there has to be some shift of focus to the poor and the middle-class who are seeing their incomes eroded and their options limited.

I'm about to turn 60 in another month. I would never have envisioned years ago that the US would be studded with full homeless shelters, warming sites, and food-programs where homeless people might get a sandwich and a hot drink. It's so sad.

How does buying locally erode the economies in the (local) neighborhoods?

 

[Jasongreat]

Because without that you would have what exists in China and Southeast Asia, etc. Basically slave labor and indentured servitude on a massive scale. Is that what you want?QUOTE]

It seems to me indentured servitude is what you want, you want owners of companies to pay a certain rate in pay, even if they can't afford it.

 

[ThomasT]

How does buying locally erode the economies in the (local) neighborhoods?

Decreased buying power erodes local economies.

 

[ThomasT]

Because without that you would have what exists in China and Southeast Asia, etc. Basically slave labor and indentured servitude on a massive scale. Is that what you want?

It seems to me indentured servitude is what you want, you want owners of companies to pay a certain rate in pay, even if they can't afford it.

No, if an owner can't afford to pay a certain rate, then he can't afford to be in business. Big difference.

Anyway, we already require owners to pay a certain rate. It simply hasn't kept pace with inflation.

 

[Jasongreat]

.

That's not the point. The point is that there is a decreasing aggregate demand in the general economy. The masses of people have, in general, less money to spend in the general economy. The buying power of the majority of workers is continually decreasing. The hypothesis is that one way to help reverse that trend is to increase the income of minimum wage workers.

Only if you can keep the cost of living the same as it currently is, which is impossible with the inflation rate. As long as government spends more than they have, our dollars will continue to buy less.

My home town is a farming community. I find it funny when the farmers are praising high corn prices because of government subsidized ethanol. I try to explain to them that their income will be greater, but so will their spending. They are making loads more by raising corn, but everything that contains corn has its prices increasing, making their net gain, insignifigant. To make matters worse, with so many farmers growing corn, alfalfa prices are going through the roof, grain prices are going through the roof, and meat prices are going through the roof. It seems that governmental intrusion into markets always have more negatives than positives.

 

[Jack21222]

Santorum swept Romney in todays primaries/caucuses. Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri all went to Santorum. Romney is only at 16.9% in Minnesota, behind Ron Paul at 27.1 and Santorum at 45.0 (with 88% of the precincts reporting).

In Missouri, Santorum won every county in the state, scoring 55% to Romney's 23%.

Colorado was closer; Santorum scored 40% while Romney scored 35%.

Looks like the "anybody but Romney" vote is strong.

 

[ThomasT]

Only if you can keep the cost of living the same as it currently is, which is impossible with the inflation rate. As long as government spends more than they have, our dollars will continue to buy less.

This makes no sense to me. The government doesn't spend more than it has. It's just that revenues from taxes, etc. don't cover the budget, so it has to borrow. The money that it borrows is money that it has.

The cost of living is continually increasing. Artificially so. This is called inflation. The wages and salaries of the mass of American workers increase at a slower rate than inflation. Therefore, the buying power of the mass of Americans, the aggregated demand wrt the general economy, continually decreases.

 

[WhoWee]

Decreased buying power erodes local economies.

Let's re-cap then - if local people spend their money locally - the buying power of the local economy is eroded - is that correct?

 

[Jasongreat]

No, if an owner can't afford to pay a certain rate, then he can't afford to be in business. Big difference.

Anyway, we already require owners to pay a certain rate. It simply hasn't kept pace with inflation.

So the answer to governmental monetary inflation, is governmental wage inflation?

Why don't we kill two birds with one stone, and keep our government in check? I would like to see a law that prohibits inflation, then the minimum wage could disappear as well. Inflation is nothing more than theft, If I have 10,000 dollars in the bank, and the government inflates the dollar by 1%, I have been robbed of 100 dollars. Granted I still have the same 10,000 dollars, but I can only purchase 9,900 dollars worth of product. We can keep this misery-go-round going, government makes our money worth less, then turns around and increases our wage by the same amount, are we not in the same situation as before?

 

[ThomasT]

Santorum swept Romney in todays primaries/caucuses. Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri all went to Santorum. Romney is only at 16.9% in Minnesota, behind Ron Paul at 27.1 and Santorum at 45.0 (with 88% of the precincts reporting).

In Missouri, Santorum won every county in the state, scoring 55% to Romney's 23%.

Colorado was closer; Santorum scored 40% while Romney scored 35%.

Looks like the "anybody but Romney" vote is strong.

Wow, that's sort of surprising.

 

[Jack21222]

Wow, that's sort of surprising.

Even more surprising than Santorum's victories is the margin of those victories. Romney at 17%? Those are the numbers you'd expect from some fringe candidate.

 

[WhoWee]

This makes no sense to me. The government doesn't spend more than it has. It's just that revenues from taxes, etc. don't cover the budget, so it has to borrow. The money that it borrows is money that it has.

The cost of living is continually increasing. Artificially so. This is called inflation. The wages and salaries of the mass of American workers increase at a slower rate than inflation. Therefore, the buying power of the mass of Americans, the aggregated demand wrt the general economy, continually decreases.

It seems to me that if the Government has to borrow money - it's because they spent more than they had at the time the took out a loan - correct?

 

[ThomasT]

So the answer to governmental monetary inflation, is governmental wage inflation?

Raising the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation wouldn't be inflation.

Why don't we kill two birds with one stone, and keep our government in check? I would like to see a law that prohibits inflation, then the minimum wage could disappear as well. Inflation is nothing more than theft, If I have 10,000 dollars in the bank, and the government inflates the dollar by 1%, I have been robbed of 100 dollars. Granted I still have the same 10,000 dollars, but I can only purchase 9,900 dollars worth of product. We can keep this misery-go-round going, government makes our money worth less, then turns around and increases our wage by the same amount, are we not in the same situation as before?

Wage and price controls have been tried before. The federal government simply doesn't have enough power to make it work. It isn't the government that causes inflation. It's the greed of business owners.

 

[ThomasT]

It seems to me that if the Government has to borrow money - it's because they spent more than they had at the time the took out a loan - correct?

No. It's that they anticipate having to spend more money than they currently have to spend. So, they take out a loan.

 

[Jack21222]

I would like to see a law that prohibits inflation

A law that prevents prices from rising? Are you high? What kind of iron-fisted dictatorship do you think we're living in.

I haven't payed attention to this little side conversation you guys have been having, but a law to "prohibit inflation" sounds batcrap crazy to me.

 

[ThomasT]

I haven't payed attention to this little side conversation you guys have been having ...

The essential point of the discussion is whether the federal government can do anything to reduce healthcare costs. Ie., how that might be done.

 

[Jasongreat]

This makes no sense to me. The government doesn't spend more than it has. It's just that revenues from taxes, etc. don't cover the budget, so it has to borrow. The money that it borrows is money that it has.

Really? So if I go borrow a million dollars, I have a million dollars? Doesnt liability enter in the calculations at some point?

When the government borrows money, it steals from future taxpayers, or it prints money and inflates the dollar, which steals from current tax payers. A dollar doesn't have to be inflated, but the argument that because government inflates the dollar, government also has to inflate the cost of labor is ridiculous.

 

[ThomasT]

Really? So if I go borrow a million dollars, I have a million dollars?

Well ... yeah.

Doesnt liability enter in the calculations at some point?

Yes, but you'd still have the million dollars. Wouldn't you?

When the government borrows money, it steals from future taxpayers, or it prints money and inflates the dollar, which steals from current tax payers. A dollar doesn't have to be inflated, but the argument that because government inflates the dollar, government also has to inflate the cost of labor is ridiculous.

Inflation refers to increases in the cost of goods and services. The government doesn't control this (for the most part). It's a function of players in any market charging prices that they think the market will sustain.

 

[Jasongreat]

A law that prevents prices from rising? Are you high? What kind of iron-fisted dictatorship do you think we're living in.

I haven't payed attention to this little side conversation you guys have been having, but a law to "prohibit inflation" sounds batcrap crazy to me.

It would not neccessarily keep prices from rising, it would keep prices from rising without added value though. Do we get more, from a house that costs 5000 dollars, like they cost in the twenties, or the same house which now costs 500,000 dollars? sure it makes us feel better having big values in the bank, although once we start spending it disappears just as quick. I don't understand our love affair with inflation, does it help having a million dollars that will only buy 10,000 dollars worth of goods? Or could we accomplish the same thing by keeping the 10000 dollars buying 10,000 dollars worth of goods?

 

[Jasongreat]

Yes, but you'd still have the million dollars. Wouldn't you?

Not once I paid off the loan, and interest, I would have a loss of the interest, which would cause me to end up worse off than when I started. If I could invest the money into the market and get a high enough return to pay the interest and to make up for the amount government inflated my dollars during the same time, I could make a profit. The problem comes when it is government borrowing the money, since there is no hope of a return on our investment, governments are liabilities, not assets. In fact arent those things we place under the umbrella of government, there because in the free market a return on investment is warranted, therefore if we have things which cannot profit, they become governments duty to provide those services?

 

[ThomasT]

I don't understand our love affair with inflation ...

Apparently you've never owned a business. Suppose you're charging, say, $5 for a certain thing and you think that you can raise the price to, say, $5.49 and maintain the same sales volume. So, you try it and find that you can maintain the same sales volume at the increased price. That's inflation. Now, if you've cornered the market on some essential commodity, then you can pretty much charge whatever you want for it. That's where a certain sort of government regulation comes in -- to prevent the charging of exorbitant prices for things. Unfortunately, the government is sometimes part of the mechanism that maintains artificially (ie., not market driven) high prices on things.

 

[WhoWee]

Apparently you've never owned a business. Suppose you're charging, say, $5 for a certain thing and you think that you can raise the price to, say, $5.49 and maintain the same sales volume. So, you try it and find that you can maintain the same sales volume at the increased price. That's inflation. Now, if you've cornered the market on some essential commodity, then you can pretty much charge whatever you want for it. That's where a certain sort of government regulation comes in -- to prevent the charging of exorbitant prices for things. Unfortunately, the government is sometimes part of the mechanism that maintains artificially (ie., not market driven) high prices on things.

I have owned businesses - most of the time I raise prices because my operating expenses increase - usually labor, utilities, and cost of goods sold.

 

[WhoWee]

So, back to Romney. I just finished watching a video on Ralph Nader entitled "An Unreasonable Man". It makes me somewhat angry that the American public votes for people like Romney, Obama, Bush, etc., and marginalizes truly great Americans like Nader.

Clearly, Romney is no Nader. But then who is? But Romney isn't even, imho, a marginally interesting candidate for president. His proposals are predictably predominantly pro big business, pro finance, and anti the average working American. He's a rich guy, who, as he's won't to tell everybody, has spent his life in business, as an executive, getting rich.

Which proposal of Romney's is "anti the average working American"?

 

[ThomasT]

I have owned businesses - most of the time I raise prices because my operating expenses increase - usually labor, utilities, and cost of goods sold.

Your labor cost only increases if you pay your workers more. Why would you pay your workers more? Why did your utility costs increase? Why did the cost of the goods you sell increase? My point is that it starts somewhere ... and it's an entirely arbitrary decision designed to milk more profits from the existing market. Ie., greed. Inflation doesn't have to happen, it's simply a function of greed at some point in the chain. And greed is what screws up the stability of the whole system. Free market capitalism is doomed to produce boom and bust cycles and an inordinate inequality of wealth, thus sewing the seeds of revolution.

 

[ThomasT]

Which proposal of Romney's is "anti the average working American"?

All the stuff that is pro business and finance, and anti labor and regulation.

 

[ThomasT]

I have owned businesses - most of the time I raise prices because my operating expenses increase - usually labor, utilities, and cost of goods sold.

To return to this, I've owned businesses also. I charged whatever I thought I could get away with.

 

[WhoWee]

Your labor cost only increases if you pay your workers more. Why would you pay your workers more? Why did your utility costs increase? Why did the cost of the goods you sell increase? My point is that it starts somewhere ... and it's an entirely arbitrary decision designed to milk more profits from the existing market. Ie., greed. Inflation doesn't have to happen, it's simply a function of greed at some point in the chain. And greed is what screws up the stability of the whole system. Free market capitalism is doomed to produce boom and bust cycles and an inordinate inequality of wealth, thus sewing the seeds of revolution.

I've owned retail businesses that employed predominately minimum wage workers - Government mandated pay increases don't just raise the lowest wage - it also forces the owner to pay more to established workers that have earned increases.

Cost of goods sold typically increase when commodity, production and delivery costs increase - a small business can't control these costs.

As for why did utilities cost increase - are you joking? A small business has very few options beyond strict reduction of use.

 

[Dotini]

Last night's sweep of caucuses and beauty contest by Santorum really sets the cat amongst the pigeons. Paul even pushed Romney down to 3rd in Minnesota.

This is going to set in a state of extreme jitters, blood-spitting and deep agonizing amongst the party pros, financiers, pundits and media elites. They literally have no idea what to do, so I expect anything, possibly including would-be savior figures like Mitch Daniels to suddenly appear on the screens.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[WhoWee]

To return to this, I've owned businesses also. I charged whatever I thought I could get away with.

Did you share the windfalls with your employees?

 

[ThomasT]

Cost of goods sold typically increase when commodity, production and delivery costs increase - a small business can't control these costs.

As for why did utilities cost increase - are you joking? A small business has very few options beyond strict reduction of use.

Ok, commodity, production, delivery and utility costs increase. My point is that these increases were instigated, arbitrarily, at some point in the chain. Do you doubt that?

 

[WhoWee]

Ok, commodity, production, delivery and utility costs increase. My point is that these increases were instigated, arbitrarily, at some point in the chain. Do you doubt that?

I believe fuel costs drive prices up. I believe labor contracts, minimum wage, and employee benefits drive costs up. I believe weather effects crop production. I believe the EPA has forced utility prices up. Shall I continue?