I gave it and more to the waiter.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443020]You are not required to pay that, and are free to refuse, and should. Let them raise prices if they want, but that "surcharge" bullshit is just political whining.[/QUOTE]
Printable View
I gave it and more to the waiter.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443020]You are not required to pay that, and are free to refuse, and should. Let them raise prices if they want, but that "surcharge" bullshit is just political whining.[/QUOTE]
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez and his parents were most likely supporters of the Dictator Batista and were some of the 1%ers that could afford to leave Cuba.
The Cubans that were left behind; under Batista did not get free schooling and health care, as they do now. They had to work the fields of the rich.
Their Economy is in shambles, because of the Embargo. It is only hurting the Cuban people.
It's funny how our Government seem to support Dictators; in parts of the world; in Latin American and the Middle East.
It was embarrassing when I started traveling that I had to apologize for being an American. In Sweden I met a lady and some of her friends at a park. One guy told me he was going to Vietnam and kill Americans. I had to tell him that I did not vote for Nixon. After that when I traveled I just told people that I was from San Francisco or California.
I do miss Cuba.
Sorry, I meant to say Good Old White Republicans. Their new committees make up has one woman and one Latino.
Punter that sounds like an English phrase. Are you even an American?
[QUOTE=Punter127;443017]I hate to be the one to break it to you but Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez is a Cuban American Democrat from New Jersey, so he is not "white' nor is he from the south. It might also surprise you to know he has been a very strong supporter of Obama. However because he disagrees now you classify him a racist, how typical. Bigoted race baiters like you have played a huge role in the deteriorating race relations in the country. You and your ilk have help create a tender box that's flaming up nation wide with your hackneyed race accusations. IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Punter127;443023]Hmmm, no polemic against WT 69 from you for his statements?[/QUOTE]As his posts themselves generally constitute a better argument against his positions, I don't bother with polemics in his case. I mean, something like this: "The Good Old White boys Demos are also mad about what the black man wishes"? Does that really merit a polemic? My thinking is no. In your case there is a faint ray of hope, and I don't think the first part of your post came out the way you meant it to.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443009]I just had dinner, but had to pay on my dinner bill an extra 3% for their workers Heath Care, because the employer would not pay their employees Health Care.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443026]I gave it and more to the waiter.[/QUOTE]It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of business: All costs paid by any business are always passed on to the consumer.
I know that it's a liberal mantra that all business are fountains of money waiting to be tapped by saintly politicians to be righteously spent on "social justice" programs, said additional taxes to be magically absorbed by said businesses, but that's just not reality.
Case in point: The Obamacare tax on "Cadillac Plans". Obama told the unions that their members wouldn't have to pay the "Cadillac Tax" because the tax was to be paid by the insurance companies, but of course the insurance companies passed the cost of the tax onto the union policyholders.
This particular restaurant decided to add the Obamacare costs to the bill as a surcharge instead of raising all of their menu prices by 3%, but one way or another, the cost of providing health care to the employees is absolutely going to be passed onto the consumer. Period.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443009]They lied to Us.[/QUOTE]Do you mean like "[I]If you like your plan you can keep your plan. Period.[/I]"?
[QUOTE=Jackson;443029]It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of business: All costs paid by any business are always passed on to the consumer.
[/QUOTE]Ever take Economics 101? Remember the part about the popcorn stand? Your "fundamental axiom" is just not true.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443030]Ever take Economics 101? Remember the part about the popcorn stand? Your "fundamental axiom" is just not true.[/QUOTE]Nitpicking again.
I'll rephrase my comments: It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of all business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies): All costs paid by any business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies) are always passed on to the consumer.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443030]Ever take Economics 101? Remember the part about the popcorn stand? Your "fundamental axiom" is just not true.[/QUOTE]Is that the one where you spit out the kernels as part of the "trickle down" theory?
[QUOTE=Doggboy;443031]Is that the one where you spit out the kernels as part of the "trickle down" theory?[/QUOTE]No, "trickle down" theory is when the entrepreneur running the popcorn stand makes a profit and then uses it to buy a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th popcorn stand, thus hiring more employees himself, and motivating the popcorn supplier and the manufacturer of said popcorn stands to hire more employees, etc. etc. etc.
Somehow, the liberal media has cast this phenomenon as something evil, I guess because it only rewards those who work hard.
Thanks,
Jax.
[QUOTE=Jackson;443032]Nitpicking again.
I'll rephrase my comments: It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of all business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies): All costs paid by any business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies) are always passed on to the consumer.[/QUOTE]Nope, sorry. You're wrong. I know you hate it when that happens. The relative concept to the popcorn stand is "perfect competition." In perfect competition, the business [B]cannot pass on increases in its costs[/B] to the consumer, and profits get driven towards the cost of capital. Most competition is "imperfect," and that means that businesses can indeed pass on [B]some, but not all[/B] of their cost increases. The extent to which they can do so is called the "excess burden of a tax." Only when the market becomes close to monopolistic, can business pass anywhere close to "all" their cost increases on to the customer. This is true with or without subsidies. Subsidies can act to move market conditions towards monopoly and away from perfect competition, but only in an absolute and unregulated monopoly would your statement be true, and even then it would only be true if you assume infinite effective aggregate demand, which is pretty unrealistic.
Think about it. If what you said were even remotely true, competition would not affect prices.
[QUOTE=Jackson;443033]No, "trickle down" theory is when the entrepreneur running the popcorn stand makes a profit and then uses it to buy a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th popcorn stand, thus hiring more employees himself, and motivating the popcorn supplier and the manufacturer of said popcorn stands to hire more employees, etc. etc. etc.
Somehow, the liberal media has cast this phenomenon as something evil, I guess because it only rewards those who work hard.
Thanks,
Jax.[/QUOTE]My fault Jackson. I had the popcorn stand confused with the jelly bean stand...
Trickle-down economics is associated with tax breaks (or we can just call them targeted reductions) for the wealthy, or for corporations, to stimulate job and business creation (and capital spending as well), and eventually everyone else will (allegedly) benefit. An example would be accelerated depreciation. Another example would be low-income housing tax credits. Trickle-down is a subset of supply-side economics. Both supply-side and demand-side economic stimulation can be effective. I am more a demand-sider or Keynesian not for any particular philosophical reason, but because both my research and my experience tell me demand side economics works more quickly. That's even leaving out the fact that I haven't seen very much trickle, and what I have seen hasn't trickled very far.
Handjobs for the homeless, vote for Spanky.
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isqj49WkoTg[/URL]
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443034]Nope, sorry. You're wrong. I know you hate it when that happens. The relative concept to the popcorn stand is "perfect competition." In perfect competition, the business [B]cannot pass on increases in its costs[/B] to the consumer, and profits get driven towards the cost of capital. Most competition is "imperfect," and that means that businesses can indeed pass on [B]some, but not all[/B] of their cost increases. The extent to which they can do so is called the "excess burden of a tax." Only when the market becomes close to monopolistic, can business pass anywhere close to "all" their cost increases on to the customer. This is true with or without subsidies. Subsidies can act to move market conditions towards monopoly and away from perfect competition, but only in an absolute and unregulated monopoly would your statement be true, and even then it would only be true if you assume infinite effective aggregate demand, which is pretty unrealistic.
Think about it. If what you said were even remotely true, competition would not affect prices.[/QUOTE]Very enlightening.
You could always take off the jelly shell, eat the inside and trickle down the shell.
Wait, or is that hand me down?
[QUOTE=Doggboy;443035]My fault Jackson. I had the popcorn stand confused with the jelly bean stand...[/QUOTE]
From the BBC:
Mr Rubio said he didn't care if "99% of people in polls" disagreed with his stance, a message that could resonate in Florida, the traditional home of the Cuban exile community but also a state that is increasingly becoming more diverse and less dominated by Cuban affairs.
Mr Rubio told CNN on Wednesday he reserved the right "to do everything within the rules of the Senate to prevent that sort of individual from ever even coming up for a vote," referring to the confirmation process for ambassadors in relation to Cuba.
Isn't this type of behavior and attitude similar to what we accuse Obama of doing to the detriment of the country?
Of course we children of the sixties grew up reading "Profiles in Courage" in the 5th and 6th grades where this type of behavior was celebrated.