Yay! more bailouts!!!

[vectorvictor]

The usps has never actually turned a profit! They have just changed the rules a couple of times. how do you go from breaking even one year to a 5,000,000,000 dollar loss the next year? HMMM SOMEONE MOVED SOME NUMBERS AROUND! Like maybe they decided to only count the paper products they bought every other year and made it look like they didnt buy any that first year of the new rules. do you think the govt knocks on their own back door and makes the post office pay Inventory taxes! NO Its all a scam and smoke and mirrors to get people off of their backs for a while.

The biggest actual reason they are in the red and have been forever is the greedy bastards called unions. your union official is voted in and told to make things better for you even if you are fine and getting paid well. so that jackass goes to the usps and says we will stike if we dont get a such and such and because they have to continue to do this then the company goes bankrupt trying to keep labor unions happy. Should i mention the steel industry in the u.s.. those greedy whiny bastards in steel towns all across the country are really mad because the industry couldnt keep up with the price and quality of overseas steel and the companys went under. now enjoy not having a job bitches cause its all your fault. soon it will be the mailman who has no job because he wanted to live in a 350 thousand dollar house in the country and have the best health care possible because he has to walk 5 miles a day. bet you will be crying when the usps is no longer there to wipe your ass.

“That’s good news” said a Postal Service spokesman, who argued the arrangement posed no risk for the taxpayer since the retirement fund holds $32 billion at this time. Nonetheless, critics argued the $4 billion will now be added as a potential cost on the government’s books given the fragile state of the Postal Service, and the whole handling of the issue is seen by many as a parliamentary sleight-of-hand.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27513.html#ixzz0S56JELuJ

This shit is funny cause then the next year when a bunch of people pull money out of that account it will be empty in no time. ever had an escrow account for your mortgage? what happens when they pull out your taxes that have been building with each payment? wow the account then barely pays the mortage the next month! hope we arent short by 4 billion dollars next year.

god this is stupid!

[r1crusher]

She said she was going purse shopping with a new friend... did you get that Coach one she said you wanted?

Yes......

.....and it was worth EVERY PENNY!

[vectorvictor]

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?

So for many years the govt has been giving the usps a 5% bonus for them to keep running? actually because they dont have to pay the 35%( ballpark number but prolly low balling it) corporate tax rate thats like a 40% give back to a company that would never make it in the real world. they are being held up because the mail is sooo important that i have to pay taxes to keep them going and also BUY a freaking stamp to sent a piece of mail. YOU ARE PAYING WHAT A COMPANY IN THE REAL WORLD WOULD CHARGE BUT JUST BEING FORCED TO PAY ONE AND ONLY PAYING THE OTHER WHEN YOU SEND A LETTER!! TAXES PAID AND STAMP BOUGHT = DOUBLE TAXED!!

[Disclaimer]

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

No, but why dredge it up again like it's something new? Just another thing to pin on ol' BHO. After all those past bailouts the country has obviously gone to hell - for god sakes it's controlled by liberal heathens 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.

And that's your prerogative to think that. Stalemate.

Who said anything about "non profit" what you have is government control of the press.

Obviously, to have an intelligent debate, you have to read the articles presented. You apparently, have not.

Ummm....hello, what about that silly First Amemndment"?? Oh that's right, the Gov't has taken control of private companies before, so what?

ZOMFG!! The gov't would let the paper media restructure? Gov't controlled presses! Why, there's NO other way people get their news, what will we do!? Once again, if you READ the article, it's letting newspaper companies restructure into non-profits... NOT that they'd be controlled by the gov't.

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?

Once again, they have their prerogative. There is nothing in the first amendment that the press has to be truthful. And that's a shame.

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.

Quoted for future reference. Crow doesn't taste good. I could go through numerous examples to prove your statement about you not caring if they 'care' is untrue, but you can dig your own hole I don't need to get your a backhoe when you're just working with a shovel.

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.

The terms cheap, fast, and reliable are relative in this case. The system, at present, is none of those 3 as compared to other countries... yet, the math works out for them, at a higher level of service. Interesting.

[vectorvictor]

where have you been to get a Cat scan in canada?

"The terms cheap, fast, and reliable are relative in this case. The system, at present, is none of those 3 as compared to other countries... yet, the math works out for them, at a higher level of service. Interesting."

Canada's health care is govt run and isnt cheap fast or reliable above the first floor where the emergency room is! break a leg and great u will get fixed up quickly because its a relatively cheap thing to fix in the medical world. have a cancer or a tumor of some sort that takes money to fix and the govt puts u on a 6 month waiting list for a cat scan and because its CANCER you will prolly be dead about the time they get the results back. our health care system works off of money so the best and the brightest brain surgeon can make a lot of money to get him to go to school for 10 years to make the huge salary.

I cant help thinking of the jeff foxworthy joke about the brain surgeon talking to his patient about cuttin the top of your head off and rooting around in there with a stick. sounds like govt run health care to me!

[Disclaimer]

Where did you read this? Or what credible information do you have to backup your 6 month waiting list in Canada claim. Along with some evidence that no one in the US has ever waited longer than 6 months for a procedure or service? Because if someone in the US had to wait that long, then our system isn't better.

Side notes from the anonymous rep fairy:

Yay! more bailouts!!! 09-24-2009 10:31 PM being a douche and having a nasty GF

Yay! more bailouts!!! 09-24-2009 11:28 PM your a lib fag

You are a very clever one, personal attacks not only on me, but my GF. The rep fairy has class for sure. Yet, the pesky your/you're thing still eludes them.

Edited September 25, 2009 by JRMMiii

[vectorvictor]

Can u give me any good reason why the largest and most world renowned cancer research hospital ( The Cleveland Clinic) is located in cleveland ohio of all places? I have talked to multiple individuals in my travels ( spent a year running cleveland) that worked either in or for a sub building for the cleveland clinic and i have asked them what was the ratio of u.s. versus canadian clients and they all told me that there are more people per capita that come from canada because there is a 6 month wait for the machines than from the u.s. . i could go with you if there were only one or two people that said this but there were at least 20 people that were doctors down to janitors that backed up this story! People from across the world come to the cleveland clinic to get treated. Cat scan machines arent free and if the govt decides that it is cheaper to let you die than the 10 years worth of tax revenue that you would bring them if u happen to live then it isnt a big decision to let you die. Seems the Nazis made the same point with old people just before they turned on the jews!

[Disclaimer]

Can u give me any good reason why the largest and most world renowned cancer research hospital ( The Cleveland Clinic) is located in cleveland ohio of all places?

It's not... Cleveland is #12, with a reputation of 7.6% and score of 35.7

http://health.usnews.com/health/best-hospitals/cancer-hospital-rankings/

I have talked to multiple individuals in my travels ( spent a year running cleveland) that worked either in or for a sub building for the cleveland clinic and i have asked them what was the ratio of u.s. versus canadian clients and they all told me that there are more people per capita that come from canada because there is a 6 month wait for the machines than from the u.s. . i could go with you if there were only one or two people that said this but there were at least 20 people that were doctors down to janitors that backed up this story! People from across the world come to the cleveland clinic to get treated.

I'm not doubting that you heard anecdotal stories from people. But how accurate are their accounts? This says the median wait time is 2 weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Wait_times

Don't trust wiki... here's the source they got it from: http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf

And here's a paper written by a student fellow of the AMSA:

http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf

Summary

What is clear from this analysis is that Canadian waiting lists are undoubtedly a problem

for many Canadians on certain elective procedures. What is not clear, however, is the magnitude

of the problem, and it is certainly not necessarily true that there is a Canadian "waiting list crisis."

• The lack of quality data on waiting lists from the Canadian government, coupled with the

limitations of surveys (e.g. differing methodologies), makes it very difficult to conclude

with any certainty the size of the true waiting list problem.

• The Canadian experience with waiting times will necessarily be uneven, as waiting times

vary by specialty, procedure, province, and region. That is, any given individual

Canadian will have different experiences with waiting times. This may partly explain the

existence of anecdotal reports of intolerable waits from certain individual Canadians

(such stories often are dramatized in the media), juxtaposed with the denial of the

problem from other Canadians.

• The U.S. does not experience problems with waiting lists as much as Canada does,

although the problem does exist for some Americans.

• There is a small minority of Canadians who receive care in the U.S., and even a smaller

minority who specifically come to the U.S. to receive care. The idea that hordes of

Canadians cross the border to avoid waiting lists is a myth.

I'm trying to find the US median wait time for a CT scan, but can't get that figure. Also, note there is a difference between an EMERGENCY CT scan, and a non-emergency diagnostic.

Seems the Nazis made the same point with old people just before they turned on the jews!

Godwin's Law... you lose.

[Todd#43]

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.

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?

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

The cost of health care INSURANCE isn't based on how many people get sick in a current year for christ sakes.

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?

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.

[Todd#43]

Obviously, to have an intelligent debate, you have to read the articles presented. You apparently, have not.

I don't have to read the articles presented to have an "intelligent" debate. I didn't reference them or cite them. Obviously.

ZOMFG!! The gov't would let the paper media restructure? Gov't controlled presses! Why, there's NO other way people get their news, what will we do!? Once again, if you READ the article, it's letting newspaper companies restructure into non-profits... NOT that they'd be controlled by the gov't.

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

Once again, they have their prerogative. There is nothing in the first amendment that the press has to be truthful. And that's a shame.

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)

Quoted for future reference. Crow doesn't taste good. I could go through numerous examples to prove your statement about you not caring if they 'care' is untrue, but you can dig your own hole I don't need to get your a backhoe when you're just working with a shovel.

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.

The terms cheap, fast, and reliable are relative in this case. The system, at present, is none of those 3 as compared to other countries... yet, the math works out for them, at a higher level of service. Interesting.

You'll have to explain yourself there. Its either too early in the moring, or I'm missing something.

[dmagicglock]

man i leave the forum for 12 hours and you guys turn my post office thread into another healthcare thread! thats okay i kinda left it open for that in my original comment. Still entertaining as always... Personally I don't think the government can do a better job of running healthcare by giving it away to more people, thats not "reform" thats a handout and whether you think the quality of care, or government provided healthcare is feasible... I just don't think it should be a function of our government... I think its overstepping the boundaries of the federal governments role which was defined in our constitution. But thats just my ever so humble opinion, they should just focus on the sovereignty of our nation instead of creating more debt and driving that dollar into the ground. Does anyone else find it funny that we fund the U.N. more than any other nation (by far) and yet the U.N. is calling for a new world currency to replace the dollar? Maybe we should just dissolve the U.N.? I'm pretty sure its pointless and all the sanctions in the world don't mean shit to the countries that need them... UH OH I feel a new thread coming on.

[Disclaimer]

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?

Once again, I go to my question of- How high do you think a stamp has to go before private industry will take over and think they'll make a profit? Obviously we haven't hit that mark yet. Furthermore, the USPS doesn't ALWAYS run a deficit, as indicated by 2006 ~$900M operating margin.

The cost of health care INSURANCE isn't based on how many people get sick in a current year for christ sakes.

Right, but your argument is that the cost skyrocketed because of early retirement and buyouts (of which I still haven't found any information on a mass exodous from the USPS in 2007 and 2008 - so that's in question). Given that the specific line item is "Retiree Health Benefits" - for your argument to be valid, all you need to look at is compensation+benefits in 2006 and see a proportional change in 2007 in the "Retiree Benefits". This is not the case.

http://www.usps.com/financials/anrpt08/pg66.htm

Unless you're suggesting that as soon as you retire, the insurance premium skyrockets 6x what it used to be for the insuree. Just because you're designated/labeled as "retired" regardless of your age and past health history. Is that what you're suggesting?

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.

Once again, looking at the financials... they only LOST money in 2007 and 2008, and even though they LOST money in 2007, they only started running a deficit in 2008. Even without the gov't subsidy, they would've had a positive ending balance in 2004, 2005, and 2006.

I don't have to read the articles presented to have an "intelligent" debate. I didn't reference them or cite them. Obviously.

So I can assume you're just pulling information out of thin air, you're guided by your emotions and not facts and logic.

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

The gov't can decide how GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota...all run their companies. NHTSA, the EPA, CARB, etc... they don't need a stake in any company to make decision affecting how they're run. So the sky isn't falling, it'll be ok. It's temporary.

Also, for the THIRD TIME, the gov't isn't controlling the press, they're PROPOSING to let newspapers restructure into non-profits.

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)

I'm convinced you have reading comprehension issues, or maybe you don't know what 'majority' means? This Rasmussen poll? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/what_americans_really_want_is_health_care_reform

According to the poll, some 55 percent of Americans want a public option, with only 42 percent against it. That level of support was actually up slightly from a month earlier.

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.

If I spit in your coffee, you wouldn't care? You may or may not taste it, that wouldn't bother you that someone didn't have the common courtesy to NOT spit in your drink? What about if I dragged my ballsack across your pizza?

You'll have to explain yourself there. Its either too early in the moring, or I'm missing something.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

Just compare US cost per capita to Japan.

[mattm]

where have you been to get a Cat scan in canada?

"The terms cheap, fast, and reliable are relative in this case. The system, at present, is none of those 3 as compared to other countries... yet, the math works out for them, at a higher level of service. Interesting."

Canada's health care is govt run and isnt cheap fast or reliable above the first floor where the emergency room is! break a leg and great u will get fixed up quickly because its a relatively cheap thing to fix in the medical world. have a cancer or a tumor of some sort that takes money to fix and the govt puts u on a 6 month waiting list for a cat scan and because its CANCER you will prolly be dead about the time they get the results back. our health care system works off of money so the best and the brightest brain surgeon can make a lot of money to get him to go to school for 10 years to make the huge salary.

I cant help thinking of the jeff foxworthy joke about the brain surgeon talking to his patient about cuttin the top of your head off and rooting around in there with a stick. sounds like govt run health care to me!

You sir are full of it. I have 20 + relatives in Canada on my wife's side. One of them recently (within the past 1.5 years) got diagnosed with cancer. Her wait for ANYTHING was nonexistant. She got top class treatment for over 1 year. The cancer that she was diagnosed with is almost 100% deadly. Guess what? She received treatment with no wait including treatment from top notch cancer facilities that were not right next to her house.

Oh, BTW. She was 75 years old when diagnosed.

Kind of throws water on your "be over 25 and get sick and you will die!!!!" propoganda doesn't it?

You won't get it and will tell me that I am wrong, but I have the real life info. Not your teabagger speculation.

Edited September 25, 2009 by mattm

[mattm]

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.

What has exploded since 1991.... hmmm.... maybe... maybe the INTERNETS have exploded since then? Maybe that has SOMETHING to do with the reduction in revenue? Nothing ever occurs in a vacuum and your 1991 to now target just reveals your bias. How many letters were not sent because of email? I bet that number has increased since 1991 and I am sure you would agree if you would allow yourself to be reasonable and make cogent arguments instead of the heretical crap you espouse here.

Edited September 25, 2009 by mattm

[mattm]

man i leave the forum for 12 hours and you guys turn my post office thread into another healthcare thread! thats okay i kinda left it open for that in my original comment. Still entertaining as always... Personally I don't think the government can do a better job of running healthcare by giving it away to more people, thats not "reform" thats a handout and whether you think the quality of care, or government provided healthcare is feasible... I just don't think it should be a function of our government... I think its overstepping the boundaries of the federal governments role which was defined in our constitution. But thats just my ever so humble opinion, they should just focus on the sovereignty of our nation instead of creating more debt and driving that dollar into the ground. Does anyone else find it funny that we fund the U.N. more than any other nation (by far) and yet the U.N. is calling for a new world currency to replace the dollar? Maybe we should just dissolve the U.N.? I'm pretty sure its pointless and all the sanctions in the world don't mean shit to the countries that need them... UH OH I feel a new thread coming on.

OMG.........ONOZ...........OMG..........ONOZ......

The new world order!!!!

OMG.......ONOZ.........OMG........ONOZ.......

You kill me...

This is the kind of stupid shit that happens when people believe, with no real basis in reality, that their advantage in the world will be removed. Make no mistake, this will happen. In fact parts of the US with the "creation" obsession will fall further behind the rest of the world. This one fact will put the US further behind than anything else because no scientist wants to have to explain to the "slow" person that we have essentially vetted this question.

Edited September 25, 2009 by mattm

[Todd#43]

You sir are full of it. I have 20 + relatives in Canada on my wife's side. One of them recently (within the past 1.5 years) got diagnosed with cancer. Her wait for ANYTHING was nonexistant. She got top class treatment for over 1 year. The cancer that she was diagnosed with is almost 100% deadly. Guess what? She received treatment with no wait including treatment from top notch cancer facilities that were not right next to her house.

Oh, BTW. She was 75 years old when diagnosed.

Kind of throws water on your "be over 25 and get sick and you will die!!!!" propoganda doesn't it?

You won't get it and will tell me that I am wrong, but I have the real life info. Not your teabagger speculation.

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?

What has exploded since 1991.... hmmm.... maybe... maybe the INTERNETS have exploded since then? Maybe that has SOMETHING to do with the reduction in revenue?

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.

Nothing ever occurs in a vacuum and your 1991 to now target just reveals your bias. How many letters were not sent because of email? I bet that number has increased since 1991 and I am sure you would agree if you would allow yourself to be reasonable and make cogent arguments instead of the heretical crap you espouse here.

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.

OMG.........ONOZ...........OMG..........ONOZ......

The new world order!!!!

OMG.......ONOZ.........OMG........ONOZ.......

You kill me...

Wow...again with personal attacks.

[dmagicglock]

OMG.........ONOZ...........OMG..........ONOZ......

The new world order!!!!

OMG.......ONOZ.........OMG........ONOZ.......

You kill me...

This is the kind of stupid shit that happens when people believe, with no real basis in reality, that their advantage in the world will be removed. Make no mistake, this will happen. In fact parts of the US with the "creation" obsession will fall further behind the rest of the world. This one fact will put the US further behind than anything else because no scientist wants to have to explain to the "slow" person that we have essentially vetted this question.

I don't get it? you take my comments about the U.N. being a useless organization that we're footing the bill to talking about creationism and the theory of evolution? Please argue with me on that, I have a degree in biology and have taken several classes in molecular analysis, molecular evolution, evolutionary analysis etc... I'm pretty well versed on it, but thanks for your empty rhetoric and stereotypical regurgitations to someone who doesn't agree with you.

[mattm]

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.

Nice ploy on the USPS and the internets and possibly the google. They raised prices and would be profitable without the subsidy. That is more than I can say for the farm subsidies we regularly spend far more on. Also, they might have had to increase the price on a stamp because volume has fallen which you seem to acknowledge. This is not new in business and happens all the time. The eventual conclusion to volume continuing to fall is complete failure of the business or bankruptcy. That's great. What happens to those people who need to send a real letter and cannot get ANY kind of decent internet access. Check some rural areas and ask them what their internet options look like. Again, it is simple to bring out the strawman arguments. It is not so simple to completely remove the USPS from a service which UPS and FedEx have proven unwilling to service. In that respect it is very similar to health insurance companies refusing to cover people with a pre-existing condition which may or may not be completely out of that person's control.

So you cannot refute my relative's Canadian Healthcare experience? I don't see any attempt to refute my assertions. We pay 7% sales tax now. Double that and I would actually get somewhat competent healthcare without the wait and without the "death panels?" You do realize that Toyota recently built a factory in Canada instead of Alabama? Their stated reasons where that the Alabamans where too stupid to train and that the healthcare cost reductions provided by Canada were too compelling to ignore. Looks like the free market system at work except that it is dependent upon the Gov providing healthcare and thus taking that load away from private industry. That sounds like a good thing for industry for me.

[Todd#43]

Once again, I go to my question of- How high do you think a stamp has to go before private industry will take over and think they'll make a profit? Obviously we haven't hit that mark yet. Furthermore, the USPS doesn't ALWAYS run a deficit, as indicated by 2006 ~$900M operating margin.

Right, but your argument is that the cost skyrocketed because of early retirement and buyouts (of which I still haven't found any information on a mass exodous from the USPS in 2007 and 2008 - so that's in question). Given that the specific line item is "Retiree Health Benefits" - for your argument to be valid, all you need to look at is compensation+benefits in 2006 and see a proportional change in 2007 in the "Retiree Benefits". This is not the case.

http://www.usps.com/financials/anrpt08/pg66.htm

Unless you're suggesting that as soon as you retire, the insurance premium skyrockets 6x what it used to be for the insuree. Just because you're designated/labeled as "retired" regardless of your age and past health history. Is that what you're suggesting?

Once again, looking at the financials... they only LOST money in 2007 and 2008, and even though they LOST money in 2007, they only started running a deficit in 2008. Even without the gov't subsidy, they would've had a positive ending balance in 2004, 2005, and 2006.

So I can assume you're just pulling information out of thin air, you're guided by your emotions and not facts and logic.

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.

The gov't can decide how GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota...all run their companies. NHTSA, the EPA, CARB, etc... they don't need a stake in any company to make decision affecting how they're run. So the sky isn't falling, it'll be ok. It's temporary.

Also, for the THIRD TIME, the gov't isn't controlling the press, they're PROPOSING to let newspapers restructure into non-profits.

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.

I'm convinced you have reading comprehension issues, or maybe you don't know what 'majority' means? This Rasmussen poll? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/what_americans_really_want_is_health_care_reform

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."

If I spit in your coffee, you wouldn't care? You may or may not taste it, that wouldn't bother you that someone didn't have the common courtesy to NOT spit in your drink? What about if I dragged my ballsack across your pizza?

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.

[Disclaimer]

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.

But they can't raise rates!! They'll lose customers - so says you, we had that discussion remember??

http://www.ohio-riders.com/showpost.php?p=335388&postcount=23

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?

Yet, now you acknowledge they can and do turn a small profit.

A far cry from this post (http://www.ohio-riders.com/showpost.php?p=335312&postcount=17)

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!!

Heavily subsidized to you apparently means < 10% (closer to 5%).

Even if turning a small profit is because they raised revenue by increasing the price to the end consumer - it's still profit. So first, you say it won't work because raising prices diminishes the customer base, yet now you're saying that "well, it only worked because they raised prices" :confused:

And I looked at the financials from 2004, 2003, and 2002.

http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt04/

If you look, the trend is to have a higher throughput of mail, with less employees on the payroll... that would make them, sorta, ya know, more efficient - something a GOV'T organization would NEVER do, eh? They also had net income in 2004 and 2003 which far surpassed the loss they took in 2002. Thus over 3 years, net income was around $6.1B. So, the fact and figures fail to align with your thesis and conclusions.

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.

Product safety? What about the EPA and CARB, they don't have anything to do with product safety? And why are you ok with gov't intervention in the instance of product safety anyway? Why should the manufacturer of a vehicle (or the gov't) CARE if you survive an auto accident? You said it wasn't about CARING. Talk about a nanny-state. According to you, the guy who manufacturers a hair dryer shouldn't care if electric current leaks from the blower motor and maims or kills the user? Ford already figured out the exact monetary value your life is worth after that whole Pinto gas tank explosion case, so they were willing to risk your life against the $200-some odd thousand dollar chance (avg. lawsuit settlement) that you wouldn't be killed in a fiery rear end collision. So - if you don't want the risk, don't buy the product right? Or, are you flip flopping on that stance now too?

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 one is PROPPING up anything, it's REVIEWING a PROPOSAL to RESTRUCTURE. That's #4. And you can disagree all you want, but until you find evidence in this instance you're grasping for straws on that argument. Regardless, the gov't already intervenes in the press - what do you think the FCC and the Censorship Board do?

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."

At least we're clear now. They're not opposed to health care reform, just the current proposal - which isn't set in stone. I'm not surprised, shocked, or concerned by this. It's still in draft stage.

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.

Why is GDP more relevant? Cost per capita is more relevant, we spend more PER PERSON than other countries. Regardless, it paints the same picture.

15.2% per GDP in the US, and 8% in Japan - and that's 2003 data, the gap has only gotten wider since then. So how now brown cow?

Exhibit 4

Total Health Expenditures as a Share of GDP, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003

Edited September 26, 2009 by JRMMiii

[Todd#43]

Nice ploy on the USPS and the internets and possibly the google. They raised prices and would be profitable without the subsidy.

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?

That is more than I can say for the farm subsidies we regularly spend far more on. Also, they might have had to increase the price on a stamp because volume has fallen which you seem to acknowledge. This is not new in business and happens all the time.

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.

The eventual conclusion to volume continuing to fall is complete failure of the business or bankruptcy. That's great.

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?

What happens to those people who need to send a real letter and cannot get ANY kind of decent internet access. Check some rural areas and ask them what their internet options look like. Again, it is simple to bring out the strawman arguments. It is not so simple to completely remove the USPS from a service which UPS and FedEx have proven unwilling to service. In that respect it is very similar to health insurance companies refusing to cover people with a pre-existing condition which may or may not be completely out of that person's control.

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?

So you cannot refute my relative's Canadian Healthcare experience? I don't see any attempt to refute my assertions. We pay 7% sales tax now. Double that and I would actually get somewhat competent healthcare without the wait and without the "death panels?"

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.

You do realize that Toyota recently built a factory in Canada instead of Alabama? Their stated reasons where that the Alabamans where too stupid to train and that the healthcare cost reductions provided by Canada were too compelling to ignore. Looks like the free market system at work except that it is dependent upon the Gov providing healthcare and thus taking that load away from private industry. That sounds like a good thing for industry for me.

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.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Todd#43

[Rod38um]

Ive worked for the government and for the private sector. I know how both do business.

In the private sector, when considering the purchase of new equipment (like the latest CAT scan) Its a must because they know it brings new customers who pay real money which makes them a PROFIT (their main concern)

The Government views things a little differently. They have a budget to work with and this budget allows them to treat XXXX amount of people. If they spend a large portion of that budget on a new CAT scan machine then they only have enough left to treat XXX people. So the new equipment gets put on hold.

A side affect of this is when there is no private sector market, the people who research and develop this fancy life saving equipment, stop! there is no money in it anymore, you cant sell enough so R&D just stops........ Do we really want that? Do we want the Gov to prop up the R&D sector too? and then prop up their suppliers? and so on down the line?

The private sector goes where the need is and that works, its built the best system on earth. I dont see a reason, not a single one, to change to a system that fails for the majority just so you can include a minority of people into said failure

[dmagicglock]

2 things

1.) How does everyone feel about the fair tax? I'm pretty sure this would solve a lot of our problems and prevent a lot of things happening... like pimps importing teenage girls from el salvador and getting tax credits for them. Everyone would pay their fair share and we'd still have more than enough tax revenue to operate the country.

2.) The Post Office legally has a monopoly on the delivery of "mail or letters" and still sucks the bag at turning a profit.

"Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants U.S. Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. According to the government, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established absent Congress's consent. Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters." -wiki

[Todd#43]

But they can't raise rates!! They'll lose customers - so says you, we had that discussion remember??

http://www.ohio-riders.com/showpost.php?p=335388&postcount=23

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.

Yet, now you acknowledge they can and do turn a small profit.

A far cry from this post (http://www.ohio-riders.com/showpost.php?p=335312&postcount=17)

Heavily subsidized to you apparently means < 10% (closer to 5%).

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.

Even if turning a small profit is because they raised revenue by increasing the price to the end consumer - it's still profit. So first, you say it won't work because raising prices diminishes the customer base, yet now you're saying that "well, it only worked because they raised prices" :confused:

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".

If you look, the trend is to have a higher throughput of mail, with less employees on the payroll... that would make them, sorta, ya know, more efficient - something a GOV'T organization would NEVER do, eh? They also had net income in 2004 and 2003 which far surpassed the loss they took in 2002. Thus over 3 years, net income was around $6.1B. So, the fact and figures fail to align with your thesis and conclusions.

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.

Product safety? What about the EPA and CARB, they don't have anything to do with product safety?

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.

And why are you ok with gov't intervention in the instance of product safety anyway? Why should the manufacturer of a vehicle (or the gov't) CARE if you survive an auto accident? You said it wasn't about CARING. Talk about a nanny-state. According to you, the guy who manufacturers a hair dryer shouldn't care if electric current leaks from the blower motor and maims or kills the user? Ford already figured out the exact monetary value your life is worth after that whole Pinto gas tank explosion case, so they were willing to risk your life against the $200-some odd thousand dollar chance (avg. lawsuit settlement) that you wouldn't be killed in a fiery rear end collision. So - if you don't want the risk, don't buy the product right? Or, are you flip flopping on that stance now too?

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.

No one is PROPPING up anything, it's REVIEWING a PROPOSAL to RESTRUCTURE. That's #4. And you can disagree all you want, but until you find evidence in this instance you're grasping for straws on that argument. Regardless, the gov't already intervenes in the press - what do you think the FCC and the Censorship Board do?

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.

At least we're clear now. They're not opposed to health care reform, just the current proposal - which isn't set in stone. I'm not surprised, shocked, or concerned by this. It's still in draft stage.

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?

Why is GDP more relevant? Cost per capita is more relevant, we spend more PER PERSON than other countries. Regardless, it paints the same picture.

15.2% per GDP in the US, and 8% in Japan - and that's 2003 data, the gap has only gotten wider since then. So how now brown cow?

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?

[dmagicglock]

well to stir the pot even more... I really think this insurance legislation is about government power not about providing services to people that need them. The proposed legislation imposes a fine if you don't have insurance and if you don't pay that fine you can go to jail for up to a year

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall

oh and more bailouts for smaller banks now

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090925/D9AUJHMG0.html

Edited September 26, 2009 by dmagicglock