hey republicans

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I'm confident the government could be competitive with the private sector. Again, the major difference is that the government wouldn't be trying to make a profit. I mean, how much is profit in the cost of everything we buy? 50%? At least. And I don't see anything wrong with the USPS. I prefet when things are shipped by USPS. It's generally cheaper, they deliver on Saturdays and it takes max 3 days to get from coast to coast. This is in addidion to the fact that USPS has to do so much more than Fedex or UPS. They are legally bound to deliver at every location (unless this has changed), even if it's one home a mile away from any town. UPS and Fedex (or any other private delivery service) can decide just not to deliver there. Plus, USPS has tracking?

Well, you can look at some of the financial reports of industry leaders and you can see the profit in commodities is far far less than 50%. It's closer to 12%. The profit on a stick of wood at Lowe's ranges from 8-14%. The other problem with steel is that it doesn't take a lot of people to run a mill. Most of it is automated.

USPS lost a $3B contract with another government agency because they cannot provide real time tracking. I just bought an amp that was shipped from CA to the east coast. It took 7 days. I did get an estimated delivery date and it did arrive on the date it said, but it didn't give me nice little updates along the way. Necessary, no, but it gives clients a warm fuzzy that they can see their merchandise go across the US. Fedex delivers on Saturday here. I do not find the rates very competitive, but ymmv. I have no doubt in certain circumstances they could be cheaper. You are correct about postal mail (like letters) but not about packages. I have to pick them up from the post office because I live in the sticks. The people who deliver mail are subcontractors and don't deliver packages. Again, that's a ymmv thing.

And providing the homeless a place to sleep doesn't help them get on their feet. Neither to soup kitchens. What's the saying? Teach a man to fish, etc. I think this is actually one of the accurate uses for that analogy. I'd rather the government try to get homeless in a position to afford a place to sleep rather than be given one. Not that I'm against soup kitchens or anything like that, I'm just saying for this specific purpose, the government is better equiped.

The local rescue missions due just that. They don't want people hanging around there forever live hungry dogs. It's in their best interest to do this. What city do you live in? I want to show you (based on the budget) just all the activities your government is involved in. And because they try to please so many constituent interest, it's hard to do any of them very well. A popular one around here is trash disposal. There is a subscription based trash removal company that competes head to head in the city. The residents already pay for the government service, why would they pay extra for the private company. Well, the private company doesn't take 3 day weekends for holidays. Oftentimes, people have lots of family over for the holidays generating tons of extra trash. The private company is working that day, so the trash doesn't pile up. Those with the public option have trash in their driveway for over a week after Christmas.

People don't buy a product for it's customer service, so again, I'm not sure that's a solid comparison. But workers treat their job how their job treats them, I don't think anyone would argue that. If you just cut back all your employees hours, they will care less about the job and the company will suffer.

Depends on the product. Disposable goods, absolutely not. But durable goods, like a car, computer, cell phone etc the customer service absolutely matters. Have you ever been in an Apple Store? Tell them that customer service doesn't matter.

bolded -- That has yet to play out. I am interested to see what happens if "everyone" does it. Will some give in and go back to the old way? Will it prove in some instances disgruntled customers don't matter? Very curious to see the strategies and the winners and losers.

-As for the Papa Johns thing, that is just a public relations blunder. It's okay to lay off people due to increased costs...that's fine. But to make it a public comments is stupid stupid stupid and sets himself up for boycott, etc such that a failure could just as easily be blamed on this PR fiasco as it could increased costs due to ObamaCare.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Oh, and your two comments.
I don't think that poor people today would risk their lives. And that's neither a bad thing nor is it because people back then were better people. It's because today, their quality is life is much higher, chiefly because we have an activist government that fights problems and takes care of it's people. Where there was government back in those days, it surely didn't help over the impoverished.

And three policies I guess would be worker protections/rights (I'll include unions in there), SS/Medicare, and the ACA. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

While I disagree that government shouldn't take on that role, I'll buy that answer.

Agreed on 1, part of 2, and part of 3.

The part of 2 I disagree with is when somewhere down the line SS switched from a safety net to keep elderly out of poverty to a defined benefit retirement system. When you look at the legislation, it was never intended to provide enough money to provide for an enjoyable retirement, just to keep people out of poverty. As much as I hate to admit it, this should be means tested if we want to add the whole host of others who receiver OASDI benefits.

The part of 3 I disagree with is the employer response. If the move pushes a lot of FT workers to PT, especially in the service industry, that won't be good. Call it corporate greed or whatever, the government cannot force employers to maintain FT workers. If you were a FT worker who just lost 10 hours a week, you'd be in trouble. Secondly, I have questions on the quality of care. Around here, it's very challenging for those on Medicare/ Medicaid to find a doctor who accepts that insurance. Who's to say doctors will accept the insurance off the exchanges. And if everyone is on the exchange with the limited doctors, it will indeed be a two-tiered system between those with a good doctor and those without. I am cautiously optimistic about Obamacare.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Fix our economy then please.....thank you that is all..........I am going to gracefully bow out of this thread....had fun guys....later

That would take an act of God. All I can do is study the past and make educated guesses about the future.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

The main problem I have with Obamacare is that it does very little to change American culture. Obesity is growing at an alarming rate and it's spillover costs are enormous. There's not a lot in Obamacare to "award" people for healthy living. Instead, the opposite, it makes it cheaper to live an unhealthy lifestyle. Until we do something about the way (and what) we eat, attitudes to getting healthy, educating the poor on healthy eating choices, etc, then Obamacare won't defray any costs. From smoking to fast food, unless we protect people from themselves, costs are going to continue to skyrocket.

And since Obamacare tries to throw us all on exchanges anyway, it's no longer a question of liberty. Our liberty has already been revoked as we are all in the same system. And since your (anyone who lives unhealthily) actions directly increase the cost to everyone, your rights should be limited. It's why I am not mad at Bloomberg for his soda bans. He understands that the unhealthy are directly increasing system costs and since they cannot make good choices, he'll make the choices for them.

 

[MisterDeadeye 10+ year member]

Not everyone on this forum is a trained economist...but I am.

My apologies. My post applies to everyone here(including me) except you. Your opinions are obviously much more informed than most of ours. To tell the truth, I actually suspected it after reading your sig and seeing you name drop Keynes.

I wasn't going to comment, but amber was standing beside me reading with me. She has dealt with the age issue more then any one I know, mainly do to her field of study and her relatively young age. So to the least she was less then pleased, so it required me to comment. I told her to start her start her own account and post up... She declined that offer haha.

Speaking of her and her work, did she ever complete that study(or whatever it was) about drugs and their effects on the brain? I don't remember the details you told me about, as it's been a while. The brain might not have even been involved. I'd still be interested in taking a look at it if she still has a copy, or if it's posted somewhere publicly. (That is, of course, assuming she's able to.)

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

My apologies. My post applies to everyone here(including me) except you. Your opinions are obviously much more informed than most of ours. To tell the truth, I actually suspected it after reading your sig and seeing you name drop Keynes.

They are just opinions. It's the reason I couldn't really blast Proximity for his comments on capping income and nationalizing the steel industry. I don't think either option will bring about income equality, they are definitely things one could consider in getting there.

When it comes to economics, all education and experience gives you is "really good sources" when arguing on the interwebs. We all have had experiences that shape our opinion. Mine just come from a classroom and my work.

 

[husker77 10+ year member]

The main problem I have with Obamacare is that it does very little to change American culture. Obesity is growing at an alarming rate and it's spillover costs are enormous. There's not a lot in Obamacare to "award" people for healthy living. Instead, the opposite, it makes it cheaper to live an unhealthy lifestyle. Until we do something about the way (and what) we eat, attitudes to getting healthy, educating the poor on healthy eating choices, etc, then Obamacare won't defray any costs. From smoking to fast food, unless we protect people from themselves, costs are going to continue to skyrocket.
And since Obamacare tries to throw us all on exchanges anyway, it's no longer a question of liberty. Our liberty has already been revoked as we are all in the same system. And since your (anyone who lives unhealthily) actions directly increase the cost to everyone, your rights should be limited. It's why I am not mad at Bloomberg for his soda bans. He understands that the unhealthy are directly increasing system costs and since they cannot make good choices, he'll make the choices for them.

Amen!

For the most part, I don't think the government should tell people what they can and can't do, BUT I think that if you get lung cancer from smoking insurance does not pay for it, same with diabetes from poor eating habits, and so on.

Of course the problem is someone has to pay for it. I wonder about a health tax, every year before you file you income taxes you have a physical, you tax rate goes up if you body fat is high(no stupid bmi), if you lung capacity is low from smoking it goes up and so on.

I am also not against a sugar tax, but I see that as a very slippery slope.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

The problem I have with that is that we are giving up our rights and contorting our bodies to what the government says is good in order to get a good deal. How much control should we give the government such things? I haven't found a good point and tend to answer such questions with the following question, "Which answer provides for the greatest amount of liberty?" But even then, it's whose liberty? The liberty of an idiot to eat themselves to death encroaches on my liberty to pay lower costs.

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

Except that's not how our tax system works, not surprising you don't know this. 90% at $1,000,000 dollars means that only income over $1 mil is tax at 90%. So if the rest was taxed at 50%, and I made $2 mil a year, then I wouldn't be paying 90% of $2m, I'd be paying 50% on $1m and 90% on the other million.
You should probably educate yourself if you want to have opinions that don't make you look like a fool.

If you want to live where you are taxed that much Move? This country was founded because of that we should not be like every other country. Yet we have all of you 18-26 year olds thinking that we should be a Socialist Country. Everyone thinks its the Rich and Republicans fault this country is in the state it is in.

Well the Democrats pushed the "lets make it so easy anyone can get a loan for 10x more than they make to buy a house" bill through for banks. Clinton did that Actually. Now when that finally popped everyone started blaming Republicans. Democrats complain about shipping jobs over seas, yet they want to make 13million illegals Legals. Yeah makes sense put more strain on the system that is already about to burst. So what is the Democrats plan, TAX tax tax... Taxing does not work in this country. If you can't work or figure out a way to earn money without government assistance your azz shouldn't be alive period.

20 years ago this thinking would of landed you in jail, but today with these dumbazz college kids being brain washed by media and schools thinking Socialists is the new hot fad. All of you poor obama voters will really see in the next 4 years what happens when you try to change a system that has been in place for this long. Poor people will get even poorer, middle class will be come the poor class, Rich people will live off what they earned. Then the government will be the only group with money just like China. But thats what you people want because You can't think, do or act for yourself you have to have the Government tell you how to live how to act and what to do Like a bunch of kids.

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

Because the market is already saturated and I don't have the capital.
And yes, it's astronomical and we need to do something about it. What is one of the reason it's astronomical? Because people are guaranteed ER care whether or not they have insurance. When people who don't have insurance get ER care, they can't pay so that bill gets footed to people do DO have have insurance. It's ironic that people don't like government healthcare because we'd be paying for other people when that is what is happening now.

The ACA solves this by mandating that everyone get healthcare. This will bring down costs in two ways: it brings a lot of healthy people into the market. The healthy pay for the sick, that's how insurance works and since there will be more healthy people, there is more money to pay for healthcare costs and so costs go down. It's pretty simple.

Second, more people with insurance means that costs won't get shoved onto other people.

This is already proved to be wrong. When you mandate something such as Health Care, prices will sky rocket. When insurance companies know that people have to have this, what happens. They can and will the raise the rates. Everyone thought the same thing with car insurance, oooohhh wow rates will drop and so forth but rates go up every year. that is a proven fact and point.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

If you want to live where you are taxed that much Move? This country was founded because of that we should not be like every other country. Yet we have all of you 18-26 year olds thinking that we should be a Socialist Country. Everyone thinks its the Rich and Republicans fault this country is in the state it is in. Well the Democrats pushed the "lets make it so easy anyone can get a loan for 10x more than they make to buy a house" bill through for banks. Clinton did that Actually. Now when that finally popped everyone started blaming Republicans. Democrats complain about shipping jobs over seas, yet they want to make 13million illegals Legals. Yeah makes sense put more strain on the system that is already about to burst. So what is the Democrats plan, TAX tax tax... Taxing does not work in this country. If you can't work or figure out a way to earn money without government assistance your azz shouldn't be alive period.

20 years ago this thinking would of landed you in jail, but today with these dumbazz college kids being brain washed by media and schools thinking Socialists is the new hot fad. All of you poor obama voters will really see in the next 4 years what happens when you try to change a system that has been in place for this long. Poor people will get even poorer, middle class will be come the poor class, Rich people will live off what they earned. Then the government will be the only group with money just like China. But thats what you people want because You can't think, do or act for yourself you have to have the Government tell you how to live how to act and what to do Like a bunch of kids.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif I respond, proving that you know nothing, and all you reply with is "blah blah blah liberals hate america blah blah blah". //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

And you expect your "opinions" to be taken seriously?

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

My apologies. My post applies to everyone here(including me) except you. Your opinions are obviously much more informed than most of ours. To tell the truth, I actually suspected it after reading your sig and seeing you name drop Keynes.




Speaking of her and her work, did she ever complete that study(or whatever it was) about drugs and their effects on the brain? I don't remember the details you told me about, as it's been a while. The brain might not have even been involved. I'd still be interested in taking a look at it if she still has a copy, or if it's posted somewhere publicly. (That is, of course, assuming she's able to.)

I will have to ask, she has moved on to working on new pharmaceutical software for retailers currently. I'm not sure is she was still on that project to see the ending results or if she was just consulting with the project for a short/long time.

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif I respond, proving that you know nothing, and all you reply with is "blah blah blah liberals hate america blah blah blah". //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
And you expect your "opinions" to be taken seriously?

My point is You all act like Kids that think That this Government has the best interest in the people, They don't whatever side you are on. I'm not Republican nor Democrat. But basics is simple big government = more spending, less money to the people more money to the government. And you are a Kid in terms of Real World knowledge. You are in college and spouting off stuff you are reading, when you get older and maybe open your eyes you will see what we are talking about. I work in an industry that see's what Raising taxes, what forcing all of these mandates on to people do, Unlike Economists and everything else. They have Theory's.

When Taxes get raised: 1: Businesses quit growing. 2: Businesses start upping the price on goods to offset the taxes. 3: people get laid off. 4: People can no longer afford the goods. 5: More people on government assistance draining the system...

So you can keep spouting off about things that you are reading in school and acting like you know something. But until you get into the Real World your opinion is just that. You have no real knowledge of anything.

I'm just tired of all you lazy people that think you are entitled to what everyone else has earned. Quit taking handouts and do something with your life and you might not feel like everyone owes you something.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I'm confident the government could be competitive with the private sector. Again, the major difference is that the government wouldn't be trying to make a profit. I mean, how much is profit in the cost of everything we buy? 50%? At least. And I don't see anything wrong with the USPS. I prefet when things are shipped by USPS. It's generally cheaper, they deliver on Saturdays and it takes max 3 days to get from coast to coast. This is in addidion to the fact that USPS has to do so much more than Fedex or UPS. They are legally bound to deliver at every location (unless this has changed), even if it's one home a mile away from any town. UPS and Fedex (or any other private delivery service) can decide just not to deliver there. Plus, USPS has tracking?

We've discussed this before. The USPS is a really bad example of govt efficiency or being competitive with the private sector. As Ive reminded you before, what you pay to ship a package with the USPS is only part of their income. The USPS is govt subsidized (tax money). And, the USPS was quite stagnant with their advances in quality, pricing, and services offered until private companies like UPS and FEDEX came onto the scene and started kicking their butt. The USPS also has a guaranteed income in the form of legal restrictions that mean they have a monopoly on standard mail. The USPS also has a built-in loan agreement with the US govt (up to $3 billion a year) that no private sector mailing company has. Not to mention the USPS is exampt from paying things like vehicle licensing, property tax, etc. Even with these advantages over private sector businesses, the USPS's debt has increased from $2 billion to $12 billion in the years from 2007 to 2010 (latest info Ive found in my brief research for this reply). And its products which actually compete with private companies like UPS and Fedex only account for less than 15% of its total business, the rest being generated by monopolized segments such as first class and standard mail, which those private companies are legally obligated to stay out of.

Wait until you graduate and have to start dealing with the red tape and bureaucrats in getting building permits, design approval, etc for your architectural work, you'll better understand how inefficient our govt really is. You'll encounter govt employees who dont really care if you succeed, if they do their jobs competently, if your plans ever get approved or your building gets built... their main goals will more often be to ensure they get their pension, keep their better-than-average health care plan, their above average number of sick days/vacation/comp time, etc. You will encounter people whose main purpose is not to streamline the system like a private company employee usually will, but instead will seek to keep the system as bloated as possible to maintain their job security (again the old joke about one DOT employee digging the hole, while 3 others lean on their shovel and watch). The fact that you argue that govt run agencies are inherently efficient because they are 'non-profit' only shows your lack of experience with such matters. I dont blame you for your lack of experience, most of us thought we knew it all when we were going through college too. Yes, you are a smart guy, but you are not wise enough yet to open your mind to people who have more experience than you do.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

First, I didn't bring up USPS.

Second, it's only losing money now because people don't use mail as much with the advent of email, not because it's inefficient. Before, it used to be a profitable endeavor. If private companies were legally obligated to deliver mail to each and every home in the united states every day except Sunday, they wouldn't be profitable either.

And dealing with red tape, building permits and codes speaks nothing to financial efficiency. You can't deny that theoretically/ideally, government should be able to do things cheaper because of the lack of profit. But, maybe I do have an optimistic view of government. But that's better than a cynical one. If all people do is view government as crap, then it will be crap. How can we expect government to be efficient if we don't vote people in who believe in it? It's like trying to get your car fixed by a guy who hates automobiles and still rides his horse everywhere.

Am I not going to get a response to my last reply to you?