Todd#43

Yeah...I'm you're aware this isnt the only place I've been running my mouth Ummm, dude? You live in Waynesfield? Hello????

I'd like to see a cage match between Tebow and Obama. Hell, I'd even get that on PPV. Maybe throw in Immadinnerjacket or whatever his name is as a "guest referee"?

I've got a couple of expired OH ones too...guessing the CA plate wouldn't be much better....lol. +1 for creativity, and +1,000,000 solely because it came from a Junkie. Usually you guys aren't that creative. I called the NY State Police, and they said that wasn't good enough, although he did say you could "probably" talk yourself out of a ticket with it. Ohio said the same thing. Both, however, suggested that I use the dudes plate that owns the trailer, or find another plate to put on it for the trip Anyway, I scored a plate. All is good. Thanks for the help.

What difference does it make WHY they're losing customers? They're trying to make up a revenue shortfall by raising the rates. They're the only game in town for moving a piece of paper from one part of the country without any wired or wireless piece of technology? Are you serious???? I send a lot of documents (sometimes one piece of paper) overnight to virtually anywhere in the world via UPS and FEDEX. Honestly, they're the only game in town for first class mail because they have a monopoly. We're not investors? WTF? Did you forget about the $3.0 Billion that the Gov't. gives them every year? Some of that money came from everyone in the country that pays taxes. Why the losses happened are certainly obvious, but again they arent the point. I commend the USPS for attempting to offset the losses, but its a case of too little too late in my opinion. According to their own press release (http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_066.htm) they've posted a net loss 11 out of the last 12 quarters. Not a company that's trending in the correct direction. Where am I getting the $7.0 billion number? I got it right here (second to last paragraph): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090203463.html Oddly enough they got the information from a USPS Press Release. I never said that gov't agencies are not immune to economic down turns. My point is how they deal with the down turn. Typically private enterprise will look for ways to reduce cost, improve the product, etc. The gov't sector's first effort is almost always to raise the price. It happens with the USPS when volume drops, it happens with Public Transportation when ridership drops, hell, it even happens in Cleveland with the water department because people aren't using enough water. The gov't. model has always been to raise prices for the end user when they are faced with a revenue shortfall. Again, the reason why isn't important. Its the "how" that matters here. It has been shown (11 of the last 12 quarters) that the postal service cannot become self sufficient my merely raising rates. The amount of mail being mailed continues to decrease, and the price to do it keeps going up while the losses mount. What part of that don't you get? Do you really think that gov't is the only entity that spends a large portion of its annual budget on R&D? I've got news for you, skippy, for every product that goes to market and is ulitmately successful there are a multitude of products that never see the light of day. You cite a couple of examples of things the government has funded, but I can assure you that the private sector does their share. How do I know this? I've been there - I've seen it with my own eyes, touched it, been involved with it. Oh wait, that's anecdotal evidence - it doesn't prove anything. My bad So, its ok with you that the gov't "bailing" out a newspaper? Cool. It's ok with you that could potentially give them "state run" media? Cool again. Personally, its not cool to me. ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, CBS are private companies - if they want to promote an agenda I'm totally cool with that. I understand that. If people don't like it, they dont have to watch. If people dont watch, advertisers wont spend money, if advertisers dont spend money the enterprise will fail, and something else will replace it. THAT'S THE WAY OUR SYSTEM WORKS. Of course, it also tramples the First Amendment, but hey, that's not important, right? HR3200 doesn't include a public option, or the draft in the senate finance committee doesnt include a public option, or Obama's wet dream that he presented a couple of weeks ago doesnt have a public option? It seems to me that most of the plans include some type of gov't funded "option". How we will all end up on it differs from "plan" to "plan" but that's not important. What it said in the poll was: "Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats." Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Just because illiegals only account for 4% of the population doesn't mean their Health Care costs (direct and indirect) account 4% of what we spend on health care. That statement is oversimplification at its finest. I'm not really following your math. Let me see if I have this straight. The US GDP is $13.8 Trillion, right? Health Care accounts for 14% to 16% of that number (depending on who you listen to) or about $2.0 Trillion 5% of $2.0 Trillion is $100.0 Billion, not $600 Billion. So, ummmm....what's the point you're trying to make here? Percentages are relative for your argument with the post office, but not relative with respect to health care? Gimme a break. I'm done discussing this with you. You've said the same tired shit for the last 5 posts.

Now, get me a trailer plate

Just a bit....lol. At least someone knows what it means

Quick one here - I'm going to Buffalo tomorrow to pick up a trailer, but I don't have a plate. The guy I'm buying from doesn't have a plate either. Anyone in NE Ohio willing to let me borrow a plate for a day?

They have lost customers - the amount of first class mail has decreased. They've bumped up the revenue by raising rates, not by improving the product or adding customers. And what would the profit (as a percentage of revenue) be without the subsidy? Lets see - 2009 revenue in $70.0 Billion range, $7.0 billion loss, thats NO profit. 2006's $0.9 Billion "profit" is less than 2% of revenue. If you were going to by stock in a company like that you'd be nuts. It hasn't worked. The only thing that has happened is they have increased revenue, and they haven't even increased the revenue in relation to the increase in the cost of the product. Look at the numbers - The cost of a stamp from 2006 to 2008 increased 8%, yet revenue only increased 3%, and the 1.3% profit of 2006 became a 4% loss in 2008. If you want to look at 2009 numbers it only gets WORSE. Please explain to me how this is "working". The trend is to have a higher through put of mail? Are you kidding me? That would be true if revenue had risen proportionally to the increase in price, but it hasn't. Please explain to me how you can increase the price of a product by 8% and only show a 3% increase in revenue and claim an increase in the amount of product sold? If the amount of product sold actually INCREASED the percentage of increase of revenue would have to be GREATER THAN the increase in the cost of the product. I never said that I was ok with the EPA or CARB. You're right they don't have anything to do with product safety. I'm not flip-flopping on anything. It would be ludicrous to think that we need no government or regulation. The question is how much, and in what areas. Its not an "all or nothing" thing. The specific question at hand is "how much should the government be involved" as it relates to the USPS and Newspapers specifically, and other private industries and companies in general. Personally, I believe that market forces, not the government, should determine which businesses are viable and which ones are not. So, my opinion is "grasping at straws"? Fine - you believe what you want to believe and I'll stick with my opinion until I've been shown otherwise. With the FCC and the Censorship board you assume that I approve of everything they do as well. When did I say that? Oh wait, that's your opinion - according to you, it doesn't mean shit. And watch them pass it in the "draft stage". Harry Reid has already thrown down the gauntlet and said they'll use reconcilliation to ram the draft through the senate. Nancy Pelosi has already said that nothing is going through without the Public Option. Who do you believe? GDP is far more accurate for a number of reasons. The main one is the amount we spend on health care also includes a large amount of money spent (directly and indirectly) on illegal aliens. As they are undocumented they skew the results of the per capita spending. To get an accurate picture of true "per capita" spending you either have add the number of illegals to the mix or take out the amount of money we spend (directly or indirectly) to provide them with health care. Naturally, they don't do that because the want to make it look worse than it really is. Oh wait they wouldn't use a "fact" in a misleading way, would they? If we look at the GDP we see that we only spend about 5% more than Switzerland, Germany, France, and Belgium. If 5% isn't much for the post office, why is it suddenly a HUGE amount now? Are you flip-flopping on that issue?

Raised prices, and remained profitable WITHOUT the subsidy? Wait, they're losing $7.0 BILLION this year WITH the subsidy. They LOST nearly $3.0 BILLION Last year, and LOST over $5.0 BILLION in 2007 all with the subsidy. How does that = profitability? We're not discussing Farm Subsidies here, punkin. They HAVE raised prices on a stamp because volume has decreased, which is counter productive to raising revenue in a declining market. Granted its not new - the government does it all the time. Please provide me an example of how it happens "all the time in business" and is successful. Ahhh.....like it happened with GM AND Chrysler? Maybe like it happened with Ford? Oh yeah, GM and Chrysler got Gov't money - welfare for the inept. Ford didnt take any - they seem to be doing all right. Yes, Bankruptcy or closing down is what happens to businesses that aren't profitable or sell a product that the majority of people DONT want. What is wrong with letting the market decide? Ahhh, you're putting words in my mouth. Certainly the postal service fills a need for a segment of the market - I don't believe I said that it needs to go away completely. They need to change their business model, or the method used to get the "product" to market. Maybe change the daily home delivery? Maybe make it only 3 days a week? Maybe you only deliver mail to people who are a certain distance away from the post office? I'm not going to refute anyones personal experience. Your experiences are your own. Obviously, other people have had the opposite experience (myself included). Lets take a look at some numbers, shall we? The median household income in Licking county is $58,000.00, and lets assume that the actual net is about 65% of that or $37,000.00. If the average savings rate (of disposable income) for the US is 5% you're left with $35,150.00 to "spend" every year. In Canada in addition to higher sales and use tax, the average person pays an additional $54.00 per month or $648.00 year. So, if we take an additional 7% of your $35,150.00 (the amount you "spend" every year) we get approximately $2,500.00. Now add the $648.00 we have a total of $3,148.00. I don't know how much you pay for insurance now, but I know what my employees pay - its about $120.00 per month for an individual, and $200.00 per month for a family ($1,440 to $2,400 annually) which is far less than the "cost" in Canada. There are other ways to reduce the costs of health care in the US that don't involve a "public option" and allow the market to determine the prices paid. Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, tort reform relative to malpractice awards, allowing small companies to pool their resources (if they so desire) to improve their purchasing power (like unions and large companies do), controlling immigration, etc. I don't think that most people will argue that there aren't problems with health care insurance and the associated costs in our country. The argument is about the best way to solve that issue. Personally, I don't believe that having the government run it is the incorrect way.

Go back before 2004, and look at the numbers. The only way they've managed to stay anywhere near a break even or a small profit (as a percentage of revenue) is to continue to raise rates. Lets not forget that the shortfall this year alone is going to be in the $7.0 Billion range. Having regulations relative to product safety is one thing. Telling someone who to hire, who to fire, what mode of transportation to take to a meeting, etc. is completely different. OWNING controlling interest in a company and giving part of it to a union (or anyone else for that matter) all at the cost of other bond holders is criminal, period. Again, you believe that if the government provides a "bailout" to a newspaper they wont exercise any editorial control over that product. I happen to disagree. However, the real point is if people want to buy a newspaper they'll buy it. If it isnt a product that the people want, they dont buy it. Its not the Government's responsibility to continue to prop up failing businesses. No, I know exactly what "majority means". Actually, I was referring to this poll: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform "Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed." Seriously? We went from insurance companies "caring" about their customers to a misanthropic employee spitting in people's drinks or rubbing their genitalia on a pizza? Apples and oranges my friend. Try again - dont you have a cartoon or something you can post here? http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm Just compare US cost per capita to Japan. Ok, so we spend more on health care than other countries? What's your point? We spend more on a lot of things than other countries. Its more realistic to compare health care costs as a percentage of GDP than as a per capita expenditure. IF you do that though, lets also take a look at why that percentage is high - use ALL the information, Comrade - not just the parts that serve your purpose.

Sorry, you need to quote something from KOS, and post a funny cartoon. You may remember that according to JRMMMiiii "anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient. Good job on the "teabagger" comment though. Next, you have to play the race card. At any rate, how much do Canadians pay in sales tax? Right now, its 13% in most provinces. I mean, they have to pay for all that "free" health care somehow, right? Ummm, look again my delusional friend. The USPS has shown INCREASES in revenue, even though the amount of first class mail has DECREASED. The only reason REVENUE has increased, is because they INCREASED the cost of the product to the consumer. Ummmm, please read EVERYTHING before you post. I've said on a number of occasions in this particular thread that THE AMOUNT OF MAIL BEING SENT HAS DECREASED YEARLY. (that's twice now in this post alone) This happens ALL THE TIME in the real world. Someone comes up with a better product (in this case the internet and email) and the inferior product (in this case, first class mail) continues to lose market share unless they find a way to keep people buying it. In the private sector this is done by improving the product, reducing the price, becoming more efficient in building the product, etc. In the Government sector they try to do the same thing by cutting services or raising rates to make up for the lost revenue. Usually this works until there isn't enough demand for the product and the government creates a new "tax" on everyone to pay for something that only a small percentage of the community wants. Wow...again with personal attacks.

That's how Bertha Lewis says "thanks". "Thanks for exposing some of the corruption in our organization - here's your lawsuit" This organization is a sham. They fight for a "living wage", then sue the state of CA in the hopes of not having to pay their workers minimum wage. They were also sued in MD for not paying workers. They sue banks for not giving enough loans to unqualified minorities, then scream about "predatory lending" The founder and former president of the organization gets caught up embezzling over $1,000,000.00 and ends up with a cozy job at an SEIU local (that just happens to have the same address as the "head" Acorn office?). Internal Over-sight committee recommends an independent audit of the books - those people are removed from the committee AND the organization. Come on - wake up people. The actions of this organization (that gets money from US) are indefensible. The FBI should begin an investigation now relative to the RICO statute.

Here's the latest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092404775.html? So, ACORN takes money from the "charitable" Non-Profit side and gave it to the political, lobbying side? Nice!

I don't have to read the articles presented to have an "intelligent" debate. I didn't reference them or cite them. Obviously. Again with the articles..... MY point is that the Gov't. owns a controlling interest in GM, they now have the opportunity to decide how GM is run, the same thing could happen with any other private entity that they decide needs to be "bailed out". Government control (in any form) of the press is a dangerous thing. Of course it worked pretty good in the USSR Freedom of the press (speech) doesn't have to be truthful? WTF are you talking about? Last time I checked, libel and slander are still a no-no. We also have "truth in advertising" laws and other ways to verify the veracity of someone's claims. The "gag" order here has nothing to do with "truth" or lies and everything to do with ramming something down our throats that the majority of people DONT want (according to the latest Rasmussen Poll on the subject) If you've got some examples, you should share them with the class. I've said it before and I'll say it again - whether a company "cares" about me as a "person" is immaterial. If I'm not getting the level of service that I want for the price I'm paying I'll take my business elsewhere. I own a business. I interact with customers on a daily basis. Those customers put money in my pocket and pay the salaries of my employees. Do I care about them as people? Nope. Surely, some of them are great folks, and some of them are real assholes but it doesn't change the price they pay or how I treat them in my business dealings. You'll have to explain yourself there. Its either too early in the moring, or I'm missing something.

Ummm....its the only game in town for several reasons. Probably the BIGGEST reason is that its not profitable for a private to MAKE A PROFIT when doing it. If it was as easy as raising rates to increase profit (which we know doesn't work) why does the USPS continue to lose money? The cost of health care INSURANCE isn't based on how many people get sick in a current year for christ sakes. If you bothered to look beyond the three years on the most recent financial statement you'd see that the subsidy hasnt changed giong back to 1991. Back then $3.0 billion was nearly 10% of the USPS's revenue. Its interesting to note that it cost $.29 for a stamp back then, and $.44 now. So, prices have increased proportionally to the increase in revenue, the subsidy has remained the same, and they stand to LOSE $7.0 Billion THIS YEAR. That 5% "bonus" they get from the Government? Take it away and you increase the loss by 50%. THAT is what I'm talking about. So, GM and Chrysler get $25 Billion in bailout money because they're "too big to fail" and have to restructure. The USPS has gotten $54 billion (since 1991) and they still cant be self supporting? Yeah, the gove't. knows ALL about running a "profitable" business.

I remember all of that. Is there a reason you think I approved of it then? It was wrong then, and its wrong now. If you want to believe that the government "asked" him to step down, that your prerogative. Frankly, since the Gov't. owns a controlling interest in GM they do have the right to promote their own "agenda". I mean, its really cool that the union sold out their retirees for a 39% stake in a company that builds a shitty product. Who said anything about "non profit" what you have is government control of the press. Ummm....hello, what about that silly First Amemndment"?? Oh that's right, the Gov't has taken control of private companies before, so what? If the newspaper isn't something people want to buy, let it go away. That's what the free market is all about - hey, wait - I can still buy and Edsel, right? Why can't Fox present the "news" with their "slant"? I mean, you don't really think that Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Chris "Obama sends shivers down my leg" Matthews are giving you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, do you? Bottom line? Private companies offer the product and/or services that give them the best opportunity to MAKE A PROFIT. THAT is their "agenda" What the fuck is wrong with that? Do you not have a job that pays you as much as you can make? Why should a company be any different. The issue here is that the government shouldn't have an "agenda" as it relates to operating what should be a "private enterprise" Of course insurance companies are "self serving". They are in business to generate a profit in order to pay dividends to the people that have purchased stock in their companies. I dont give a rats ass if a company I do business with "cares" about me as a "person". Provide me with your goods or services at a price that I'm willing to pay, or I'll go somewhere else with my money. Well, Obama said they're going to take $500 billion out of medicare payments to subsidize health care for "everyone". The Baucus Bill says it would only take $132 billion out of medicare to subsidize health care for "everyone". If Medicare already pays less to providers, and if they intend to pay even LESS going forward, it would seem to me that something has to give. Usually less money being paid means a reduction in services, or a reduction in quality. Cheap, fast or reliable - pick two. Nah...not tonight. I don't really worry about that - he already knows what to say to people like you. Besides, he's been in bed for over an hour. Football game tonight against Massillon. Funny, their little DIII School beat up on Massillon pretty good.

Silly boy, raising prices is NOT the way to raise revenue. Its an attempt to offset losses. As you raise prices, you diminish the number of people that would use your goods or services thereby REDUCING total revenue. Therefore, to increase revenue (and profit) you need to offer quality goods and services at a price people are willing to pay. Your operations need to be efficient in terms of how many people you employ and how you "do what you do" Simple, no? Unfortunately, the government doesn't work on those principles. Public Transportation ridership is down - raise fares to increase revenue! Fuck the people that ride the bus! Water consumption is down - raise water rates! People aren't smoking as much because we won't let them smoke anywhere - raise the tobacco tax. Show me one example of an "optional" government service that has REDUCED fees or rates to entice MORE people to use a particular service. You cant because it doesn't exist. Benefits costs for the postal service have risen for a number of reasons. Sure the cost of health care has gone up, but that's only a small part of the equation. Buy outs and early retirements in 2007 and 2008 caused a disproportionate increases in the health care costs for the USPS (retirees cost more than employees). I'm sure YOUR health care costs didn't increase six fold over the course of a year - don't blame this one on insurers either. Remember, the postal service employees are UNION members, and have a GREAT contract with the Government. So, at the end of the day, we have the government providing a service that fewer and fewer people use and they're surprised that its losing money. What's the answer? Raise the rates, and throw a bigger subsidy at it! Fuck the people that need to mail a letter. How long do you think it will take before these idiots are crying the same tune about government run health care?

Oh hey...one more thing.... Remember when we bailed out GM and Chrysler? Remember that BHO "replaced" the CEO of GM? Remember how the "bailout" required the two companies to "reorganize" with a structure controlled by the Federal Bankruptcy Court? What do you suppose will happen with the newspapers that get "bailed out"? Will the government replace the reporters? Will the government tell them what stories to write about, and which ones not to write about? Don't tell me it "can't happen". They're already doing it to Insurance Companies.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092201849.html Who's next?

By the way, do you have any idea how many non-profits are responsible for Corporate Taxes? Only one - Acorn. Why is that? Its because part of the money they receive goes to lobbying activities. Hmmm....is that the Federal money that they get, or the private money they get?

Ummm....do you mean the US postal service? If so, please step away from the crack pipe. The Postal Service has been heavily subsidized by the Federal Government for years, and still has difficulty breaking even. Lets see....the Government gives me $3.0 billion each year, I charge my customers for my services, and I STILL LOSE MONEY?? Fuck yeah - sign me up for that program!! By the way, if you want to know where the dollars go in the postal service, all the data is here: http://www.usps.com/financials/ar/welcome.htm No need to thank me...

Like he "reviewed" what kind of cheddar Acorn was getting? What did he say to Mr. Snuffleupagus? Lemme see.....oh yeah: "You know, if -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money." Barack Obama Ummmmm.....wouldn't you think a guy that gave $800,000.00 worth of campaign money to a group would at least have AN IDEA how much Federal money they got? The problem with the post office is that they can't compete service wise with UPS and FEDEX (two of the shittiest companies in the package delivery world) on parcels, and obviously it costs them far more to send a piece of first class mail than they're charging. That means they spend too fucking much on EVERYTHING.

Look what else the Track Day Fairy brought: Brian's new pit bike

Hey.... The wife just had a suggestion - "He should cut the ass outta those - he'd be a BIG hit (in the bathroom)" <ain't she great?> BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH....

Ahhh....so is another "name change" in order? Maybe raSTTa Brian? Lemme shoot Monte an email

I killed it at the 2:00 mark. You fuckin owe me.