I know from getting out of college and struggling through my 20's to now, the more money I make/have, the easier it is to shield my money from taxes.
I am paying less in taxes now than my 20's self who was living paycheck to paycheck.
I am sure that the more and more you have, the more avenues there are to avoid tax burdens. Let's face it, rich people are making the rules.
I believe it is a revenue problem, and also a spending problem. I would like to see restructuring and an increased % spent on improvements at home, including Universal Health Care.
Why are people worried about other people paying their "fair share".
Shouldn't we really worry more about the government taking its "fair share" from us?
I generally tune out anytime someone mentions the word fair in any context because I think one of the earliest lessons we learned in life is that it isn't fair and wasn't meant to be, but it just seems like this knee jerk reaction where it's a good thing for other people to drop more money into the big black hole that is our government. And it's a bad thing when they somehow give the government less.
Shouldn't we worry more about how much the government is taking in and what it's doing with that?
If someone can't point to a legitimate need for the government to take in more money, I'll bet we can point to a dozen places it should be able to cut to get there.
...
What are the 3 heavy hitters in the Federal Government's Spending budget? Social Security -21%
Medicare/Medicaid -20.7%
Department of Defense - 16.9% Total - 57%
ref. http://cman.cx/blog/wp-content/uploads/ ... 009sp1.jpg
...
Next time you hear some fat fuck politician or blow hard political pundit talk about 'Spending Cuts'... tell them to hit the fattest pigs at the table.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Why are people worried about other people paying their "fair share".
Shouldn't we really worry more about the government taking its "fair share" from us?
I generally tune out anytime someone mentions the word fair in any context because I think one of the earliest lessons we learned in life is that it isn't fair and wasn't meant to be, but it just seems like this knee jerk reaction where it's a good thing for other people to drop more money into the big black hole that is our government. And it's a bad thing when they somehow give the government less.
Shouldn't we worry more about how much the government is taking in and what it's doing with that?
If someone can't point to a legitimate need for the government to take in more money, I'll bet we can point to a dozen places it should be able to cut to get there.
...
What are the 3 heavy hitters in the Federal Government's Spending budget? Social Security -21%
Medicare/Medicaid -20.7%
Department of Defense - 16.9% Total - 57%
ref. http://cman.cx/blog/wp-content/uploads/ ... 009sp1.jpg
...
Next time you hear some fat fuck politician or blow hard political pundit talk about 'Spending Cuts'... tell them to hit the fattest pigs at the table.
some think this is the problem though.
No government funded sex changes
No jet rides for any White house staff unless it's Government business
No more extravagant Ball's or Parties
Government employees caught miss using funds need to pay back double of what they stole
All Government employees must be held accountable
No double retirement checks from the government
Just a few ways to save a couple billion
There's really no need for govt to be so pervasive in our society. Private markets can do most, if not all, of what government does... and probably better.
Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?
Yes - UPS, FedEx and the US Postal Service.
In my personal opinion - UPS and FedEx provide better shipping services, economically. I also believe they could do what US Postal Service does, although there's huge resistance to that move - which is fine. You asked for an example, I provided one.
There's really no need for govt to be so pervasive in our society. Private markets can do most, if not all, of what government does... and probably better.
Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?
What about private schools?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
There's really no need for govt to be so pervasive in our society. Private markets can do most, if not all, of what government does... and probably better.
Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?
What about private schools?
If you think private schools do a better job, than support that claim.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
No government funded sex changes
No jet rides for any White house staff unless it's Government business
No more extravagant Ball's or Parties
Government employees caught miss using funds need to pay back double of what they stole
All Government employees must be held accountable
No double retirement checks from the government
Just a few ways to save a couple billion
Well now! I could get down with much of this.
I'd also say that any government employee who's done wrong loses all benefits, pension, etc.
(I'd also say that some WH staff need to re-familiarize themselves with flying coach, or pay for the better seat themselves)
There's really no need for govt to be so pervasive in our society. Private markets can do most, if not all, of what government does... and probably better.
Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?
Yes - UPS, FedEx and the US Postal Service.
In my personal opinion - UPS and FedEx provide better shipping services, economically. I also believe they could do what US Postal Service does, although there's huge resistance to that move - which is fine. You asked for an example, I provided one.
Your latter question doesn't make sense.
Key part in what you wrote is that it's your opinion. People drop the idea that private can do better than the government all the time like it's fact. If it's such a well known fact, then it should be easy to support the position with factual information.
The last part of what I was saying was asking for a number connected to the reduction in government when things that were done by the government were then handed over to the private sector. When people say they want a smaller government, are they saying fewer employers, lower spending, or fewer laws/regulation?
Key part in what you wrote is that it's your opinion. People drop the idea that private can do better than the government all the time like it's fact. If it's such a well known fact, then it should be easy to support the position with factual information.
The thing about this - is with you, no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, you're always going to say the burden of proof is on the other side and ask for more. I'd say that's not really true. You have an opinion that large government is great - I disagree. You ask for examples, I provide them. You then say that it's my opinion. Well, no shit. As for me supporting it. First, I have no reason to dig up data here. Second, I know for certain that the Post Office is broke. I also know UPS and Fed Ex would go out of business if they were broke. I also know that Fed Ex and UPS do a great job shipping packages. That's all facts. Finally, the plus here is to say with the private market, you pay when you want something. You don't pay simply "because" the service exists. It's more economically efficient -we've gone over this before.
The last part of what I was saying was asking for a number connected to the reduction in government when things that were done by the government were then handed over to the private sector. When people say they want a smaller government, are they saying fewer employers, lower spending, or fewer laws/regulation?
The first sentence is slightly incoherent. I don't have this number, nor do I understand what the number would even be if was obtainable.
The second sentence - I think one could argue that smaller government would undoubtedly involve the first two (less "employees", lower spending). Smaller government very well may involve fewer laws and regulation too. I would think it would. For example, our income tax code is over 73,000 pages. 73,000! Is that necessary? Small government would say no - at least in my opinion. Why? Well, clearly, 73K pages involves too many rationales for escaping taxes - that's why it's 73K pages. These rationals also involve people who study it and people who defend it... and people who prosecute these millions of "rationals". Therefore, more pages most likely = more gov't employees (prosecuting, etc). In fact, since all of those pages are laws/regulations... more laws/regulations = most likely more employees. So, I kinda think all of the above - employees, spending and laws and regulation kinda are linked.
it isn't just about money, but it sure seems like private schools function better than public schools. They may have a higher cost to the person attending, but with those small statistics, graduation rates/attending college rates/class size, it sure seems like they are a good value in some cases.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
There's really no need for govt to be so pervasive in our society. Private markets can do most, if not all, of what government does... and probably better.
Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?
Yes - UPS, FedEx and the US Postal Service.
In my personal opinion - UPS and FedEx provide better shipping services, economically. I also believe they could do what US Postal Service does, although there's huge resistance to that move - which is fine. You asked for an example, I provided one.
Your latter question doesn't make sense.
USPS is way cheaper than either FedEx or UPS. Just saying.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
"With our thoughts we make the world"
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,759
There's really no need for govt to be so pervasive in our society. Private markets can do most, if not all, of what government does... and probably better.
Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?
Yes - UPS, FedEx and the US Postal Service.
In my personal opinion - UPS and FedEx provide better shipping services, economically. I also believe they could do what US Postal Service does, although there's huge resistance to that move - which is fine. You asked for an example, I provided one.
Your latter question doesn't make sense.
I'm surprised you pick this as an example. I ship and receive books and other media regularly and have found US Postal Service to consistently be the best way to go. Most book and media sellers will say the same thing. UPS and FedEx are much more expensive. The USPS flat rate is a good deal and delivery is fast and when time is not an issue, media mail is a bargain. In my business, I'm very time and/or and expense focused and perhaps there are other applications for which UPS and FedEx are a better choice but for media mail (as well as cards and letters and often for non-media parcels) USPS is always my first choice.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
USPS is way cheaper than either FedEx or UPS. Just saying.
it is also in the red by billions...in may they posted 3.2 billion dollar loss
that is billion with a B.
so cheaper? maybe upfront, but it costs much more on the back end, and where does that money come from? all of us tax payers
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
USPS is way cheaper than either FedEx or UPS. Just saying.
I'd like to see proof of your claim on prices.
But, even if it was true, I'd add that USPS is completely broke. If they underprice, they can only do so because they can rely on taxpayers to fund their low prices (which translates to low revenues). Then of course, there's the USPS costs. At the end of the day the USPS hasn't demonstrated long run profitability whatsoever and that's why they are broke - what more proof does one need than that? Remember what the original question I was answering was.
Meanwhile, UPS and Fed Ex continue to grow. If they were broke, we wouldn't be talking about them. They'd go under.
I'm surprised you pick this as an example. I ship and receive books and other media regularly and have found US Postal Service to consistently be the best way to go. Most book and media sellers will say the same thing. UPS and FedEx are much more expensive. The USPS flat rate is a good deal and delivery is fast and when time is not an issue, media mail is a bargain. In my business, I'm very time and/or and expense focused and perhaps there are other applications for which UPS and FedEx are a better choice but for media mail (as well as cards and letters and often for non-media parcels) USPS is always my first choice.
I picked the example because USPS is broke. That's why. UPS and FedEx are not. They are competitors. One is broke, that's backed by the government. The other two, which are not, aren't.
I'm surprised you pick this as an example. I ship and receive books and other media regularly and have found US Postal Service to consistently be the best way to go. Most book and media sellers will say the same thing. UPS and FedEx are much more expensive. The USPS flat rate is a good deal and delivery is fast and when time is not an issue, media mail is a bargain. In my business, I'm very time and/or and expense focused and perhaps there are other applications for which UPS and FedEx are a better choice but for media mail (as well as cards and letters and often for non-media parcels) USPS is always my first choice.
I picked the example because USPS is broke. That's why. UPS and FedEx are not. They are competitors. One is broke, that's backed by the government. The other two, which are not, aren't.
According to the following article, the USPS in not broke. Besides that, it's obvious certain sectors of the government- the one's who want less government- are doing their best to prevent the USPS from meeting its full potential.
Republican leaders in Congress are talking about dismembering the US Postal Service by cutting the number of delivery days, shuttering processing centers so that it will take longer for letters to arrive, closing thousands of rural and inner-city post offices and taking additional steps that would dramatically downsize one of the few national programs ordained by the original draft of the US Constitution. At the same time, supposedly “centrist” US Senators Tom Carper (D-DE), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Scott Brown (R-MA) are trying to build a “bipartisan consensus” for a death by slower cuts.
Their “21st Century Postal Service Act,” a supposed compromise now being weighed by the Senate, would still force the postal service to close hundreds of mail processing centers, shut thousands of post offices, cause massive delays in mail delivery and push consumers toward most expensive private-sector services. It is, says National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric Rolando, “a classic case of ‘killing the Post-Office in order to save it.’ ”
Their rationale for making the bloodletting, much discussed in the media, holds that radical surgery is necessary because the postal service is in financial crisis.
The postal service, we are told, is broke.
There’s only one problem with this diagnosis.
It’s wrong.
The postal service is not broke.
At the behest of the Republican-controlled Congress of the Bush-Cheney era, the USPS has been forced since 2006 to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. As the American Postal Workers Union notes, “This mandate is the primary cause of the agency’s financial crisis. No other government agency or private company bears this burden, which costs the USPS approximately $5.5 billion annually.”
Now, however, we learn that the pre-funding requirements have taken so much money from the USPS that—according to the postal service’s own inspector general—it has “significantly exceeded” the level of reserved money that the federal government or private corporations divert to meet future pension and retiree healthcare demands. “Using ratepayer funds, it has built a war chest of over $326 billion to address its future liabilities,” acknowledges Postal Service Inspector General David C. Williams.
That, argues US Senator Bernie Sanders, puts “the rationale for postal cuts in doubt.”
Sanders, who has taken the lead in challenging cuts to the USPS and who requested the assessment by Williams, says that on the basis of information contained in the assessment, the Postal Service should be released from the “onerous and unprecedented burden” of being forced to put $5.5 billion every year into its future retiree health benefits fund. Sanders’s office explains that “even if there are no further contributions from the post office, and if the fund simply collects 3.5 to 4 percent interest every year, that account will be fully funded in twenty-one years.” At the same time, the senator suggests, the postal service should be allowed to recover more than $13 billion in overpayments it has made to a federal retirement systems.
That’s not the end of the debate about the future of the postal service. Along with Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Sanders is working with key Senate Democrats—and, the group hopes, some Republicans who represent rural states—to develop amendments, and potential alternatives, to the “21st Century Postal Service Act.” Not only would they get the accounting right, they would remove barriers to the USPS so that it can compete and grow.
“I believe the Postal Service will find more and more senators and representatives standing up here in Congress to prevent rash and irreversible decisions, until USPS can present a cogent strategy for growing in a new era of mail,” says Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “A scorched-earth strategy, focused only on the short-term horizon, is a strategy for failure. It is a race to the bottom. The Postal Service needs a plan not only to survive, but to thrive. To do that the Postal Service must listen to its customers, understand its market, and play to its strengths, not trade its strengths away.”
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,759
And let me add to the above that undermining the USPS would put a much greater burden on small business owners like myself than it would corporations. Isn't that how it all too often goes? :evil:
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Key part in what you wrote is that it's your opinion. People drop the idea that private can do better than the government all the time like it's fact. If it's such a well known fact, then it should be easy to support the position with factual information.
The thing about this - is with you, no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, you're always going to say the burden of proof is on the other side and ask for more. I'd say that's not really true. You have an opinion that large government is great - I disagree. You ask for examples, I provide them. You then say that it's my opinion. Well, no shit. As for me supporting it. First, I have no reason to dig up data here. Second, I know for certain that the Post Office is broke. I also know UPS and Fed Ex would go out of business if they were broke. I also know that Fed Ex and UPS do a great job shipping packages. That's all facts. Finally, the plus here is to say with the private market, you pay when you want something. You don't pay simply "because" the service exists. It's more economically efficient -we've gone over this before.
The last part of what I was saying was asking for a number connected to the reduction in government when things that were done by the government were then handed over to the private sector. When people say they want a smaller government, are they saying fewer employers, lower spending, or fewer laws/regulation?
The first sentence is slightly incoherent. I don't have this number, nor do I understand what the number would even be if was obtainable.
The second sentence - I think one could argue that smaller government would undoubtedly involve the first two (less "employees", lower spending). Smaller government very well may involve fewer laws and regulation too. I would think it would. For example, our income tax code is over 73,000 pages. 73,000! Is that necessary? Small government would say no - at least in my opinion. Why? Well, clearly, 73K pages involves too many rationales for escaping taxes - that's why it's 73K pages. These rationals also involve people who study it and people who defend it... and people who prosecute these millions of "rationals". Therefore, more pages most likely = more gov't employees (prosecuting, etc). In fact, since all of those pages are laws/regulations... more laws/regulations = most likely more employees. So, I kinda think all of the above - employees, spending and laws and regulation kinda are linked.
The burden of proof is on both sides, and I've referenced facts when you've rebuffed me when I've asked for you to back up your claims. I think the person who initiates the claim should also be the first to back that claim up, but I don't stick to that rule hard and fast.
I've never said that large government is great, but it's understandable that you would think that, since you view things in black and white. Therefore, since you view yourself as a smaller government guy, your black and white thinking pushes me to the opposite of you, which must mean I'm a big government guy.
I've asked for more facts from you, rather than examples. I doesn't seem that unreasonable for me to ask that of someone whose slant in here is 98% based in the opinion that the private sector is always better than the public. I did see that you brought up the post office again.
Maybe the first sentence doesn't make sense to you because you didn't give an example of when something was shifted from the government to the private sector?
I agree the tax code is burdensome. I'll also make the claim that that is how people want it. People want to escape taxes. I'm sure if a flat tax was put in place that all of your 'small government' buddies would join hands in a circle after they found out that they can't deduct their IRA contributions and mortgage interest
If you think private schools do a better job, than support that claim.
Why don't you support why they don't instead?
They are more "efficient". Catholic schools, for example. They spend less on them, yet arguably get a better product.
Yes the better product is arguable, because it's a different pool of students when compared to public schools. Just looking a measured end results is only a fraction of the story. Private schools are more like to hold students back, and kick out the more challenging ones. They probably are more likely to have a higher commitment level from students and support from family, too.
If we use personal experience, my public school ran circles around the local private school, and I've seen it in other places I've lived, too.
USPS is way cheaper than either FedEx or UPS. Just saying.
it is also in the red by billions...in may they posted 3.2 billion dollar loss
that is billion with a B.
so cheaper? maybe upfront, but it costs much more on the back end, and where does that money come from? all of us tax payers
Actually, the Post Office is a semi-independent agency that is NOT funded by the taxpayers but rather from postage costs. And if they are broke, or close to being broke, it is, in part, because they have to pre-pay future retiree benefits, as mandated by Congress. In addition, the Post Office has tried to raise the price of postage but has to follow federal law which states "federal law forbids the USPS from increasing postage rates annually higher than the Consumer Price Index" which often means that they ship certain types of mail at less than it's value. Also, people within the Post Office have tried for years to take it private so they could be more competitive with other businesses like UPS and FedEx but have been prohibited from doing so.
My dad worked for the PO for 35 years so I know alot more about it than I like to sometimes :oops:
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
If you think private schools do a better job, than support that claim.
Why don't you support why they don't instead?
They are more "efficient". Catholic schools, for example. They spend less on them, yet arguably get a better product.
Yes the better product is arguable, because it's a different pool of students when compared to public schools. Just looking a measured end results is only a fraction of the story. Private schools are more like to hold students back, and kick out the more challenging ones. They probably are more likely to have a higher commitment level from students and support from family, too.
If we use personal experience, my public school ran circles around the local private school, and I've seen it in other places I've lived, too.
I'm sticking my nose in here so feel free to ignore this But I'm a public school teacher who sends her kids to a private, Catholic school (no easy decision, let me tell you!). Public school, IMO, is not inefficient when compared to private or charter schools. The number one difference is parental involvement. I HAVE to be involved in my kids school because it is mandated (and I would do it anyway but not every parent would). We have a certain level of involvement that is required while the public schools desperately want involvement but don't usually get it. I've taught at a "good" school and a "bad" school and we definitely have more parental involvement at the "good" school but not nearly as much as at private school. I think if you removed the parental variable then the "end product" would be similar.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I'm surprised you pick this as an example. I ship and receive books and other media regularly and have found US Postal Service to consistently be the best way to go. Most book and media sellers will say the same thing. UPS and FedEx are much more expensive. The USPS flat rate is a good deal and delivery is fast and when time is not an issue, media mail is a bargain. In my business, I'm very time and/or and expense focused and perhaps there are other applications for which UPS and FedEx are a better choice but for media mail (as well as cards and letters and often for non-media parcels) USPS is always my first choice.
I picked the example because USPS is broke. That's why. UPS and FedEx are not. They are competitors. One is broke, that's backed by the government. The other two, which are not, aren't.
According to the following article, the USPS in not broke. Besides that, it's obvious certain sectors of the government- the one's who want less government- are doing their best to prevent the USPS from meeting its full potential.
Republican leaders in Congress are talking about dismembering the US Postal Service by cutting the number of delivery days, shuttering processing centers so that it will take longer for letters to arrive, closing thousands of rural and inner-city post offices and taking additional steps that would dramatically downsize one of the few national programs ordained by the original draft of the US Constitution. At the same time, supposedly “centrist” US Senators Tom Carper (D-DE), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Scott Brown (R-MA) are trying to build a “bipartisan consensus” for a death by slower cuts.
Their “21st Century Postal Service Act,” a supposed compromise now being weighed by the Senate, would still force the postal service to close hundreds of mail processing centers, shut thousands of post offices, cause massive delays in mail delivery and push consumers toward most expensive private-sector services. It is, says National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric Rolando, “a classic case of ‘killing the Post-Office in order to save it.’ ”
Their rationale for making the bloodletting, much discussed in the media, holds that radical surgery is necessary because the postal service is in financial crisis.
The postal service, we are told, is broke.
There’s only one problem with this diagnosis.
It’s wrong.
The postal service is not broke.
At the behest of the Republican-controlled Congress of the Bush-Cheney era, the USPS has been forced since 2006 to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. As the American Postal Workers Union notes, “This mandate is the primary cause of the agency’s financial crisis. No other government agency or private company bears this burden, which costs the USPS approximately $5.5 billion annually.”
Now, however, we learn that the pre-funding requirements have taken so much money from the USPS that—according to the postal service’s own inspector general—it has “significantly exceeded” the level of reserved money that the federal government or private corporations divert to meet future pension and retiree healthcare demands. “Using ratepayer funds, it has built a war chest of over $326 billion to address its future liabilities,” acknowledges Postal Service Inspector General David C. Williams.
That, argues US Senator Bernie Sanders, puts “the rationale for postal cuts in doubt.”
Sanders, who has taken the lead in challenging cuts to the USPS and who requested the assessment by Williams, says that on the basis of information contained in the assessment, the Postal Service should be released from the “onerous and unprecedented burden” of being forced to put $5.5 billion every year into its future retiree health benefits fund. Sanders’s office explains that “even if there are no further contributions from the post office, and if the fund simply collects 3.5 to 4 percent interest every year, that account will be fully funded in twenty-one years.” At the same time, the senator suggests, the postal service should be allowed to recover more than $13 billion in overpayments it has made to a federal retirement systems.
That’s not the end of the debate about the future of the postal service. Along with Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Sanders is working with key Senate Democrats—and, the group hopes, some Republicans who represent rural states—to develop amendments, and potential alternatives, to the “21st Century Postal Service Act.” Not only would they get the accounting right, they would remove barriers to the USPS so that it can compete and grow.
“I believe the Postal Service will find more and more senators and representatives standing up here in Congress to prevent rash and irreversible decisions, until USPS can present a cogent strategy for growing in a new era of mail,” says Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “A scorched-earth strategy, focused only on the short-term horizon, is a strategy for failure. It is a race to the bottom. The Postal Service needs a plan not only to survive, but to thrive. To do that the Postal Service must listen to its customers, understand its market, and play to its strengths, not trade its strengths away.”
Did you even read the nonsense you copied and pasted?
The burden of proof is on both sides, and I've referenced facts when you've rebuffed me when I've asked for you to back up your claims. I think the person who initiates the claim should also be the first to back that claim up, but I don't stick to that rule hard and fast.
I'd say - no, you haven't referenced facts - or rarely have - probably less so than I have to you. You ask a lot of questions. Which is fine - I mean this is a place for that. But, you rarely actually supply data when asked... instead you try to change the subject and ask more questions. Sorry, don't agree that you "back up your claims" even most of the time on here.
I've never said that large government is great, but it's understandable that you would think that, since you view things in black and white. Therefore, since you view yourself as a smaller government guy, your black and white thinking pushes me to the opposite of you, which must mean I'm a big government guy.
I don't view things in black and white. But, I do know you prefer large government from our previous discussions because you consistently, undeniably defend it and rationalize why it's preferred. Running away from who what you've said in the past is odd. Why be ashamed of being labeled "big government"?
I've asked for more facts from you, rather than examples. I doesn't seem that unreasonable for me to ask that of someone whose slant in here is 98% based in the opinion that the private sector is always better than the public. I did see that you brought up the post office again.
No, in fact, you orginally asked for an example. Re-read the thread. But, regardless... the thing with you is you ask and ask and ask. Re-read the thread. First you asked for an example. I gave you one. Then you ask for more specifics. They've been provided. It's never good enough. It's retarded to continue to engage with someone who obviously isn't in the discussion for any purpose other than to "argue".
Maybe the first sentence doesn't make sense to you because you didn't give an example of when something was shifted from the government to the private sector?
No, it didn't make sense because it was horribly written and was incoherent.
I agree the tax code is burdensome. I'll also make the claim that that is how people want it. People want to escape taxes. I'm sure if a flat tax was put in place that all of your 'small government' buddies would join hands in a circle after they found out that they can't deduct their IRA contributions and mortgage interest
Do you really think that's how people want it? I do think "some" people want it this way to escape taxes. My thought - when taxes get too high, people try to dodge them in higher frequency. This has been empirically proven.
I'm fine with no deductions, personally.... and I have no "small government" buddies. I have a lot of friends who most likely have a ton of varied political ideologies, but I rarely talk politics with any of them because I think it's not appropriate to bring up.
Yes the better product is arguable, because it's a different pool of students when compared to public schools. Just looking a measured end results is only a fraction of the story. Private schools are more like to hold students back, and kick out the more challenging ones. They probably are more likely to have a higher commitment level from students and support from family, too.
If we use personal experience, my public school ran circles around the local private school, and I've seen it in other places I've lived, too.
I'm sticking my nose in here so feel free to ignore this But I'm a public school teacher who sends her kids to a private, Catholic school (no easy decision, let me tell you!). Public school, IMO, is not inefficient when compared to private or charter schools. The number one difference is parental involvement. I HAVE to be involved in my kids school because it is mandated (and I would do it anyway but not every parent would). We have a certain level of involvement that is required while the public schools desperately want involvement but don't usually get it. I've taught at a "good" school and a "bad" school and we definitely have more parental involvement at the "good" school but not nearly as much as at private school. I think if you removed the parental variable then the "end product" would be similar.
Why do you PAY to send your kids to Catholic school when:
1) You work in the public school system
2) You just said the only difference is parental involvement, and "you would do it anyway" if your child went to public school.
Yes the better product is arguable, because it's a different pool of students when compared to public schools. Just looking a measured end results is only a fraction of the story. Private schools are more like to hold students back, and kick out the more challenging ones. They probably are more likely to have a higher commitment level from students and support from family, too.
If we use personal experience, my public school ran circles around the local private school, and I've seen it in other places I've lived, too.
If we use personal experience (mine) OR the data another poster provided earlier, private schools are better.
Yes the better product is arguable, because it's a different pool of students when compared to public schools. Just looking a measured end results is only a fraction of the story. Private schools are more like to hold students back, and kick out the more challenging ones. They probably are more likely to have a higher commitment level from students and support from family, too.
If we use personal experience, my public school ran circles around the local private school, and I've seen it in other places I've lived, too.
I'm sticking my nose in here so feel free to ignore this But I'm a public school teacher who sends her kids to a private, Catholic school (no easy decision, let me tell you!). Public school, IMO, is not inefficient when compared to private or charter schools. The number one difference is parental involvement. I HAVE to be involved in my kids school because it is mandated (and I would do it anyway but not every parent would). We have a certain level of involvement that is required while the public schools desperately want involvement but don't usually get it. I've taught at a "good" school and a "bad" school and we definitely have more parental involvement at the "good" school but not nearly as much as at private school. I think if you removed the parental variable then the "end product" would be similar.
Why do you PAY to send your kids to Catholic school when:
1) You work in the public school system
2) You just said the only difference is parental involvement, and "you would do it anyway" if your child went to public school.
...doesn't make sense... at all.
Well, it doesn't make sense at all, to you, because I never provided the rationale for why we chose to send our kids to private school which was not the point of the conversation. I provided personal data to address inefficiencies that you said were the reason for public schools creating inferior "products". Schools do not produce "products" they help to develop PEOPLE that are contributing members of society. Perhaps looking at schools as a place to help our children grow and develop would be a great first step in understanding why schools are not and should not be a BUSINESS. The entire point of my contribution to your conversation was to state that private schools will, of course, create better students because they can pick and choose from the best. Private schools, unlike public schools, can toss kids out on their ear for the least infraction, public schools have to continue to create new and better ways to deal with kids who have no parental support, were born addicted to drugs, have multiple mental and/or physical handicaps that must be addressed to make them creative, lifelong learners and whatever other mission statement is currently en vogue. Private schools, unlike public schools, can force parents to be involved with homework, attend open house, attend parent/teacher/student conferences, volunteer to work within the classroom, chaperone field trips, be a part of the PTA, and help teachers in all ways asked because public schools have to offer up free food and prizes to get the parents in the door. If it doesn't make sense, at all, about my statements about why we send our kids to private school then I assume you have no conception of how public and private schools differ, other than one is tax-payer funded and one is not. Economics may be a fundamental question when looking at any of life's situations but it is NOT the only question to consider.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Comments
I am paying less in taxes now than my 20's self who was living paycheck to paycheck.
I am sure that the more and more you have, the more avenues there are to avoid tax burdens. Let's face it, rich people are making the rules.
I believe it is a revenue problem, and also a spending problem. I would like to see restructuring and an increased % spent on improvements at home, including Universal Health Care.
Fair is equal ...
but does anyone ever do their fair share? it's all relative and that makes the answer...
not often.
What are the 3 heavy hitters in the Federal Government's Spending budget?
Social Security -21%
Medicare/Medicaid -20.7%
Department of Defense - 16.9%
Total - 57%
ref. http://cman.cx/blog/wp-content/uploads/ ... 009sp1.jpg
...
Next time you hear some fat fuck politician or blow hard political pundit talk about 'Spending Cuts'... tell them to hit the fattest pigs at the table.
Hail, Hail!!!
some think this is the problem though.
No government funded sex changes
No jet rides for any White house staff unless it's Government business
No more extravagant Ball's or Parties
Government employees caught miss using funds need to pay back double of what they stole
All Government employees must be held accountable
No double retirement checks from the government
Just a few ways to save a couple billion
Yes - UPS, FedEx and the US Postal Service.
In my personal opinion - UPS and FedEx provide better shipping services, economically. I also believe they could do what US Postal Service does, although there's huge resistance to that move - which is fine. You asked for an example, I provided one.
Your latter question doesn't make sense.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
What about private schools?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If you think private schools do a better job, than support that claim.
I'd also say that any government employee who's done wrong loses all benefits, pension, etc.
(I'd also say that some WH staff need to re-familiarize themselves with flying coach, or pay for the better seat themselves)
Key part in what you wrote is that it's your opinion. People drop the idea that private can do better than the government all the time like it's fact. If it's such a well known fact, then it should be easy to support the position with factual information.
The last part of what I was saying was asking for a number connected to the reduction in government when things that were done by the government were then handed over to the private sector. When people say they want a smaller government, are they saying fewer employers, lower spending, or fewer laws/regulation?
The thing about this - is with you, no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, you're always going to say the burden of proof is on the other side and ask for more. I'd say that's not really true. You have an opinion that large government is great - I disagree. You ask for examples, I provide them. You then say that it's my opinion. Well, no shit. As for me supporting it. First, I have no reason to dig up data here. Second, I know for certain that the Post Office is broke. I also know UPS and Fed Ex would go out of business if they were broke. I also know that Fed Ex and UPS do a great job shipping packages. That's all facts. Finally, the plus here is to say with the private market, you pay when you want something. You don't pay simply "because" the service exists. It's more economically efficient -we've gone over this before.
The first sentence is slightly incoherent. I don't have this number, nor do I understand what the number would even be if was obtainable.
The second sentence - I think one could argue that smaller government would undoubtedly involve the first two (less "employees", lower spending). Smaller government very well may involve fewer laws and regulation too. I would think it would. For example, our income tax code is over 73,000 pages. 73,000! Is that necessary? Small government would say no - at least in my opinion. Why? Well, clearly, 73K pages involves too many rationales for escaping taxes - that's why it's 73K pages. These rationals also involve people who study it and people who defend it... and people who prosecute these millions of "rationals". Therefore, more pages most likely = more gov't employees (prosecuting, etc). In fact, since all of those pages are laws/regulations... more laws/regulations = most likely more employees. So, I kinda think all of the above - employees, spending and laws and regulation kinda are linked.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Why don't you support why they don't instead?
They are more "efficient". Catholic schools, for example. They spend less on them, yet arguably get a better product.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
That pretty much sums up the problem with AMT right there.
I don't have time to support it other than go by personal observation. The public schools that I see and notice in my area are absolutely pathetic.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
they, religious and private schools, have a much higher graduation rate, on average private school teachers are paid less (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/ ... 09_075.asp)
they also send more kids to 4 year schools.
it isn't just about money, but it sure seems like private schools function better than public schools. They may have a higher cost to the person attending, but with those small statistics, graduation rates/attending college rates/class size, it sure seems like they are a good value in some cases.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
USPS is way cheaper than either FedEx or UPS. Just saying.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
I'm surprised you pick this as an example. I ship and receive books and other media regularly and have found US Postal Service to consistently be the best way to go. Most book and media sellers will say the same thing. UPS and FedEx are much more expensive. The USPS flat rate is a good deal and delivery is fast and when time is not an issue, media mail is a bargain. In my business, I'm very time and/or and expense focused and perhaps there are other applications for which UPS and FedEx are a better choice but for media mail (as well as cards and letters and often for non-media parcels) USPS is always my first choice.
it is also in the red by billions...in may they posted 3.2 billion dollar loss
that is billion with a B.
so cheaper? maybe upfront, but it costs much more on the back end, and where does that money come from? all of us tax payers
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'd like to see proof of your claim on prices.
But, even if it was true, I'd add that USPS is completely broke. If they underprice, they can only do so because they can rely on taxpayers to fund their low prices (which translates to low revenues). Then of course, there's the USPS costs. At the end of the day the USPS hasn't demonstrated long run profitability whatsoever and that's why they are broke - what more proof does one need than that? Remember what the original question I was answering was.
Meanwhile, UPS and Fed Ex continue to grow. If they were broke, we wouldn't be talking about them. They'd go under.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I picked the example because USPS is broke. That's why. UPS and FedEx are not. They are competitors. One is broke, that's backed by the government. The other two, which are not, aren't.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
According to the following article, the USPS in not broke. Besides that, it's obvious certain sectors of the government- the one's who want less government- are doing their best to prevent the USPS from meeting its full potential.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166103/po ... -not-broke
The Post Office is not Broke
Republican leaders in Congress are talking about dismembering the US Postal Service by cutting the number of delivery days, shuttering processing centers so that it will take longer for letters to arrive, closing thousands of rural and inner-city post offices and taking additional steps that would dramatically downsize one of the few national programs ordained by the original draft of the US Constitution. At the same time, supposedly “centrist” US Senators Tom Carper (D-DE), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Scott Brown (R-MA) are trying to build a “bipartisan consensus” for a death by slower cuts.
Their “21st Century Postal Service Act,” a supposed compromise now being weighed by the Senate, would still force the postal service to close hundreds of mail processing centers, shut thousands of post offices, cause massive delays in mail delivery and push consumers toward most expensive private-sector services. It is, says National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric Rolando, “a classic case of ‘killing the Post-Office in order to save it.’ ”
Their rationale for making the bloodletting, much discussed in the media, holds that radical surgery is necessary because the postal service is in financial crisis.
The postal service, we are told, is broke.
There’s only one problem with this diagnosis.
It’s wrong.
The postal service is not broke.
At the behest of the Republican-controlled Congress of the Bush-Cheney era, the USPS has been forced since 2006 to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. As the American Postal Workers Union notes, “This mandate is the primary cause of the agency’s financial crisis. No other government agency or private company bears this burden, which costs the USPS approximately $5.5 billion annually.”
Now, however, we learn that the pre-funding requirements have taken so much money from the USPS that—according to the postal service’s own inspector general—it has “significantly exceeded” the level of reserved money that the federal government or private corporations divert to meet future pension and retiree healthcare demands. “Using ratepayer funds, it has built a war chest of over $326 billion to address its future liabilities,” acknowledges Postal Service Inspector General David C. Williams.
That, argues US Senator Bernie Sanders, puts “the rationale for postal cuts in doubt.”
Sanders, who has taken the lead in challenging cuts to the USPS and who requested the assessment by Williams, says that on the basis of information contained in the assessment, the Postal Service should be released from the “onerous and unprecedented burden” of being forced to put $5.5 billion every year into its future retiree health benefits fund. Sanders’s office explains that “even if there are no further contributions from the post office, and if the fund simply collects 3.5 to 4 percent interest every year, that account will be fully funded in twenty-one years.” At the same time, the senator suggests, the postal service should be allowed to recover more than $13 billion in overpayments it has made to a federal retirement systems.
That’s not the end of the debate about the future of the postal service. Along with Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Sanders is working with key Senate Democrats—and, the group hopes, some Republicans who represent rural states—to develop amendments, and potential alternatives, to the “21st Century Postal Service Act.” Not only would they get the accounting right, they would remove barriers to the USPS so that it can compete and grow.
“I believe the Postal Service will find more and more senators and representatives standing up here in Congress to prevent rash and irreversible decisions, until USPS can present a cogent strategy for growing in a new era of mail,” says Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “A scorched-earth strategy, focused only on the short-term horizon, is a strategy for failure. It is a race to the bottom. The Postal Service needs a plan not only to survive, but to thrive. To do that the Postal Service must listen to its customers, understand its market, and play to its strengths, not trade its strengths away.”
The burden of proof is on both sides, and I've referenced facts when you've rebuffed me when I've asked for you to back up your claims. I think the person who initiates the claim should also be the first to back that claim up, but I don't stick to that rule hard and fast.
I've never said that large government is great, but it's understandable that you would think that, since you view things in black and white. Therefore, since you view yourself as a smaller government guy, your black and white thinking pushes me to the opposite of you, which must mean I'm a big government guy.
I've asked for more facts from you, rather than examples. I doesn't seem that unreasonable for me to ask that of someone whose slant in here is 98% based in the opinion that the private sector is always better than the public. I did see that you brought up the post office again.
Maybe the first sentence doesn't make sense to you because you didn't give an example of when something was shifted from the government to the private sector?
I agree the tax code is burdensome. I'll also make the claim that that is how people want it. People want to escape taxes. I'm sure if a flat tax was put in place that all of your 'small government' buddies would join hands in a circle after they found out that they can't deduct their IRA contributions and mortgage interest
Yes the better product is arguable, because it's a different pool of students when compared to public schools. Just looking a measured end results is only a fraction of the story. Private schools are more like to hold students back, and kick out the more challenging ones. They probably are more likely to have a higher commitment level from students and support from family, too.
If we use personal experience, my public school ran circles around the local private school, and I've seen it in other places I've lived, too.
Actually, the Post Office is a semi-independent agency that is NOT funded by the taxpayers but rather from postage costs. And if they are broke, or close to being broke, it is, in part, because they have to pre-pay future retiree benefits, as mandated by Congress. In addition, the Post Office has tried to raise the price of postage but has to follow federal law which states "federal law forbids the USPS from increasing postage rates annually higher than the Consumer Price Index" which often means that they ship certain types of mail at less than it's value. Also, people within the Post Office have tried for years to take it private so they could be more competitive with other businesses like UPS and FedEx but have been prohibited from doing so.
My dad worked for the PO for 35 years so I know alot more about it than I like to sometimes :oops:
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
I'm sticking my nose in here so feel free to ignore this
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Did you even read the nonsense you copied and pasted?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I'd say - no, you haven't referenced facts - or rarely have - probably less so than I have to you. You ask a lot of questions. Which is fine - I mean this is a place for that. But, you rarely actually supply data when asked... instead you try to change the subject and ask more questions. Sorry, don't agree that you "back up your claims" even most of the time on here.
I don't view things in black and white. But, I do know you prefer large government from our previous discussions because you consistently, undeniably defend it and rationalize why it's preferred. Running away from who what you've said in the past is odd. Why be ashamed of being labeled "big government"?
No, in fact, you orginally asked for an example. Re-read the thread. But, regardless... the thing with you is you ask and ask and ask. Re-read the thread. First you asked for an example. I gave you one. Then you ask for more specifics. They've been provided. It's never good enough. It's retarded to continue to engage with someone who obviously isn't in the discussion for any purpose other than to "argue".
No, it didn't make sense because it was horribly written and was incoherent.
Do you really think that's how people want it? I do think "some" people want it this way to escape taxes. My thought - when taxes get too high, people try to dodge them in higher frequency. This has been empirically proven.
I'm fine with no deductions, personally.... and I have no "small government" buddies. I have a lot of friends who most likely have a ton of varied political ideologies, but I rarely talk politics with any of them because I think it's not appropriate to bring up.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Why do you PAY to send your kids to Catholic school when:
1) You work in the public school system
2) You just said the only difference is parental involvement, and "you would do it anyway" if your child went to public school.
...doesn't make sense... at all.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
If we use personal experience (mine) OR the data another poster provided earlier, private schools are better.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Well, it doesn't make sense at all, to you, because I never provided the rationale for why we chose to send our kids to private school which was not the point of the conversation. I provided personal data to address inefficiencies that you said were the reason for public schools creating inferior "products". Schools do not produce "products" they help to develop PEOPLE that are contributing members of society. Perhaps looking at schools as a place to help our children grow and develop would be a great first step in understanding why schools are not and should not be a BUSINESS. The entire point of my contribution to your conversation was to state that private schools will, of course, create better students because they can pick and choose from the best. Private schools, unlike public schools, can toss kids out on their ear for the least infraction, public schools have to continue to create new and better ways to deal with kids who have no parental support, were born addicted to drugs, have multiple mental and/or physical handicaps that must be addressed to make them creative, lifelong learners and whatever other mission statement is currently en vogue. Private schools, unlike public schools, can force parents to be involved with homework, attend open house, attend parent/teacher/student conferences, volunteer to work within the classroom, chaperone field trips, be a part of the PTA, and help teachers in all ways asked because public schools have to offer up free food and prizes to get the parents in the door. If it doesn't make sense, at all, about my statements about why we send our kids to private school then I assume you have no conception of how public and private schools differ, other than one is tax-payer funded and one is not. Economics may be a fundamental question when looking at any of life's situations but it is NOT the only question to consider.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE