1) According to the L.A. Times, on July 17, President Obama and the Republicans had the basis for an agreement that included 800 billion in increased revenues. But on July 19, when the gang of six came back with a plan that had more than a trillion in increased revenue, Mr. Obama claimed that this gang of six proposal changed the dynamic and insisted that the White House needed an additional 400 billion more in revenue, a tactic that ended up causing the discussions to break down.......Look, folks, I wasn't there. I don't know if this is exactly how it happened. But, if it DID happen this way and, because of it, we ended up with the turkey that we did, then, yeah, Mr. Obama's leadership on this issue really needs to be examined/called into question here....I'm sorry but it does.............2) If somebody is willing to mow my lawn for $30, I'm not going to give them 35 just to salve my conscience. And, yes, as a tax-payer who sends two humongous (for me anyway) checks to my town for the "privilege" of living in it, I would strongly prefer that the government show a similar level of thriftiness.............3) To show you how far-right Hannity is, he led off one of his recent programs by saying, "This budget deal that has conservatives up in arms...." Wow, huh? An agreement that had zero in it in terms of revenues and ONLY budget-cuts, "Hannity conservatives" are up in arms about that - supposedly....I don't know, folks, maybe Mr. Hannity really DOES live in another stratosphere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"If somebody is willing to mow my lawn for $30, I'm not going to give them 35 just to salve my conscience."
Of course not, but there are valid reasons to pay $35.
My checkbook says otherwise....Are you saying that the guy just might take a leak on the side of my house if I only pay him 30?
No, if you only pay him $30 that extra $5 won't be spent and have an economically simulative effect that benefits us all. Because of all the lawn mowers that are stiffed the extra 5 bucks, and all the money that isn't subsequently spent at the local store... someone loses their job.
Perhaps Will just doesn't understand the law of unintended consequences... or the fact that when you subsidize something, you generally tend to get more of it (jobs, in this case).
How am I "stiffing" somebody who has offered to mow my lawn for an agreed upon price? And if I REALLY wanted to help the economy (as opposed managing my own money more wisely), shouldn't I give him 40, 45, 50, 200, 500? I mean, why stop at 35?
Will: How am I "stiffing" somebody who has offered to mow my lawn for an agreed upon price?
We've already established that the job is actually worth $35, otherwise why would the guy take a leak on the side of your house (unless he was angry about being stiffed)? He is probably desperate for work and thus has no choice but to accept the 30 bucks.
But why $30 and not $10? Perhaps you could find someone to do it for $5. Maybe if there were a bunch of people who wanted the job you could make them fight.
We've established nothing, wd. I was just responding to Jerry's claim that there are valid reasons to pay somebody more than the price that was agreed upon. Why, pray tell, would ANYBODY pay more for a service than they had to? Do you go to a restaurant that charges more for an identical item just so you can say that you're "helping to stimulate the economy"?
Wait a minute. I am not saying that if you agree to pay $30, there are reasons to pay him $35. However, looking back at my original comment, I understand why you interpreted it that way.
What I MEANT to say is that there are valid reasons to pay SOMEONE ELSE $35 to cut your lawn. The lowest price is not always the best deal.
That's true. And if the $30 guy does a lousy job, I WOULD hire the $35 guy the next time.
Post a Comment