RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State

RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/12/2013 5:00:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's not inherently political, though. It is used in politics, but it's also used by the small businessperson. When a small business looks into bringing a new line of products in, or procuring a greater amount of an existing line, is that done for political reasons, or for business reasons? Probably both. But my point is that, in reality, the study of economics is really just a branch of philosophy or political science. In previous times, the term "political economy" was used instead of "economics" to describe that field of study. In any case, we're talking about a human-based social science, so when your small businessperson looks at bringing in a new line of products or procuring a greater amount, he/she has to anticipate human nature and determine whether his/her customers will buy the new line or stick with the existing line. Even if it may not seem like it, that does involve making a political decision. quote: Seriously? This was right before the Great Recession, when unemployment was around 5%. People already had jobs and were working. That's when my local fast food joints were offering $10/hr. for burger flippers and fryers. If McDonald's had an illegal immigration problem and wanted to get more employees, increasing wages in Toledo, Ohio, isn't the typical place that would happen. Perhaps our perspectives are different due to living in different areas of the country. Just the same, I think that we're in agreement that when the economy is better and there are more plentiful jobs, it tends to become a worker's job market as an opposed to an employer's job market. The same result can occur if there is an interruption in the labor pool (such as a crackdown on illegal immigration or a curtailment in the number of immigrant workers overall). I recall a recent story about fast-food workers in Detroit calling for a strike, demanding $15 an hour. $10 an hour isn't enough for them. quote: $17/hr. at WalMart. See what happens when people aren't lining up for $8.50/hr. jobs? Yes. It would be nice if this were a nationwide phenomenon instead of just isolated to North Dakota. It also flies in the face of all these arguments about "skills," when "unskilled" people up there make the same as "skilled" people in other areas of the country. The situation up there clearly demonstrates that it's quite possible for the economy to give "unskilled" people a decent living wage without the sky falling. So in other words, if "unskilled" people are living in dire straits and struggling in low-wage, dead-end jobs, it's still a reflection upon the overall state of the economy and calls into question whether the so-called "skilled" workers are worth what they're being paid. It's not just a matter of quality of life for those at the bottom, but also reflects upon the competence and reputation of those at the top who have been running this economy and are mostly responsible for our current state of affairs. It's a rather cheap and convenient argument to say "Oh, these workers are unskilled so therefore they deserve to earn low wages." But the situation in Williston ND shows that even if they're unskilled, the economy can still be strong enough to be able to pay them decent wages without causing a zombie apocalypse. quote: Job satisfaction? For a nurse? Why would anyone make it through nursing school without knowing that a nursing job would be satisfying?!? That would be like a new elementary school teacher not being satisfied with the job because they don't like kids. There may be some things that one can't anticipate when entering a new career. Just knowing the job and the hours and working conditions may not necessarily prepare someone for doing it every day, five days a week, for years and years over the long haul. I wouldn't judge somebody too harshly if they work a job for a few years and then decide they don't like it, for whatever reason. It happens all the time. quote: Few people don't understand the hours that will be kept by nurses, teachers, retail workers, etc. prior to their starting those careers. If they don't, then they either ignored it, or purposely never looked. Maybe so, but think of how schools and colleges try to recruit young people into their programs. They make it seem attractive and lucrative, where you can work in an exciting and dynamic profession. Employers and their HR departments do the same thing. Heck, even the military recruiting commercials try to really sell it. They won't be readily inclined to discuss the downside of the job. I would wager that the management and personnel departments of any company, including Wal-Mart, would likely say that their company is a great place to work. quote: It may not be 1/3, but it's not far off from that. And, I've been asking those questions, and similar. Yes, salaries do factor into final costs, but that can't be all there is to it. I'm not saying we shouldn't look at salaries and wages of physicians, but that that's not the only place we should be looking. It could be due to administrative costs. Despite popular notions about bureaucracies and the administrative state being a government-only phenomenon, large businesses also have their own bureaucracies and their own version of an "administrative state." Businesses are not immune to the same mentality which ostensibly infects government, and I can see where that would affect the bottom line. quote: Why does Tylenol cost so damn much in a hospital? It's certainly not because Tylenol is all that expensive. Typical Tylenol costs in a hospital for one dose could likely get you a decent sized bottle at the drug store down the street from the hospital, and likely a big bottle (if not huge) for the generic "store brand." Why? Until this kind of stuff is figured out, we'll not see decreases in the "per service/procedure" cost of care, no matter what style of medical care system we use. That's why I like the idea of price controls. If the government just imposes prices on the healthcare industry and tells them what they're going to charge, then they'll have no other choice but to explain and justify the costs per service and procedure. It will force them to come to the table and deal straight, to tell us the true costs without a lot of falderal or accounting tricks. Strictly speaking, if a business is justified by basing its prices on the "true costs" of what it takes to deliver a given product or service, why is it so wrong for workers to do the same? If we factor in the costs of housing, food, clothing, utilities, health insurance, and other such living expenses, we could probably arrive at a "true cost" for workers. Why is it okay for businesses to do that, but not workers?

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/12/2013 5:30:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You just elucidated the key right there, Zonie. While some might stupidly ask me to define exactly how large government should be, it all depends. A limited government is one that is "large enough" to effectively and efficiently exercise it's powers. Anything larger than that, is too large. As the country grew in size and population, there was a necessary growth of government. That is to be expected, and should not be criticized. "Limited Government" also refers to a government that can't simply do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and however it wants. Through the US Constitution, the Federal Government was granted some broad ideas, and was also granted the authority to enact the laws necessary to exercise those ideas. If government is acting outside those ideas without limits, it is not a "limited government" anymore. In a very real sense, our government has crossed that line more than once, and We The People accepted it. I don't think we can ever really go back to being "noble" and "pure" (not that we ever were). There have been times where our government has done whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted, and however it wanted. In some instances, this contributed to the growth in area of the United States. The people gave them that power, and in all candor, even today, not enough people are standing up and saying that they want that power back. Some people are content with the current situation and don't seem to have any problem with the Federal government or the Administrative State. A lot of people (including many in the private sector) have benefited from big government.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/12/2013 2:17:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 That's why I like the idea of price controls. If the government just imposes prices on the healthcare industry and tells them what they're going to charge, then they'll have no other choice but to explain and justify the costs per service and procedure. It will force them to come to the table and deal straight, to tell us the true costs without a lot of falderal or accounting tricks. The problem with price ceilings, is that until we know what the problem is within the costs, we might be penalizing the least deserving in the chain. Using purely hypothetical numbers: If a hospital is paying $10/pill for MedX and charging $11/pill, and Big Gov comes in and tells them they're only allowed to charge $9, what happens to the hospital or to their use of MedX? It's not the hospital's fault that they cost is so high, but they're the ones being penalized for it. quote: Strictly speaking, if a business is justified by basing its prices on the "true costs" of what it takes to deliver a given product or service, why is it so wrong for workers to do the same? If we factor in the costs of housing, food, clothing, utilities, health insurance, and other such living expenses, we could probably arrive at a "true cost" for workers. Why is it okay for businesses to do that, but not workers? Who says workers can't do that? If you were looking for work and required $15/hr. and 40 hours per week, but was only offered 15 hours at $10/hr, would you take the job, or would you keep looking? People are willing to work for $10/hr., $8.50/hr., and even, in some cases, $7.25/hr (ignoring for the moment those that get a much lower wage but get tips that can make up the difference). Are these people too stupid to understand what they need to survive, so they can't find work for higher wages? Or, is it about supply and demand (which are economic in nature, and can be politically manipulated) of workers (when supply of workers is low, wage offerings rise (North Dakota; McD's pre-Recession), and when supply of workers is high, wage offerings don't rise, or are reduced)?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/12/2013 2:21:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You just elucidated the key right there, Zonie. While some might stupidly ask me to define exactly how large government should be, it all depends. A limited government is one that is "large enough" to effectively and efficiently exercise it's powers. Anything larger than that, is too large. As the country grew in size and population, there was a necessary growth of government. That is to be expected, and should not be criticized. "Limited Government" also refers to a government that can't simply do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and however it wants. Through the US Constitution, the Federal Government was granted some broad ideas, and was also granted the authority to enact the laws necessary to exercise those ideas. If government is acting outside those ideas without limits, it is not a "limited government" anymore. In a very real sense, our government has crossed that line more than once, and We The People accepted it. I don't think we can ever really go back to being "noble" and "pure" (not that we ever were). There have been times where our government has done whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted, and however it wanted. In some instances, this contributed to the growth in area of the United States. The people gave them that power, and in all candor, even today, not enough people are standing up and saying that they want that power back. Some people are content with the current situation and don't seem to have any problem with the Federal government or the Administrative State. A lot of people (including many in the private sector) have benefited from big government. All of that is true enough. And, that some people are content with being taken care of cradle to grave, is beyond dumb, in my opinion. But, that's my opinion, and they don't have to agree with it. That it's happened in the past and that there are a lot of people okay with it won't get me to stop, though. I'm going to continue to push for a limited Federal Government.

joether -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 2:03:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You just elucidated the key right there, Zonie. While some might stupidly ask me to define exactly how large government should be, it all depends. A limited government is one that is "large enough" to effectively and efficiently exercise it's powers. Anything larger than that, is too large. As the country grew in size and population, there was a necessary growth of government. That is to be expected, and should not be criticized. "Limited Government" also refers to a government that can't simply do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and however it wants. Through the US Constitution, the Federal Government was granted some broad ideas, and was also granted the authority to enact the laws necessary to exercise those ideas. If government is acting outside those ideas without limits, it is not a "limited government" anymore. In a very real sense, our government has crossed that line more than once, and We The People accepted it. I don't think we can ever really go back to being "noble" and "pure" (not that we ever were). There have been times where our government has done whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted, and however it wanted. In some instances, this contributed to the growth in area of the United States. The people gave them that power, and in all candor, even today, not enough people are standing up and saying that they want that power back. Some people are content with the current situation and don't seem to have any problem with the Federal government or the Administrative State. A lot of people (including many in the private sector) have benefited from big government. All of that is true enough. And, that some people are content with being taken care of cradle to grave, is beyond dumb, in my opinion. But, that's my opinion, and they don't have to agree with it. That it's happened in the past and that there are a lot of people okay with it won't get me to stop, though. I'm going to continue to push for a limited Federal Government. Limited Government? The thing that you cant define, right? You did say that a few pages back, DS. I seem to recall asking you to define it in real and exact terms. An you could not deliver on that question.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 3:29:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Limited Government? The thing that you cant define, right? You did say that a few pages back, DS. I seem to recall asking you to define it in real and exact terms. An you could not deliver on that question. You're right. I can't define it in exact terms. There is no exactitude when it comes to government. Plus, as the needs of the nation change, the size of government should change. Thirteen States vs. 50 States means the Federal Government has to be larger to exercise it's authorities for the Nation. A growing population might also cause an increase. Do you understand the phrase Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution? A "Limited Government" is one that is limited only to those laws that are necessary and proper in exercising it's duties according to a "Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution." That's as exact as it's going to get. If that doesn't satisfy you, I recommend a Snickers bar.

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 4:00:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The problem with price ceilings, is that until we know what the problem is within the costs, we might be penalizing the least deserving in the chain. Using purely hypothetical numbers: If a hospital is paying $10/pill for MedX and charging $11/pill, and Big Gov comes in and tells them they're only allowed to charge $9, what happens to the hospital or to their use of MedX? It's not the hospital's fault that they cost is so high, but they're the ones being penalized for it. It may not be their fault, but as we discussed above, it would be their responsibility to outline, explain, and clarify their pricing formulas and how they arrive at the cost per procedure or product. It should be relatively easy for them to prove what their expenses are and how much they're actually paying for "MedX." You said earlier "Until this kind of stuff is figured out...," so whether the hospital is being unfairly penalized or not, they would definitely have a strong incentive to figure all this stuff out and give honest figures to the American public. In the hypothetical you outlined here, if it's not the hospital's fault, then they would be the ones with the strongest incentive to set the record straight and open up their books and accounting files for public scrutiny. But they would have to prove that they're being unfairly penalized. quote: Who says workers can't do that? If you were looking for work and required $15/hr. and 40 hours per week, but was only offered 15 hours at $10/hr, would you take the job, or would you keep looking? People are willing to work for $10/hr., $8.50/hr., and even, in some cases, $7.25/hr (ignoring for the moment those that get a much lower wage but get tips that can make up the difference). Are these people too stupid to understand what they need to survive, so they can't find work for higher wages? Or, is it about supply and demand (which are economic in nature, and can be politically manipulated) of workers (when supply of workers is low, wage offerings rise (North Dakota; McD's pre-Recession), and when supply of workers is high, wage offerings don't rise, or are reduced)? In some of these discussions on economics, workers, and wages, I've sensed that some measure of blame and scorn is being heaped upon workers for daring to ask for higher wages. There are insinuations that low-wage/minimum-wage employees are lazy, unskilled, have little to nothing to offer an employer, that it's their own fault they're getting low pay, and any complaints they might make are tantamount to "whining." I find that there's a bit of a double standard when conservative economists and their fellow travelers talk about the struggles of running a business and how Big Gov keeps coming in and messing with private business, yet they fail to show any sympathy or respect for working stiffs. Hell, on a societal level, I see more respect given to welfare recipients than to McDonald's or Wal-Mart employees, so I have to ask: When did all this unabashed, brazen hatred for working people start?

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 4:38:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri All of that is true enough. And, that some people are content with being taken care of cradle to grave, is beyond dumb, in my opinion. But, that's my opinion, and they don't have to agree with it. That it's happened in the past and that there are a lot of people okay with it won't get me to stop, though. I'm going to continue to push for a limited Federal Government. I don't think people are taken care of cradle to grave in this country. That's an exaggeration, and it fails to take into consideration the historical chain of events and circumstances which led to many of the social programs which are viewed scornfully in conservative /economist circles. There are reasons why the West didn't fall into revolution and/or dictatorship, while certain Central and Eastern European countries did. Our social programs and liberal reforms might seem "dumb" when one looks at economics from an isolated business model of workers, their skills, and what wages they're supposedly "worth" to the business owner. But looking at the bigger picture, history has shown that moderate reforms in the West maintained political stability and some measure of harmony in society, at least enough that we haven't plunged into anarchy or full-blown revolution - not yet, anyway. Maintaining political stability and balance in society is, in my opinion, actually pretty smart. It doesn't mean a "womb to tomb" Nanny State or anything like that (since that can also be counterproductive to maintaining political stability if pushed too far). It doesn't even mean anyone has to be a bleeding heart or compassionate. We don't have to be compassionate if it offends our business community so much. All we have to be is sensible, smart, and logical. What we need are fewer bean counters and more statesmen.

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 4:49:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A "Limited Government" is one that is limited only to those laws that are necessary and proper in exercising it's duties according to a "Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution." That's as exact as it's going to get. If that doesn't satisfy you, I recommend a Snickers bar. It's still not all that exact, though, since "necessary and proper" leaves a lot open to interpretation. For every government agency and program out there today, someone at some point had to have argued that it was "necessary and proper" and make it convincing enough to become law which has passed Constitutional muster. That's what we have right now, under the same basic system and mechanisms of government originally implemented by our Founding Fathers. Is there some law or amendment to the Constitution which can be proposed to bring us back to a "limited government" which would satisfy a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. Is it just a matter of changing our interpretation, or does the Constitution itself have to be changed in order to realize the goal you seek?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 5:36:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The problem with price ceilings, is that until we know what the problem is within the costs, we might be penalizing the least deserving in the chain. Using purely hypothetical numbers: If a hospital is paying $10/pill for MedX and charging $11/pill, and Big Gov comes in and tells them they're only allowed to charge $9, what happens to the hospital or to their use of MedX? It's not the hospital's fault that they cost is so high, but they're the ones being penalized for it. It may not be their fault, but as we discussed above, it would be their responsibility to outline, explain, and clarify their pricing formulas and how they arrive at the cost per procedure or product. It should be relatively easy for them to prove what their expenses are and how much they're actually paying for "MedX." You said earlier "Until this kind of stuff is figured out...," so whether the hospital is being unfairly penalized or not, they would definitely have a strong incentive to figure all this stuff out and give honest figures to the American public. In the hypothetical you outlined here, if it's not the hospital's fault, then they would be the ones with the strongest incentive to set the record straight and open up their books and accounting files for public scrutiny. But they would have to prove that they're being unfairly penalized. Institute a price ceiling and then make them prove it's penalizing them unfairly (in this situation, I don't think this could even be considered a fair penalty as there is no reason for it to be penalized in the first place). quote: quote: Who says workers can't do that? If you were looking for work and required $15/hr. and 40 hours per week, but was only offered 15 hours at $10/hr, would you take the job, or would you keep looking? People are willing to work for $10/hr., $8.50/hr., and even, in some cases, $7.25/hr (ignoring for the moment those that get a much lower wage but get tips that can make up the difference). Are these people too stupid to understand what they need to survive, so they can't find work for higher wages? Or, is it about supply and demand (which are economic in nature, and can be politically manipulated) of workers (when supply of workers is low, wage offerings rise (North Dakota; McD's pre-Recession), and when supply of workers is high, wage offerings don't rise, or are reduced)? In some of these discussions on economics, workers, and wages, I've sensed that some measure of blame and scorn is being heaped upon workers for daring to ask for higher wages. There are insinuations that low-wage/minimum-wage employees are lazy, unskilled, have little to nothing to offer an employer, that it's their own fault they're getting low pay, and any complaints they might make are tantamount to "whining." I find that there's a bit of a double standard when conservative economists and their fellow travelers talk about the struggles of running a business and how Big Gov keeps coming in and messing with private business, yet they fail to show any sympathy or respect for working stiffs. Hell, on a societal level, I see more respect given to welfare recipients than to McDonald's or Wal-Mart employees, so I have to ask: When did all this unabashed, brazen hatred for working people start? Low skill workers are, to a degree, to be blamed for their low level of skill. Teens just coming into the job market aren't exactly to blame for not having higher levels of skill since they haven't necessarily had jobs where more skills are gained. And, that's where minimum wage jobs usually come into play. As that kid gains job skills, he/she will move into better paying jobs that he/she now has the skills for. There are people who haven't taken the time to gain the job skills necessary for them to merit a higher wage. Why should those people get a higher wage than what the job calls for? quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri All of that is true enough. And, that some people are content with being taken care of cradle to grave, is beyond dumb, in my opinion. But, that's my opinion, and they don't have to agree with it. That it's happened in the past and that there are a lot of people okay with it won't get me to stop, though. I'm going to continue to push for a limited Federal Government. I don't think people are taken care of cradle to grave in this country. That's an exaggeration, and it fails to take into consideration the historical chain of events and circumstances which led to many of the social programs which are viewed scornfully in conservative /economist circles. There are reasons why the West didn't fall into revolution and/or dictatorship, while certain Central and Eastern European countries did. Our social programs and liberal reforms might seem "dumb" when one looks at economics from an isolated business model of workers, their skills, and what wages they're supposedly "worth" to the business owner. But looking at the bigger picture, history has shown that moderate reforms in the West maintained political stability and some measure of harmony in society, at least enough that we haven't plunged into anarchy or full-blown revolution - not yet, anyway. Maintaining political stability and balance in society is, in my opinion, actually pretty smart. It doesn't mean a "womb to tomb" Nanny State or anything like that (since that can also be counterproductive to maintaining political stability if pushed too far). It doesn't even mean anyone has to be a bleeding heart or compassionate. We don't have to be compassionate if it offends our business community so much. All we have to be is sensible, smart, and logical. What we need are fewer bean counters and more statesmen. Some want to abdicate personal responsibility for themselves. That's a problem. Yes, it was hyperbole, for now, but it's not that far off. We have generational welfare families who are perfectly content to stay on welfare and their kids are more likely to reflect the same attitudes. That's an issue, imo. Our social programs and reforms aren't necessarily dumb, but wanting to live your life off them indefinitely certainly strikes me that way. Having a social safety net is a good thing. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A "Limited Government" is one that is limited only to those laws that are necessary and proper in exercising it's duties according to a "Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution." That's as exact as it's going to get. If that doesn't satisfy you, I recommend a Snickers bar. It's still not all that exact, though, since "necessary and proper" leaves a lot open to interpretation. For every government agency and program out there today, someone at some point had to have argued that it was "necessary and proper" and make it convincing enough to become law which has passed Constitutional muster. That's what we have right now, under the same basic system and mechanisms of government originally implemented by our Founding Fathers. Is there some law or amendment to the Constitution which can be proposed to bring us back to a "limited government" which would satisfy a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. Is it just a matter of changing our interpretation, or does the Constitution itself have to be changed in order to realize the goal you seek? I know it's not all that exact. That was my point, and that's not acceptable - as yet - to Joether. That's not my problem, but his. The problem we have run into is in the altering of definitions and meanings of words within the Constitution. To get back to a limited government under a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution doesn't require an Amendment, but a reverting back to the original intent and meanings of the words used. The only reason an Amendment could be useful, is in defining the oft-reinterpreted words.

mnottertail -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 6:48:04 AM)
The original meanings of the words in the constitution are substantially, without let nor hinderance, the same meanings as they are used today. The intent of those words is not solely in the federalist papers, nor anywhere else for that matter, those are only the views of a few of the participants. Sorta like the teaxxxxxx has views on what the constitution says and should be interpreted as, which do not coincide with other republican factions, nor democratic ones. Even in those days.

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 10:31:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Institute a price ceiling and then make them prove it's penalizing them unfairly (in this situation, I don't think this could even be considered a fair penalty as there is no reason for it to be penalized in the first place). The reason for penalizing them in the first place is because the costs are too high and people are going bankrupt due to medical bills. And their billing and pricing system is clearly too convoluted that we can’t answer why an MRI is much cheaper in Germany or why it costs so much for a hospital to dispense a single tablet of Tylenol. Is that not reason enough? quote: Low skill workers are, to a degree, to be blamed for their low level of skill. I don’t think that would be a fair assessment, but even if it was, that still doesn’t justify the level of scorn and ridicule they’ve received (both in society at large as well as in various threads I’ve seen in this forum). At the very least, people should be able to tell the difference between those who work and those who don’t work. quote: Teens just coming into the job market aren't exactly to blame for not having higher levels of skill since they haven't necessarily had jobs where more skills are gained. And, that's where minimum wage jobs usually come into play. As that kid gains job skills, he/she will move into better paying jobs that he/she now has the skills for. It’s not just the matter of job skills either. Some of it also comes down to experience and character. A low-skilled worker might still be valued for their reliability, attendance, honesty, work ethic, while a high-skilled worker might be some kind of prima donna who thinks he can work whenever he feels like it. There’s an old saying that an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. Maybe it’s time to get back to the basics and not to thrive on abstract theories and stale ideologies. quote: There are people who haven't taken the time to gain the job skills necessary for them to merit a higher wage. Why should those people get a higher wage than what the job calls for? Then that brings us back to the question of “true costs” and what is the wage that the job calls for. If it’s decided that the salary for a doctor should be $100k per year, then (regarding those doctors earning $250k) I could just as easily ask: Why should those people get a higher wage than what the job calls for? And who actually decides what the job calls for anyway? On another side note, people who work at low-wage jobs oftentimes have an equal or even lower standard of living than those on welfare, food stamps – or otherwise not working and contributing to society. I could also ask, why should those people (who don’t work) earn as much money as people who do work? Shouldn’t those people who actually work and contribute to society earn more and live better than those who don’t work? So, to answer your question “Why should those people get a higher wage than what the job calls for,” it’s because people who work deserve to get more money than those who don’t work. To reward people for not working while delivering scorn, ridicule, and blame upon those who do work has only served to undermine the work ethic in this country. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Some want to abdicate personal responsibility for themselves. That's a problem. Yes, it was hyperbole, for now, but it's not that far off. We have generational welfare families who are perfectly content to stay on welfare and their kids are more likely to reflect the same attitudes. That's an issue, imo. Our social programs and reforms aren't necessarily dumb, but wanting to live your life off them indefinitely certainly strikes me that way. Having a social safety net is a good thing. It’s a little more complicated than the issue of personal responsibility. As far as abdicating personal responsibility is concerned, that’s a far greater problem at the top levels of society than at the bottom. Welfare families are generational because, as a society, we’ve given more dignity to those collecting welfare than to people who mop floors or flip burgers. I think it’s an unfortunate downside of human nature that people often don’t want to take personal responsibility for themselves or their actions. I see this all the time, frankly, even among professionals who are so high-paid because of their revered “skills.” It has nothing to do with how smart or how dumb someone might be, but more a matter of character and work ethic – things that one doesn’t usually get in school. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I know it's not all that exact. That was my point, and that's not acceptable - as yet - to Joether. That's not my problem, but his. The problem we have run into is in the altering of definitions and meanings of words within the Constitution. To get back to a limited government under a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution doesn't require an Amendment, but a reverting back to the original intent and meanings of the words used. The only reason an Amendment could be useful, is in defining the oft-reinterpreted words. Could you give me an example or two of the kinds of words you’re referring to? The reason I ask is because, the problem that you brought up addressed in the article in the OP is about the “Administrative State” and how Congress has yielded too much authority to Executive Branch agencies which are unaccountable to the people. It seems to me that, in order to fix the problem outlined here, there would need to be some systemic and structural changes within the government itself, things that might require an amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise, what else can be done, other than tell the politicians, judges, and lawyers of this land to change their interpretations and definitions of words? I can understand the need for precision in language, and I think they do try, although perhaps they can go a bit overboard with the legalese at times.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 2:15:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Institute a price ceiling and then make them prove it's penalizing them unfairly (in this situation, I don't think this could even be considered a fair penalty as there is no reason for it to be penalized in the first place). The reason for penalizing them in the first place is because the costs are too high and people are going bankrupt due to medical bills. And their billing and pricing system is clearly too convoluted that we can’t answer why an MRI is much cheaper in Germany or why it costs so much for a hospital to dispense a single tablet of Tylenol. Is that not reason enough? No, that is not reason enough. Penalize the providers and you are blaming them for all that, when they may not be to blame for all that. Some could make an argument that Federal regulations and intrusions are behind much of the high costs, so penalizing providers certainly isn't proper. quote: quote: Low skill workers are, to a degree, to be blamed for their low level of skill. I don’t think that would be a fair assessment, but even if it was, that still doesn’t justify the level of scorn and ridicule they’ve received (both in society at large as well as in various threads I’ve seen in this forum). At the very least, people should be able to tell the difference between those who work and those who don’t work. Low skill workers don't deserve scorn or ridicule. Period. It is a fair assessment that if they do not have anything but the minimum of skills, there has to be a reason, and that certainly does include choices they themselves have made. If Joe Schmuckatelli doesn't want to hire a kid because of the profanity that comes out of the kid's mouth, who's to blame for his not getting that first job from Joe? Obviously, some blame does rest on that kid for his actions. quote: quote: Teens just coming into the job market aren't exactly to blame for not having higher levels of skill since they haven't necessarily had jobs where more skills are gained. And, that's where minimum wage jobs usually come into play. As that kid gains job skills, he/she will move into better paying jobs that he/she now has the skills for. It’s not just the matter of job skills either. Some of it also comes down to experience and character. A low-skilled worker might still be valued for their reliability, attendance, honesty, work ethic, while a high-skilled worker might be some kind of prima donna who thinks he can work whenever he feels like it. There’s an old saying that an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. Maybe it’s time to get back to the basics and not to thrive on abstract theories and stale ideologies. Loyalty, though, is something that needs to be developed. I have tended to work at places I liked, and preferred. When my stint at my sales job ended, I had opportunities to go to competitors (beyond my one-year do not compete clause), but chose to not pursue them because I didn't like those companies. quote: quote: There are people who haven't taken the time to gain the job skills necessary for them to merit a higher wage. Why should those people get a higher wage than what the job calls for? Then that brings us back to the question of “true costs” and what is the wage that the job calls for. If it’s decided that the salary for a doctor should be $100k per year, then (regarding those doctors earning $250k) I could just as easily ask: Why should those people get a higher wage than what the job calls for? And who actually decides what the job calls for anyway? Bingo! The employer decides how much that employee's production is worth. If a hospital decides a Dr. is worth $250k, then that Dr. is worth $250k, not $100k. I'll attend to the rest of your post later. I gotta go at the moment.

mnottertail -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 2:19:44 PM)
So, the man who labors is at the mercy of the government subsidized (in every fashion) capital?

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 7:07:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri No, that is not reason enough. Penalize the providers and you are blaming them for all that, when they may not be to blame for all that. Some could make an argument that Federal regulations and intrusions are behind much of the high costs, so penalizing providers certainly isn't proper. If that's the argument they would make, then it should be pretty easy for them to prove, shouldn't it? They wouldn't be penalized if they would just come clean and be honest about how they arrive at their pricing figures and what they think services and occupations are worth. If they do things above-board and honestly, they shouldn't have anything to worry about. quote: Low skill workers don't deserve scorn or ridicule. Period. It is a fair assessment that if they do not have anything but the minimum of skills, there has to be a reason, and that certainly does include choices they themselves have made. If Joe Schmuckatelli doesn't want to hire a kid because of the profanity that comes out of the kid's mouth, who's to blame for his not getting that first job from Joe? Obviously, some blame does rest on that kid for his actions. If the kid is a super genius who could've made Joe a million dollars, then Joe would have to be a pretty bad businessman to not hire him for that reason. I don't think it's a fair assessment to judge someone solely based on the job they hold without at least having some background knowledge about the individual. You say "there has to be a reason," but how do you know what the reason is? How do you know it's due to choices they made? quote: Loyalty, though, is something that needs to be developed. I have tended to work at places I liked, and preferred. When my stint at my sales job ended, I had opportunities to go to competitors (beyond my one-year do not compete clause), but chose to not pursue them because I didn't like those companies. It doesn't appear that loyalty is as valued in the business world as it once was. Gone are the days that people would begin and end their careers with the same company and stay for decades. quote: Bingo! The employer decides how much that employee's production is worth. If a hospital decides a Dr. is worth $250k, then that Dr. is worth $250k, not $100k. Yes, but as we discussed above, the hospital is also deciding how much an MRI is worth and how much it costs for a single tablet of Tylenol. If they're making these kinds of arbitrary and frivolous decisions while people's lives and America's fiscal health hang in the balance, then isn't that something we should be looking at? We were examining the issue of "true costs," but how do we arrive at that figure if we simply concede that it's "whatever the hospital decides"?

joether -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/13/2013 7:40:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Limited Government? The thing that you cant define, right? You did say that a few pages back, DS. I seem to recall asking you to define it in real and exact terms. An you could not deliver on that question. You're right. I can't define it in exact terms. There is no exactitude when it comes to government. Plus, as the needs of the nation change, the size of government should change. Thirteen States vs. 50 States means the Federal Government has to be larger to exercise it's authorities for the Nation. A growing population might also cause an increase. You tell a bunch of people you can build them a bridge so that the flow of goods and people can cross a chasm in a much easier and efficient manner. So the people ask "Ok, what are your plans for this bridge?" is rather fair to state. When you come back with "well, I can not define it in an exact way, you'll just have to trust me". Unfortunately, I've known TO MANY CONSERVATIVES whom don't have a dime of knowledge on anything more technical then a cereal box. When you come back and say essentially the same thing, why should I or anyone else take you seriously? You want this 'Limited Government' yet can not define it in any real way. How do we know once we have it? We don't! According to you. So why should we seek, create, forge, or build that which can not be define in any 'real world terms'? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do you understand the phrase Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution? Yes its code for "us conservative will take the country over by force and set the document as we decide". Which will either result in a Theocracy or a Dictatorship (or both) before long. You forget that not EVERYONE in the country wants that concept. A 'conservative' understanding of the 2nd amendment has been shown to ignore the first half of the amendment and corrupt the hell out of the second half. The end result looks nothing like the original intent of the amendment. Want to try that with the 4th or 8th amendments? What would happen if we ignored the first half of the 8th amendment and corrupted the second half. Do you even know what the 8th amendment is about BEFORE looking it up? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A "Limited Government" is one that is limited only to those laws that are necessary and proper in exercising it's duties according to a "Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution." You can not define "Limited Government' and now you want things define as 'A Conservative Interpretation of the US Constitution'? You cant even define that EITHER! So why should Americas jump onto a band wagon that is not fully define? Since I have no reason what is exactly define as 'limited government' and/or 'conservative interpretation of the US Constitution', then its fair to throw both things out. You and others bash the ACA without reading the damn law and want it removed (and its spelled out in black. white and defined). By your own 'logic', we should throw out 'limited government' and 'conservative interpretation of the US Constitution' as both have LESS material than the ACA. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's as exact as it's going to get. If that doesn't satisfy you, I recommend a Snickers bar. You made an argument and then run and hide when someone challenges you on the specifics. I got a chuckle with that 'junior high school' comment at the end. That is rather typical of the conservative mentality these days you do realize? It states volumes that you have no really stopped and tried to define either concept. That they are just buzz words or sound bits. Neither of which holds up to scrutiny or investigation very long. I have asked you to define 'Limited Government' several times now. Is it seriously THAT hard to define?

Icarys -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 12:54:24 AM)
How about eliminating NSA spying on American citizens. closing down all over sea bases. Eliminating federal income tax. Ending the Fed. closing numerous agencies. That's just for starters. DS probably knew throwing out ideas would just give you a path to attack lol.. that's what you wanted right? Anyway start with those. those alone would fix a lot of financial problems caused by government. Of course you probably think we can continue to print money our economy doesn't have which just pile debt onto every American alive at present and next generations as well.... maybe the real question is wtf do YOU think we should cut limit.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 6:25:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 On another side note, people who work at low-wage jobs oftentimes have an equal or even lower standard of living than those on welfare, food stamps – or otherwise not working and contributing to society. I could also ask, why should those people (who don’t work) earn as much money as people who do work? Shouldn’t those people who actually work and contribute to society earn more and live better than those who don’t work? So, to answer your question “Why should those people get a higher wage than what the job calls for,” it’s because people who work deserve to get more money than those who don’t work. To reward people for not working while delivering scorn, ridicule, and blame upon those who do work has only served to undermine the work ethic in this country. I disagree that we should raise the minimum wage because it provides a lower standard of living than those on welfare. IMO, it's a perverse thought for one to choose welfare over work, even if it will provide a better standard of living. Welfare increases are significantly more limited than work wage increases. Please note that this applies to those who have the ability and capability to actually have a choice between work or welfare. Those who do not have the capacity to work should be provided for via charity and/or welfare. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Some want to abdicate personal responsibility for themselves. That's a problem. Yes, it was hyperbole, for now, but it's not that far off. We have generational welfare families who are perfectly content to stay on welfare and their kids are more likely to reflect the same attitudes. That's an issue, imo. Our social programs and reforms aren't necessarily dumb, but wanting to live your life off them indefinitely certainly strikes me that way. Having a social safety net is a good thing. It’s a little more complicated than the issue of personal responsibility. As far as abdicating personal responsibility is concerned, that’s a far greater problem at the top levels of society than at the bottom. Welfare families are generational because, as a society, we’ve given more dignity to those collecting welfare than to people who mop floors or flip burgers. I think it’s an unfortunate downside of human nature that people often don’t want to take personal responsibility for themselves or their actions. I see this all the time, frankly, even among professionals who are so high-paid because of their revered “skills.” It has nothing to do with how smart or how dumb someone might be, but more a matter of character and work ethic – things that one doesn’t usually get in school. Please note that I am not calling anyone "dumb." There are plenty of smart people who have chosen to rely on the social welfare system. They aren't dumb, but, IMO, their decision is dumb. The programs aren't dumb. The people aren't necessarily dumb. The choosing to rely on it, though, is dumb (again, this implies that there is a choice to be made between working and welfare) quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I know it's not all that exact. That was my point, and that's not acceptable - as yet - to Joether. That's not my problem, but his. The problem we have run into is in the altering of definitions and meanings of words within the Constitution. To get back to a limited government under a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution doesn't require an Amendment, but a reverting back to the original intent and meanings of the words used. The only reason an Amendment could be useful, is in defining the oft-reinterpreted words. Could you give me an example or two of the kinds of words you’re referring to? The reason I ask is because, the problem that you brought up addressed in the article in the OP is about the “Administrative State” and how Congress has yielded too much authority to Executive Branch agencies which are unaccountable to the people. It seems to me that, in order to fix the problem outlined here, there would need to be some systemic and structural changes within the government itself, things that might require an amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise, what else can be done, other than tell the politicians, judges, and lawyers of this land to change their interpretations and definitions of words? I can understand the need for precision in language, and I think they do try, although perhaps they can go a bit overboard with the legalese at times. "General Welfare of the United States" "Interstate Commerce"

mnottertail -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 6:34:35 AM)
I disagree that we should raise the minimum wage because it provides a lower standard of living than those on welfare. So, given the choice people would go to welfare. IMO, it's a perverse thought for one to choose welfare over work, even if it will provide a better standard of living. Except nobody cares about your personal morality, they will do what is in their better interests. Welfare increases are significantly more limited than work wage increases. Certainly not. They get cola. When was the last cola for the minimum wage? (here is a hint: never)

mnottertail -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 6:36:01 AM)
Why the fuck are we masturbating over a minimum wage raise? How about we take the defense budget and half it?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625