<p>Nor are Fox News, ABC, NBC, the NYT, the Washington Post, etc… The point was more about the author and the book he wrote. It’s impossible to find anyone who is completely unbiased. The point is, it isn’t because the Republicans are so (supposedly) consumed with wealth that there are social problems in this country. It comes from both sides. I don’t think all liberals are evil or have some insidious plan. I don’t think all conservatives are nice, caring giving people. If everyone else is going to make rash, biased generalizations I can play that game also. </p>
<p>I’m just tired of hearing how our society is going downhill because the rich aren’t taxed enough or all the money is going to pay for a war (which no one wants to be in but what’s done is done). I want people to stop looking to the government to fix things. The government could screw up a wet dream. It doesn’t matter what it is they get a hold of it and it gets twice as expensive and half as effective. I’m sure you and tons of other folks do what you can in whatever way you can, like me and everyone I know.</p>
<p>pmlrcomm, the fact is that the reduction of tax revenue from the Bush tax cuts - 1/3 of which went to the top 1% of taxpayers, with average incomes over $1M per year - is the largest single component of the increase in the national debt since 2001. We’re talking trillions of dollars. It’s not a question of whether conservatives or liberals are “nice people” - I’m sure there’s a wide distribution of virtue in both camps - it’s a matter of supporting policies which take money from our children so the rich can be even richer. Plain and simple. I don’t think that middle class people who support the Republicans are “consumed with wealth” - I just think they’ve been distracted and hoodwinked into fretting about things like “crack whores”, etc. so that they lose sight of the big picture. The Republican tax cuts threw a bone to the middle class while backing the Brinks truck up for the wealthy - and are bankrupting our nation in the process. Read up on “starve the beast.”</p>
<p>
How would you like to send your bill payments in via FedEx every month? All generalities are false. Government services have their place, the private sector has its place. Finding the right balance is the key. An absolute belief such as you expressed is in invitation to being fleeced.</p>
<p>I’m sure you knew that but just forgot when you used them as an example of a gov’t agency that does something well.</p>
<p>The funny part of the whole thing is you are arrogant enough to believe that people have to be hoodwinked and distracted into things. I have a pretty firm grasp on the big picture. I think the difference is we are seeing different pictures. I allow for the fact that you see things differently than I do…and while I don’t always agree…at least I see how you can have a differing view. It appears that in your mind everyone should believe your way or they are fools being led down a primrose path…</p>
<p>pmrlcomm, Just curious–how would you propose we help those living in poverty? Should we leave it to religious or private charitable organizations? It’s unfortunate, but such organizations lack the necessary funding to be of much help.</p>
<p>Several studies have concluded that poverty results not from a lack of responsibility, but from low wages. Many people simply cannot earn enough to support themselves, especially with the high costs of energy, rent, food, and childcare. And too bad if they want a higher education, which is the best long-term solution to poverty, because they can’t even afford to feed themselves. If we want to get people off welfare, perhaps our government should ensure they’re able to make a living wage.</p>
<p>You might be interested to know that the latest data I could find shows that white women and children are the largest groups receiving public assistance, and not “crack whores.”</p>
<p>I find it ironic that middle- and upper-income taxpayers receive “welfare” benefits in the form of Social Security, Medicare, tax deductions on home mortgages, farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, and corporate as well as other tax breaks, but very few (other than Kluge) seem to be complaining about that.</p>
<p>Well. I’m on record as saying that I’m fine with flat tax or national sales tax. They can do away with all the loopholes for all I care. </p>
<p>As for the charities I wish I could find numbers on it but I would imagine back before the gov’t started treating the welfare of individuals as their job there was more money pouring in to the religious, private and other charitable organizations. There is still plenty of money contributed to those organizations but not as much as there could be if the gov’t weren’t in the biz. How can an entity as large as the federal government do as good of a job on the local level as a local charity? I’m pretty sure the declines in the education system were deepened when the fed decided to jump into the education game. </p>
<p>The “crack whore” comment was obviously a reference to the worst of the worst. I really don’t want my money (or yours) being used to help pay for someone’s drug habit. It may not be the largest segment by any stretch but it’s a pet peeve. Sorry if it doesn’t bother you. As for white women and children (funny that you referenced race when it was never an issue?) receiving the bulk of the welfare I would assume that to be the case. I never said there wasn’t a place for welfare. If my family needed it we would use it. My main point was anyone who is capable of working should be expected to do so. If people have problems making ends meet when working then some assistance should be available. Unfortunately the system is set up, for the most part, as an all or none proposition. </p>
<p>I’m in the midwest and I can tell you that I hire people to do work that isn’t really all the difficult. If you can adequately speak the english language and show up every day I’ll pay you $25-$30k… I get pleny of resumes but very few people that actually show up and do what they are supposed to do. I call that a lack of responsibility.</p>
<p>pmrlcomm, Of course I don’t want my tax dollars used to pay for someone’s drug habit. That goes without saying. I also don’t want my tax dollars used to purchase weapons that end up in the hands of insurgents in Iraq or for $10,000 toilet seats in the Pentagon. </p>
<p>If you look at the statistics, I think you’ll find that only a very small percentage of welfare recipients might be classified as “crack whores” (or, as you say, “the worst of the worst”.) Many welfare recipients do hold low-paying jobs, and those that don’t are more often than not single mothers who can’t afford childcare and transportation on subsistence wages. They also lack the education necessary to hold down a job that pays more than a subsistence wage.</p>
<p>As for my referencing the groups “white women and children”, that’s how the groups were delineated in the data set. If I’d changed the groups to “women and children”, then they would not properly reflect the statistics.</p>
<p>I’m really sorry you have trouble finding people to work for you.</p>
<p>It is a myth that there isn’t incredible waste in the private sector, that all inefficiencies are the domain of the public sector. The post office serves a much larger – and public – mandate than FedEx. The problem generally is that all monopolies tend to get complacent and expensive. There are ways to work around this, though. FedEx cherry-picks the highest paying customers. Businesses basically demand that the US postal service subsidize their cheap advertising through delivering junk mail – though it works the other way too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Structured in the right fashion, this is an idea even as a self-described moderate that I would consider. I would make it contingent on the receipt of, and not merely the application for, welfare were I to go down that path.</p>
<p>Why don’t you get involved in the Obama campaign and work toward this idea? I guarantee you McCain won’t be thinking in revolutionary ways about most problems. He’s a really likeable guy and admirable in many ways, but he’s just not that smart or creative in these terms.</p>
<p>Bedhead - I agree that it should be contingent upon receipt of welffare, not just the application for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Precisely why McCain needs me! haha!</p>
<p>Actually you have to give McCain credit for trying new, bi-partisan approaches to many problems in America. He’s not as far out on the radical wing of his party as Obama - I favor that.</p>
<p>McCain gets criticized sometimes for his attempts at forging solutions w/ others from the dem party - but I think this demonstrates true statesmanship and a willingness to put what is best for our country over partisanship. That is EXACTLY what we need from our POTUS.</p>
<p>Add that to the fact that he’s been in gov’t for so long that he really understands the issues & thus can best develop the plans to deal w/ them.</p>
<p>I think if you are going to be on the public dole then it would a good idea. So long as some non-government agency took care of the testing, etc… That way it won’t cost so much or be so screwed up. I also agree it should be upon receipt, not application.</p>
<p>Of course there is waste in the private sector. I don’t think anyone would suggest otherwise. The gov’t just has so much red tape and layers of bureaucracy that it makes efficiency essentially impossible. I would just like to know if there is a segment of the government that is doing something more efficiently than the private sector (we’ve already debunked the Postal Service myth). As a side note to this, the Postal Service now contracts with FedEx to transport certain types of mail. That’s good business there…</p>
<p>As for military spending (I don’t particularly care for expensive toilets seats either…) the gov’t is the only game in town on that front. I wonder if that is still really happening or is it a left over from years gone by? I thought a lot of that was stopped back during the Clinton admin.</p>
<p>I know first-hand that programs have been initiated in the military to combat “Waste, Fraud & Abuse”. Hopefully that’s had a positive impact.</p>
<p>Of course, McCain has spent his whole life blowing the whistle on wasteful spending & corruption in government. I’m confident w/ him as POTUS, we’d really see a crackdown on that sort of thing.</p>
<p>Since McCain is right in step with Bush on Iraq (and a lot of other policies), we should expect a lot more fraud (as well as waste) in Iraq with a McCain presidency.</p>
In short, the Postal Service is required to operate on welfare principles, “taking money away from” people in cities, where it operates more efficiently, to subsidize people in more rural areas. I suppose we could put a stop to that by calling all those red staters “crack whores” or “hillbillies” or something, eh?
</code></pre>
<p>Of course, that wouldn’t change the fact that all that b.s. is just a drop in the bucket, compared to the massive deficits run up due to cutting the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans far below the levels that were normal in the past. </p>
<p>I’m sorry, pmlrcomm, you don’t have a firm grasp of the big picture. You’re micro-focused on some “little pictures” and you’ve got not idea what the big picture even is. That’s the plan, as it happens.</p>
<p>“Is that too logical for the U.S. government?”</p>
<p>The only meaningful welfare in this country goes to custodial parents, not single adults. So this is logical only if you think that children deserve less aid if their parents do drugs, or if you have good alternative homes for those children. If you’ve worked with the public aid population, you know that neither of those is true.</p>
<p>It’s just like you to stop reading where it suits your needs to get a sound bite that supports your position. Try reading the rest of it. You continue to show yourself as someone who won’t let the facts get in the way of your arguments…</p>
<p>Here is what kluge conveniently leaves out:</p>
<p>"Under paragraph (d) of Title 39, Section 101.1, “Postal rates shall be established to apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis.”
No, it’s a business!
the Postal Service takes on some several very non-governmental attributes via the powers granted to it under Title 39, Section 401, which include:</p>
<p>power to sue (and be sued) under its own name
power to adopt, amend and repeal its own regulations
power to “enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and determine the character of, and necessity for, its expenditures”
power to buy, sell and lease private property
power to build, operate, lease and maintain buildings and facilities
All of which are typical functions and powers of a private business. However, unlike other private businesses, the Postal Service is exempt from paying federal taxes. USPS can borrow money at discounted rates, and can condemn and acquire private property under governmental rights of eminent domain. </p>
<p>The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the “Postal Service Fund.” These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies, and for keeping some rural posts offices in operation.</p>
<p>Under federal law, only the Postal Service can handle or charge postage for handling letters. Despite this virtual monopoly worth some $45 billion a year, the law does not require that the Postal Service make a profit – only break even. Still, the US Postal Service has averaged a profit of over $1 billion per year in each of the last five years. Yet, Postal Service officials argue that they must continue to raise postage at regular intervals in order make up for the increased use of email."</p>
<p>pmlrcomm, if the Postal Service was a private company, it would drop service to rural areas in an instant (or charge more for those customers.) Private business isn’t required to be “fair and equitable.” Those are money-losing services. But it can’t, because the Postal Service is a Government Agency, operated under Congressional oversight, and required to serve all of the people, including the unprofitable ones. Sure, it has a slightly different set of operating rules than other, different Government agencies, but its still a government agency. And a pretty efficient one, in my opinion, considering it’s required to operate some services at a loss.</p>
<p>Oh - and Social Security operates pretty efficiently, too.</p>
<p>"The Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service sets policy, procedure, and postal rates for services rendered, and has a similar role to a corporate board of directors. Of the eleven members of the Board, nine are appointed by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate (see 39 U.S.C. § 202). The nine appointed members then select the United States Postmaster General, who serves as the board’s tenth member, and who oversees the day to day activities of the service as Chief Executive Officer (see 39 U.S.C. § 202–203). The ten-member board then nominates a Deputy Postmaster General, who acts as Chief Operating Officer, to the eleventh and last remaining open seat.</p>
<p>The USPS is often mistaken for a government-owned corporation (e.g., Amtrak), but as noted above is legally defined as an “independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States,” (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is wholly owned by the government and controlled by the Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General. As a quasi-governmental agency, it has many special privileges, including sovereign immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail. Indeed, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the USPS was not a government-owned corporation and therefore could not be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.[2]"</p>
<p>It is operated as a private entity, not a government agency. That’s the reason it is successful. The only gov’t funding it received are monies to essentially offset freebies they are forced by the gov’t to give out.</p>
<p>Once again, don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinion. You and kluge should form a mutual delusion society. Please try to inform yourself before you speak again…</p>
<p>I never said they weren’t affiliated with the gov’t. They aren’t operated by the gov’t. Basically the gov’t has outsourced the postal service, in a manner of speaking. </p>
<p>I would love to see how much of the money put into the SS budget finds its way back into the pockets of the recipients. Do you have those numbers by chance?</p>
Government services have their place, the private sector has its place. Finding the right balance is the key. An absolute belief such as you expressed is in invitation to being fleeced.</p>