Jump to content

Yay! more bailouts!!!


dmagicglock
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27513.html

first post office and don't forget the newspapers that no one reads anymore...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59523-obama-open-to-newspaper-bailout-bill

I can't wait till we bail out government run healthcare in 5-10 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.
"I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them," Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview.
You're just stirring a pot that isn't even on the stove yet. It's his job as president to review stuff, he makes no promises either way. And non-profits get tax breaks already, so it's not a bailout - the newspaper industry restructures, and thus have an opportunity to restructure their taxable income. No big deal, molehill != mountain.

The postal service thing - I need more info on that. They're running a deficit, but where are the costs at? I'd like to understand HOW that deficit came to be - retirement spending, healthcare, RHD Jeep repair and maintenance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just stirring a pot that isn't even on the stove yet. It's his job as president to review stuff, he makes no promises either way. And non-profits get tax breaks already, so it's not a bailout - the newspaper industry restructures, and thus have an opportunity to restructure their taxable income. No big deal, molehill != mountain.

The postal service thing - I need more info on that. They're running a deficit, but where are the costs at? I'd like to understand HOW that deficit came to be - retirement spending, healthcare, RHD Jeep repair and maintenance?

non profits like ACORN?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah.... the dems wiil keep on spending till the Gov falls and we're all starving and the UN will come in and feed us all in return for our accepting their laws and rules as the prop up a government that bows to them under a one world government.............. At least thats what the conspiracy theory I read today said.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The post office is the only government run program that has always been above water so who knows maybe it will help out. I know the internet has really cut down on mail and if wern't for junk mail i would never recieve anything.

that and bills are all i get.

plus my new free subscription to sport rider!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's his job as president to review stuff, he makes no promises either way.

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 postal service thing - I need more info on that. They're running a deficit, but where are the costs at? I'd like to understand HOW that deficit came to be - retirement spending, healthcare, RHD Jeep repair and maintenance?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The post office is the only government run program that has always been above water so who knows maybe it will help out. I know the internet has really cut down on mail and if wern't for junk mail i would never recieve anything.

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...:popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said anything about ACORN?

I can play the same game to make things sound evil...(or good, depending on your lifestyle)

Non-profits like churches...

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.usps.com/financials/anrpt08/pg3.htm

So, only going back to 2006 - they were profitable.

And, if you look at Gubment capital invested... they subsidize $3B of the entire $70B+ operation each year.. not even 5%.

Also funny... if you look here: http://www.usps.com/financials/anrpt08/pg47.htm

They've reduced compensation (and headcount) each year while generating more revenue each year. But wait... look at the line that says "Retiree health benefits" - it jumps from $1.6B in 2006 to over $10B in 2007 and settled around $7B in 2008.

Hmmm.... those health expenditures sure do have a funny correlation to whether the USPS operates in the BLACK (like in 2006 when benefits only cost $1.6B), or operates in the RED (like in 2007 and 2008, when health care benefit costs were almost 6x and 4x, respectively).

So, given that the only way to generate profits are to makes revenue > costs, you either have to increase revenue or reduce costs... well, stamp costs have increased, so they're doing the "increase revenue" part - as the bulk of revenue is generated by first class and standard mail (http://www.usps.com/financials/anrpt08/pg62.htm), so it seems like if we reform healthcare and reduce the cost of that... the USPS would operate in the black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh hey...one more thing....

Remember when we bailed out GM and Chrysler?

Remember when we've bailed out more than just GM and Chrysler... in fact Chrysler we bailed out TWICE now (we're just not likely going to get paid back this time). We've bailed out the airlines, we've bailed out Wall street... so what's the 'so what' to that statement? It's nothing new.

Remember that BHO "replaced" the CEO of GM?

Why do you have to put things in "quotes" to communicate an untruth. He asked Wagoner to step down, it wasn't a mandate, and he didn't NAME a replacement.

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".

If they go non-profit... umm, probably less fear tactics. Until newspapers are non-profit, you'll have big business putting out self-serving propaganda. Kind of like how Fox is a completely conservative network, yet airs the most liberal shows like Family Guy, the Simpsons, and American Dad which are all highly satirical of Fox itself and the neo-conservative stances. They pander the news to conservatives and capture the liberals with the other programming. Win-win $$$$$$$$. People are so worried about the gov't controlling things when they don't even realize they're already being steered by the media - owned by private organizations with their own agendas too.

They're already doing it to Insurance Companies....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092201849.html

Who's next?

What a load of crap... this goes back to my above point of the media being self-serving. In this case it's the insurance companies. I'm sure they really CARE for their customers, not their pocketbooks :rolleyes:

The big insurer Humana triggered the HHS crackdown with a letter to Medicare enrollees claiming that health reform proposals could hurt "millions of seniors and disabled individuals" who "could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage plans so valuable." The letter was sent in envelopes marked "important information about your Medicare Advantage plan -- open today!"

HHS wrote to Humana last week instructing it to stop the mailings, and it wrote to all Medicare Advantage plans Monday, saying "such communications are potentially contrary to . . . federal law." The government regulates communications between the health plans and their members.

Baucus had urged HHS to crack down on the mailings.

"It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors," he said in a Monday news release. "The health care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits under the Medicare program -- and seniors need to know that," he said.

It should be illegal to flat out LIE to your customers. Maybe they aren't technically lying because they're playing semantics. It "could" hurt "millions" - if it doesn't they didn't lie because "could" isn't a guarantee. No harm no foul, right?

There could be a liberal talking to your son right now about socialism. OMGWTFBBQ!!?? Do something!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.usps.com/financials/anrpt08/pg3.htm

So, only going back to 2006 - they were profitable.

And, if you look at Gubment capital invested... they subsidize $3B of the entire $70B+ operation each year.. not even 5%.

Also funny... if you look here: http://www.usps.com/financials/anrpt08/pg47.htm

They've reduced compensation (and headcount) each year while generating more revenue each year. But wait... look at the line that says "Retiree health benefits" - it jumps from $1.6B in 2006 to over $10B in 2007 and settled around $7B in 2008.

Hmmm.... those health expenditures sure do have a funny correlation to whether the USPS operates in the BLACK (like in 2006 when benefits only cost $1.6B), or operates in the RED (like in 2007 and 2008, when health care benefit costs were almost 6x and 4x, respectively).

So, given that the only way to generate profits are to makes revenue > costs, you either have to increase revenue or reduce costs... well, stamp costs have increased, so they're doing the "increase revenue" part - as the bulk of revenue is generated by first class and standard mail (http://www.usps.com/financials/anrpt08/pg62.htm), so it seems like if we reform healthcare and reduce the cost of that... the USPS would operate in the black.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when we've bailed out more than just GM and Chrysler... in fact Chrysler we bailed out TWICE now (we're just not likely going to get paid back this time). We've bailed out the airlines, we've bailed out Wall street... so what's the 'so what' to that statement? It's nothing new.

I remember all of that. Is there a reason you think I approved of it then? It was wrong then, and its wrong now.

Why do you have to put things in "quotes" to communicate an untruth. He asked Wagoner to step down, it wasn't a mandate, and he didn't NAME a replacement.

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.

If they go non-profit... umm, probably less fear tactics. Until newspapers are non-profit, you'll have big business putting out self-serving propaganda. Kind of like how Fox is a completely conservative network, yet airs the most liberal shows like Family Guy, the Simpsons, and American Dad which are all highly satirical of Fox itself and the neo-conservative stances. They pander the news to conservatives and capture the liberals with the other programming. Win-win $$$$$$$$. People are so worried about the gov't controlling things when they don't even realize they're already being steered by the media - owned by private organizations with their own agendas too.

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"

What a load of crap... this goes back to my above point of the media being self-serving. In this case it's the insurance companies. I'm sure they really CARE for their customers, not their pocketbooks :rolleyes:

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.

It should be illegal to flat out LIE to your customers. Maybe they aren't technically lying because they're playing semantics. It "could" hurt "millions" - if it doesn't they didn't lie because "could" isn't a guarantee. No harm no foul, right?

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.

There could be a liberal talking to your son right now about socialism. OMGWTFBBQ!!?? Do something!

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yes, I realize the opportunity cost of raising price on the end consumer, but once again, as with the postal service (that's what we were talking about before you throw other industries in there).... even at $0.89 a stamp (just throwing a number out there), you better believe that people will still be sending first class mail, because it's still the ONLY game in town at that price. How far do you think the price of a first class stamp has to rise before UPS or FedEx or some other private org attempts to take on individual home delivery? Given the figures on the USPS balance sheet, by only a modest increase in price, the postal service could make money at less than the 'going rate' that privatization would raise a first class stamp to.

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 call bullshit. Just because you retire early doesn't cause your health care costs to automatically skyrocket - what did everyone automatically get sick once they retire? The line item is specifically retiree health benefits.

http://www.opm.gov/insure/retirees/index.asp?AnswerId=93

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.

Throw a bigger subsidy? Dude, you still haven't addressed the fact the the gov't subsidy on the financial statements is $3B of a $70B operation.... less than 5%. And the fact that the subsidy hasn't changed for AT LEAST the last 3 years... so WTF are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...