Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Proximity" data-source="post: 7930603" data-attributes="member: 589997">It&#039;s a fair point that some people can&#039;t manage money, it&#039;s surely the cause of some people&#039;s poverty. But they should at least be given the chance if their circumstances haven&#039;t otherwise allowed it.And I wasn&#039;t really thinking that government could create consumer want-based goods. I was thinking more along the lines of necessary commodoities or materials. Like I said, steel production? I really don&#039;t know a lot about it so it&#039;s hard for me to say, but something along those lines.I&#039;m confident the government could be competitive with the private sector. Again, the major difference is that the government wouldn&#039;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&#039;t see anything wrong with the USPS. I prefet when things are shipped by USPS. It&#039;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&#039;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?And providing the homeless a place to sleep doesn&#039;t help them get on their feet. Neither to soup kitchens. What&#039;s the saying? Teach a man to fish, etc. I think this is actually one of the accurate uses for that analogy. I&#039;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&#039;m against soup kitchens or anything like that, I&#039;m just saying for this specific purpose, the government is better equiped.People don&#039;t buy a product for it&#039;s customer service, so again, I&#039;m not sure that&#039;s a solid comparison. But workers treat their job how their job treats them, I don&#039;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.And as much as I hate posting images like this, I really feel it characterizes the papa johns thing very well.<img src="https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/18506_557405314284984_1306855504_n.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />The owner of papa johns doesn&#039;t need to reduce payroll to stay profitable, it&#039;s purely political.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Proximity, post: 7930603, member: 589997"] It's a fair point that some people can't manage money, it's surely the cause of some people's poverty. But they should at least be given the chance if their circumstances haven't otherwise allowed it. And I wasn't really thinking that government could create consumer want-based goods. I was thinking more along the lines of necessary commodoities or materials. Like I said, steel production? I really don't know a lot about it so it's hard for me to say, but something along those lines. 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? 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. 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. And as much as I hate posting images like this, I really feel it characterizes the papa johns thing very well. [IMG]https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/18506_557405314284984_1306855504_n.jpg[/IMG] The owner of papa johns doesn't need to reduce payroll to stay profitable, it's purely political. [/QUOTE]

Verification