Jump to content
John--As before with Eric, we agree, DC has taken on humongous debt and the jig is up--just a matter of when it hits the fan. My earlier comment was only wrt minimum wage increases. I am guessing you recall the late 70's into the early 80's. My sense is then wage increases chased the price of goods, as we came out of the Nixon and Carter price controls--COWPS, et al. But I do not claim infallibility. I realize now, in trying to avoid the more esoteric money supply discussion I ran afoul of you Austrian economists! Give me a C- for participation!
Of course, we are sitting on a huge inflationary time-bomb! Question ain't if but when. Obviously I made a simplistic point in re minimum wage legislation only. As Carl points out below, such regularly militate against entry level workers.
Yes, Martha! This is another obvious example of the problems with amending the CO constitution via narrowly represented constituencies. Continuing on this path we are simply allowing the legislature to no do its job.
Any wage increase without a corresponding increase in productivity is by definition inflationary.
Suggestion Scott, read the law. My understanding is that the only folks who can share tips are front of the house who by the nature of their jobs interact with customers.
Moving from Tim and Bob, has anyone done sufficient study to be able to say the similar accomplishments and mistakes for our candidates for US Senator?
Lock--My apologies first for stepping in to this conversation. How many doctors have you talked with about their data keeping requirements? Your position is that the docs big problem is with the info for the insurance companies. Have you studied that? I suggest the bigger, growing faster and showing no signs of not growing, is the data keeping requirements for our friends in DC! Any doc accepting ACA, Medicare and Medicaid has the Fed's data keeping requirements imposed upon them. My thought is that is why docs are leaving the government system so they are not burdened with those requirements. Any data you have to the contrary would be appreciated.
BTW, I agree with Michael, CoCa must show somehow that it will be able to operate more effectively and efficiently than the insurers. UHC has 70 million insured. Economic scale mitigates against CoCa being able to operate at the same cost level, even if one rises above the challenges of getting a government bureauacracy operating at the cost level of a competitve enterprise.
I suggest that the problem is that there is no consistently applied prudent process that ALL can depend upon. Some believe we have rules, only to learn that there are RULES and then that there are rules!
To those of you who are not in favor, I assume you all have received your 2016 State Ballot Information Booklet--runs to 100 pages almost--and have read it completely and have then gone to the many websites, sources of information on each, and studied them--say minimum of 10 hours, and more likely 20? My guess is the vast majority of folks 99% plus will not read the booklet, nor will they do any real research but will get their info from newspaper editorials, ala Bill and this paper here. So, I fail to see how having an up or down vote on so many proposed amendments yields an informed outcome! With the plethora of (no not pinatas) of amendments I believe we are (a) letting the Legislature off the hook (same thing happens here regularly with City Council) and (b) ending with a bunch of amendments that should never ever been in the State Constitution but rather should be laws, passed and changed via normal legislative processes. Amendments 69, 70 and 72 should never be in a Constitution for the simple reason that they obviously will need to be changed in the near future should they be passed. All Founders struggled with how best to balance the potential of an uninformed majority versus a vulnerable minority, as well as the big city influence vs the country-side. I note that many early states placed their capitals not in the big cities as one attempt to minimize the influence of the major population centers.
Scott--I believe I was only asking questions of you since your were doing the research; I do not think my questions were criticisms. I thank you for providing answers which appear to confirm that there are four different entities. I would guess that there are multiple different tax entities for Mr. Trump also, and that he retains competent tax attorneys just like the Clintons to arrange his finances. Unless all of the tax reporting entities returns are filed, then maybe one could work hard enough to find something--if that what you are suggesting? So, sure one can nitpick, but to what end? Trump wasn't in political office. If there is a problem with his returns, I feel sure the IRS will tell him. Our tax system is a basket of deplorable! Cheers.
Last login: yesterday
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |