Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let use another example. Let's say you go to Disney World once a year, every year regardless of how much it costs. If there were a new attraction at DW that was going to guarantee a twofold increase in attendance, making the experience more like trying to get on a NY subway at rush hour, but all day long, would you pay a higher admission to avoid that?
Regardless of the reasons for the increase in demand for a product, sometimes you owe it to those who enjoy a product to keep it enjoyable, even if those people have to pay more. Either way, the people who have a hard time paying the xtra money will be unhappy, either in the cost or the crowded situation.
We used to go to WDW every other year, at a minimum, but the costs have gone up so much that we are lucky to go once in 5 or 10 years now. The reasons are that it is still a great place to go for vacation, especially now that we have grandkids.
Let use another example. Let's say you go to Disney World once a year, every year regardless of how much it costs. If there were a new attraction at DW that was going to guarantee a twofold increase in attendance, making the experience more like trying to get on a NY subway at rush hour, but all day long, would you pay a higher admission to avoid that?
since the only "new attraction" at mar a lago is trump's presidency your analogy supports the claim that they are exploiting the office of the presidency by increasing fees for potential access to the president.
since the only "new attraction" at mar a lago is trump's presidency your analogy supports the claim that they are exploiting the office of the presidency by increasing fees for potential access to the president.
And if they lowered fees you would hail it as proof that nobody liked Trump.
The people of the United States pay him a salary to work. Does he have to nickel and dime us to death also?
Seems he expenses the air he breathes, where he craps, where he sleeps and every other function of daily living back to us.
We provide him with full facilities at taxpayer expense for his daily living. All other presidents have never had a problem with the tax payer funded facilities we provide for the president, except Trump.
He's not taking his salary but I know that was underreported by the media .
It costs a lot to protect the President and his family . A lot was spent on the Obamas too .
Every time Trump goes everywhere liberals are so upset about it.. but they thought it was so cute when Obama would go to Hawaii and the photo ops of the Obamas playing on the beach
Those Obama vacations cost $100 Million
You vote for a moneymaker and one of your hopes is that he can also make the country prosper. I'm sure he didn't run for President hoping to fill more Mar-A-Lago rooms by doing so.
And if they lowered fees you would hail it as proof that nobody liked Trump.
i'd have hailed it as proof that the membership fees were previously overvalued.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
