Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do Tax Breaks for the Rich create Jobs what is your opinion

Page 12 of 14 [ 218 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

05 Oct 2011, 11:33 am

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
t. I'd say half of MRI's are a pointless waste of money as well, but Americans demand them. The people with expensive insurance policies waste resources, while the people stuck with sh***y insurance get the shaft on treatments they absolutely need.


And you think the government of the United States can fix that? Dream on!

ruveyn


This is the same Federal Government that forced a man to see an eye doctor to see if his vision had improved when he had quite literally lost his eyes in an accident, because they wanted to kick him off disability. An insurance company wouldn't have done something that stupid, and quite obviously a waste of money.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Oct 2011, 11:34 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

That's still going to beat going without medical care due to lack of insurance, or because insurance companies desert their clients when the need them the most.
And most people in countries with single payer wouldn't live without it, regardless of the alleged rationing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The delays in getting an MRI in Canada are notorious. You can get an MRI right away if you are dying, but if you are not yet critically or acutely ill you can wait your turn for months, or until you are really about to die.

I would not object to single payer provided one can opt out. Also if purely private fee for service were permitted for those who can afford it. Why should a rich person have to put up with the delays that the government imposes on the Proles and the Hoi Poloi? O.K. we will have two tier service. One for those who can afford it. They will get the best (of course) and single payer for the Proletariat and the miserable scum of the earth.

ruveyn

ruveyn


As for the "Proletariat and the miserable scum of the earth," I think I resemble that remark.
And of course, just because medical care is slow in Canada doesn't mean that we can't work out the kinks in the system.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Government can't even run the post office effectively and you expect them to do any better about deciding whether or not you get a life-saving treatment?!?!


The government runs the post office just fine. It's current troubles arises from the senate vindictively forcing the post office to pay their retirees' pensions in a ten year period.
In one job I worked, the lady in charge of shipping and handling maintained that of all the delivery services, the post office was by far the most reliable and efficient. As that was her job, I think she was an expert on the matter.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually I've found Fed Ex and UPS to be more reliable.


Another of my coworkers, who had once worked for UPS, during the same conversation had said that his former employers had little regard for their customers, saying that they never even took complaints for their sloppy work seriously.
Also, it's quite a bit more expensive to ship with Fed Ex or UPS than it is with the post office, when the latter only charges by the cost of postage stamps. In that regard, private delivery companies can never deliver a letter from one end of the country to the other for the cost of a stamp.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


the postal office is 9 billion dollars in debt, that cost is not the actual cost to deliver the item, as the overwhelming majority of that is subsidized by the taxpayer. just because you don't see or pay down that 9 billion dollars doesn't mean that your getting a cheap service.

I agree with the UPS coworker you met, but it is the same at the USPS (Which I've worked at) and Fedex(which I've also worked at). It is endemic to the entire industry as they fight to be efficient, and they are one of the powerful engines that keep this economy moving. There is no way around it unless you want a poorer more sustainable economy that employees far less people with no middle class.


But will Fed Ex or UPS deliver a letter for me from Washington State, all the way across country to my Aunt in Maryland, all for the cost of a postage stamp?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Nope, because they can't due to Federal Regulation which makes it illegal for them to deliver regular mail.


But assuming that they were allowed to take over the mail (as a lot of Republican leaders want), would they deliver that letter for me, for the cost of a postage stamp?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Initially, probably it would be more expensive, but eventually it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being cheaper than what the Post Office charges, gets there faster, etc.

Oh found another "unintended" consequence from all the new regulations. I use the term "unintended" loosely because I know darn well it was intentional.


The Beast’s review of regulatory filings found at least 16 utilities covering 6.1 million customers are seeking rate hikes of 5 percent or more. Almost half of those want increases of 10 percent or more.

And several more utilities already have received approval for large increases.

For instance, close to three million customers in parts of Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia that get their electricity from American Electric Power have seen their rates increase between 48 and 88 percent over the last few years. Those rates are expected to rise an additional 10 to 35 percent in the next three years. The reason? AEP officials are quick to blame environmental regulations that they say are going to cost the company $8 billion in compliance and upgrades.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rades.html

Well yeah I know part of it is to replace aging systems, that wouldn't cause rates to increase by 48 to 88 percent.


In the meantime, are my family and I supposed to go broke from using the mail, till the cost eventually lowers?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

05 Oct 2011, 11:37 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

That's still going to beat going without medical care due to lack of insurance, or because insurance companies desert their clients when the need them the most.
And most people in countries with single payer wouldn't live without it, regardless of the alleged rationing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The delays in getting an MRI in Canada are notorious. You can get an MRI right away if you are dying, but if you are not yet critically or acutely ill you can wait your turn for months, or until you are really about to die.

I would not object to single payer provided one can opt out. Also if purely private fee for service were permitted for those who can afford it. Why should a rich person have to put up with the delays that the government imposes on the Proles and the Hoi Poloi? O.K. we will have two tier service. One for those who can afford it. They will get the best (of course) and single payer for the Proletariat and the miserable scum of the earth.

ruveyn

ruveyn


As for the "Proletariat and the miserable scum of the earth," I think I resemble that remark.
And of course, just because medical care is slow in Canada doesn't mean that we can't work out the kinks in the system.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Government can't even run the post office effectively and you expect them to do any better about deciding whether or not you get a life-saving treatment?!?!


The government runs the post office just fine. It's current troubles arises from the senate vindictively forcing the post office to pay their retirees' pensions in a ten year period.
In one job I worked, the lady in charge of shipping and handling maintained that of all the delivery services, the post office was by far the most reliable and efficient. As that was her job, I think she was an expert on the matter.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually I've found Fed Ex and UPS to be more reliable.


Another of my coworkers, who had once worked for UPS, during the same conversation had said that his former employers had little regard for their customers, saying that they never even took complaints for their sloppy work seriously.
Also, it's quite a bit more expensive to ship with Fed Ex or UPS than it is with the post office, when the latter only charges by the cost of postage stamps. In that regard, private delivery companies can never deliver a letter from one end of the country to the other for the cost of a stamp.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


the postal office is 9 billion dollars in debt, that cost is not the actual cost to deliver the item, as the overwhelming majority of that is subsidized by the taxpayer. just because you don't see or pay down that 9 billion dollars doesn't mean that your getting a cheap service.

I agree with the UPS coworker you met, but it is the same at the USPS (Which I've worked at) and Fedex(which I've also worked at). It is endemic to the entire industry as they fight to be efficient, and they are one of the powerful engines that keep this economy moving. There is no way around it unless you want a poorer more sustainable economy that employees far less people with no middle class.


But will Fed Ex or UPS deliver a letter for me from Washington State, all the way across country to my Aunt in Maryland, all for the cost of a postage stamp?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Nope, because they can't due to Federal Regulation which makes it illegal for them to deliver regular mail.


But assuming that they were allowed to take over the mail (as a lot of Republican leaders want), would they deliver that letter for me, for the cost of a postage stamp?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Initially, probably it would be more expensive, but eventually it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being cheaper than what the Post Office charges, gets there faster, etc.

Oh found another "unintended" consequence from all the new regulations. I use the term "unintended" loosely because I know darn well it was intentional.


The Beast’s review of regulatory filings found at least 16 utilities covering 6.1 million customers are seeking rate hikes of 5 percent or more. Almost half of those want increases of 10 percent or more.

And several more utilities already have received approval for large increases.

For instance, close to three million customers in parts of Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia that get their electricity from American Electric Power have seen their rates increase between 48 and 88 percent over the last few years. Those rates are expected to rise an additional 10 to 35 percent in the next three years. The reason? AEP officials are quick to blame environmental regulations that they say are going to cost the company $8 billion in compliance and upgrades.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rades.html

Well yeah I know part of it is to replace aging systems, that wouldn't cause rates to increase by 48 to 88 percent.


In the meantime, are my family and I supposed to go broke from using the mail, till the cost eventually lowers?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You could always send your grandma packages with your letter, Fed Ex and UPS is already cheaper when it comes to packages.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Oct 2011, 11:38 am

Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
t. I'd say half of MRI's are a pointless waste of money as well, but Americans demand them. The people with expensive insurance policies waste resources, while the people stuck with sh***y insurance get the shaft on treatments they absolutely need.


And you think the government of the United States can fix that? Dream on!

ruveyn


This is the same Federal Government that forced a man to see an eye doctor to see if his vision had improved when he had quite literally lost his eyes in an accident, because they wanted to kick him off disability. An insurance company wouldn't have done something that stupid, and quite obviously a waste of money.


The infamous antics of private insurance companies are well known. Plenty of people who had in good faith paid their monthly fees have been left out to dry (or in this case, die) when they needed their insurers the most.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

05 Oct 2011, 11:39 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
t. I'd say half of MRI's are a pointless waste of money as well, but Americans demand them. The people with expensive insurance policies waste resources, while the people stuck with sh***y insurance get the shaft on treatments they absolutely need.


And you think the government of the United States can fix that? Dream on!

ruveyn


This is the same Federal Government that forced a man to see an eye doctor to see if his vision had improved when he had quite literally lost his eyes in an accident, because they wanted to kick him off disability. An insurance company wouldn't have done something that stupid, and quite obviously a waste of money.


The infamous antics of private insurance companies are well known. Plenty of people who had in good faith paid their monthly fees have been left out to dry (or in this case, die) when they needed their insurers the most.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You mean like a State Government telling a woman that they would pay for the pill to commit suicide but not pay for cancer treatment?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Oct 2011, 11:46 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
t. I'd say half of MRI's are a pointless waste of money as well, but Americans demand them. The people with expensive insurance policies waste resources, while the people stuck with sh***y insurance get the shaft on treatments they absolutely need.


And you think the government of the United States can fix that? Dream on!

ruveyn


This is the same Federal Government that forced a man to see an eye doctor to see if his vision had improved when he had quite literally lost his eyes in an accident, because they wanted to kick him off disability. An insurance company wouldn't have done something that stupid, and quite obviously a waste of money.


The infamous antics of private insurance companies are well known. Plenty of people who had in good faith paid their monthly fees have been left out to dry (or in this case, die) when they needed their insurers the most.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You mean like a State Government telling a woman that they would pay for the pill to commit suicide but not pay for cancer treatment?


Seriously, when and where did that happen?
And it still doesn't make insurance companies deserting their customers anymore acceptable.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Oct 2011, 11:48 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

That's still going to beat going without medical care due to lack of insurance, or because insurance companies desert their clients when the need them the most.
And most people in countries with single payer wouldn't live without it, regardless of the alleged rationing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The delays in getting an MRI in Canada are notorious. You can get an MRI right away if you are dying, but if you are not yet critically or acutely ill you can wait your turn for months, or until you are really about to die.

I would not object to single payer provided one can opt out. Also if purely private fee for service were permitted for those who can afford it. Why should a rich person have to put up with the delays that the government imposes on the Proles and the Hoi Poloi? O.K. we will have two tier service. One for those who can afford it. They will get the best (of course) and single payer for the Proletariat and the miserable scum of the earth.

ruveyn

ruveyn


As for the "Proletariat and the miserable scum of the earth," I think I resemble that remark.
And of course, just because medical care is slow in Canada doesn't mean that we can't work out the kinks in the system.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Government can't even run the post office effectively and you expect them to do any better about deciding whether or not you get a life-saving treatment?!?!


The government runs the post office just fine. It's current troubles arises from the senate vindictively forcing the post office to pay their retirees' pensions in a ten year period.
In one job I worked, the lady in charge of shipping and handling maintained that of all the delivery services, the post office was by far the most reliable and efficient. As that was her job, I think she was an expert on the matter.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually I've found Fed Ex and UPS to be more reliable.


Another of my coworkers, who had once worked for UPS, during the same conversation had said that his former employers had little regard for their customers, saying that they never even took complaints for their sloppy work seriously.
Also, it's quite a bit more expensive to ship with Fed Ex or UPS than it is with the post office, when the latter only charges by the cost of postage stamps. In that regard, private delivery companies can never deliver a letter from one end of the country to the other for the cost of a stamp.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


the postal office is 9 billion dollars in debt, that cost is not the actual cost to deliver the item, as the overwhelming majority of that is subsidized by the taxpayer. just because you don't see or pay down that 9 billion dollars doesn't mean that your getting a cheap service.

I agree with the UPS coworker you met, but it is the same at the USPS (Which I've worked at) and Fedex(which I've also worked at). It is endemic to the entire industry as they fight to be efficient, and they are one of the powerful engines that keep this economy moving. There is no way around it unless you want a poorer more sustainable economy that employees far less people with no middle class.


But will Fed Ex or UPS deliver a letter for me from Washington State, all the way across country to my Aunt in Maryland, all for the cost of a postage stamp?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Nope, because they can't due to Federal Regulation which makes it illegal for them to deliver regular mail.


But assuming that they were allowed to take over the mail (as a lot of Republican leaders want), would they deliver that letter for me, for the cost of a postage stamp?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Initially, probably it would be more expensive, but eventually it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being cheaper than what the Post Office charges, gets there faster, etc.

Oh found another "unintended" consequence from all the new regulations. I use the term "unintended" loosely because I know darn well it was intentional.


The Beast’s review of regulatory filings found at least 16 utilities covering 6.1 million customers are seeking rate hikes of 5 percent or more. Almost half of those want increases of 10 percent or more.

And several more utilities already have received approval for large increases.

For instance, close to three million customers in parts of Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia that get their electricity from American Electric Power have seen their rates increase between 48 and 88 percent over the last few years. Those rates are expected to rise an additional 10 to 35 percent in the next three years. The reason? AEP officials are quick to blame environmental regulations that they say are going to cost the company $8 billion in compliance and upgrades.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rades.html

Well yeah I know part of it is to replace aging systems, that wouldn't cause rates to increase by 48 to 88 percent.


In the meantime, are my family and I supposed to go broke from using the mail, till the cost eventually lowers?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You could always send your grandma packages with your letter, Fed Ex and UPS is already cheaper when it comes to packages.


That was my Aunt, not my grandma.
And what if I just want to send her a damn letter?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

05 Oct 2011, 11:50 am

You raise an interesting issue which deserves much better treatment than it has received so far.

It was accepted in the 19th and 20th centuries that it was a proper role of government to provide a reliable, universal system of communication. Almost every country on earth runs a postal system, and is party to the Internation Postal Union. But in a world of faxes, emails, digital signatures, .pdf formats, private courier services and e-greetings, is there a role left for the post office?

This takes into the larger question about whether the proper roles for government are fixed and immutable, or whether they are subject to change over time. Personally, I believe the latter, and it meshes strongly with my belief in the "living tree" model of constitutional interpretation. What was necessary for an 18th or 19th century society is insufficient for a 21st century society--but similarly, what was necessary for a 20th century government can be safely left to the private sector in the 21st century.

Each country will, of course, approach this question differently. But we all must do so.

And that brings me back to the original question in this thread. I found the following piece struck a chord with me:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le2188196/

In the G7 and OECD economies, we have had a fetish for directing investment at production, financing growth through credit, and reducing the size and scope of the public sector. But we are awash in debt (both personal and public), with a glut of goods and services that more and more consumers can ill afford and crumbling infrastructure that the public sector lacks the fiscal capacity to replace.

So the question in my mind is, even if tax breaks for wealthy individuals create jobs (a point which I do not concede), are the jobs that would be created thereby what the collective prosperity of our countries actually requires right now? By encouraging employers to create even more goods and more services are we simply fuelling the creation of even more private and public debt so that these goods and services will have a consumer available to buy them?

I am increasingly convinced that we have been sold a bill of goods by the wealthiest in our societies. We have been told that it is they who create prosperity, it is they who should be freed from the shackles of government, and that everyone will be better off as a result. I think the last 30 years have put the lie to that claim. The gap between the wealthy and the middle class and between the middle class and the poor have grown ever wider. The size of the middle class has shrunk as fewer and fewer of the jobs that "they" create provide a living wage. (Which means that an employed person must now take on two, three or more jobs, rather than the one job that might have been taken up in years past).


_________________
--James


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Oct 2011, 11:58 am

visagrunt wrote:
You raise an interesting issue which deserves much better treatment than it has received so far.

It was accepted in the 19th and 20th centuries that it was a proper role of government to provide a reliable, universal system of communication. Almost every country on earth runs a postal system, and is party to the Internation Postal Union. But in a world of faxes, emails, digital signatures, .pdf formats, private courier services and e-greetings, is there a role left for the post office?

This takes into the larger question about whether the proper roles for government are fixed and immutable, or whether they are subject to change over time. Personally, I believe the latter, and it meshes strongly with my belief in the "living tree" model of constitutional interpretation. What was necessary for an 18th or 19th century society is insufficient for a 21st century society--but similarly, what was necessary for a 20th century government can be safely left to the private sector in the 21st century.

Each country will, of course, approach this question differently. But we all must do so.

And that brings me back to the original question in this thread. I found the following piece struck a chord with me:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le2188196/

In the G7 and OECD economies, we have had a fetish for directing investment at production, financing growth through credit, and reducing the size and scope of the public sector. But we are awash in debt (both personal and public), with a glut of goods and services that more and more consumers can ill afford and crumbling infrastructure that the public sector lacks the fiscal capacity to replace.

So the question in my mind is, even if tax breaks for wealthy individuals create jobs (a point which I do not concede), are the jobs that would be created thereby what the collective prosperity of our countries actually requires right now? By encouraging employers to create even more goods and more services are we simply fuelling the creation of even more private and public debt so that these goods and services will have a consumer available to buy them?

I am increasingly convinced that we have been sold a bill of goods by the wealthiest in our societies. We have been told that it is they who create prosperity, it is they who should be freed from the shackles of government, and that everyone will be better off as a result. I think the last 30 years have put the lie to that claim. The gap between the wealthy and the middle class and between the middle class and the poor have grown ever wider. The size of the middle class has shrunk as fewer and fewer of the jobs that "they" create provide a living wage. (Which means that an employed person must now take on two, three or more jobs, rather than the one job that might have been taken up in years past).


That was indeed very eloquent. And true.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

05 Oct 2011, 12:08 pm

So, less Snuggies more teachers? Makes sense to me.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

05 Oct 2011, 12:49 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
t. I'd say half of MRI's are a pointless waste of money as well, but Americans demand them. The people with expensive insurance policies waste resources, while the people stuck with sh***y insurance get the shaft on treatments they absolutely need.


And you think the government of the United States can fix that? Dream on!

ruveyn


This is the same Federal Government that forced a man to see an eye doctor to see if his vision had improved when he had quite literally lost his eyes in an accident, because they wanted to kick him off disability. An insurance company wouldn't have done something that stupid, and quite obviously a waste of money.


The infamous antics of private insurance companies are well known. Plenty of people who had in good faith paid their monthly fees have been left out to dry (or in this case, die) when they needed their insurers the most.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You mean like a State Government telling a woman that they would pay for the pill to commit suicide but not pay for cancer treatment?


Seriously, when and where did that happen?
And it still doesn't make insurance companies deserting their customers anymore acceptable.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I've posted about this before
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

Read the article this time.



Last edited by Inuyasha on 06 Oct 2011, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

05 Oct 2011, 1:33 pm

[quote="Inuyasha"][/quote]

Will wonders never cease? Here's a post of Inuyasha's to which I have no objection, correction or contrary opinion.


_________________
--James


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

05 Oct 2011, 3:24 pm

visagrunt wrote:
You raise an interesting issue which deserves much better treatment than it has received so far.

It was accepted in the 19th and 20th centuries that it was a proper role of government to provide a reliable, universal system of communication. Almost every country on earth runs a postal system, and is party to the Internation Postal Union. But in a world of faxes, emails, digital signatures, .pdf formats, private courier services and e-greetings, is there a role left for the post office?


Maybe the post office can become the department that makes sure that ISPs don't segregate by, charge for, or delay access based on content rather than bandwidth.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

05 Oct 2011, 3:30 pm

The Post Office seems to be doing pretty well with so many people buying and selling things through EBay.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

05 Oct 2011, 3:51 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
If tax breaks for the rich create jobs then where in the blue hell are all the jobs and why is umemployment so high in the tar heel state of North Carolina?


Some businesses have been fined for hiring American Citizens, as I have been pointing out. The problem is there are too many regulations and Obama is bypassing congress to create even more regulations that are choking the life out of businesses.


Some American corporations are taking the money (some of which if from subsidies) and investing it in parts of the world where labor is cheap. So the bailout has created jobs. But not necessarily in the United States.

ruveyn


So jobs that are created by the bailout is to send our jobs over seas I may sound like a.

American Nationalist but I will not support sending our jobs over seas I should be america first.

look after ourselfs the rest of the world would never send their jobs to America why should we.

send ours to their country :?:

When we dont make a profit off of them we dont get any money from China for sending ours jobs to them.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

05 Oct 2011, 4:45 pm

pandabear wrote:
The Post Office seems to be doing pretty well with so many people buying and selling things through EBay.


How do you reconcile "doing pretty well" with "9 billion in debt"?