100% Failure Rate, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 68 times


reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 07:16 AM by djusdjus
Bah. reads like a hodge podge of GOP grudge notes. lol

If you removed the services, the same OP would go through the roof!

Services are not for profit. Get that straight. NO government services have ever been for profit. They are there because the country is wealthy and can afford to provide low cost subsidization to it's citizens so that they can benefit from the tax dollars they put into the system.

All these things aren't there to profit from and there is the flaw in the mentality of the OP.

You want to post a letter for what it really costs? Call fedex.

The free market capitalist system that was allowed to sell out buckets of steam and sky hooks for profit in the American financial grist mill that is wall street is what has brought American and most of the world to its financial knees. Not the US government, unless you want to talk about how Ronald Reagan created the environment for that to happen by deregulating the industries that are the actual failures?

American corporate captains and bankers caused the first great depression with their brand of greed in 1928-29 that America didn't fully recover from until after ww2.

They have also caused this financial free fall with the same greed and deregulated behaviours.

It would be nice to read a rant that gets it's facts straight, does the research and points the finger at the real problem "free market capitalism" but that wont happen because at the core of it, we all want to be rich, lazy , fat, famous, loved, admired etc etc.

Like money, there's only so much of that to go around.

And in summary: Strawman. period.
Not even a good attempt, but will likely work up some hillbilly that gots a pooter to read it hyuk hyuk.





reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 07:18 AM by Seiko
reply to post by johnny2127


Yes a link asking for aid, I commend you for being the first person to actually supply it.

I'm not sure by the story that they actually got the aid they sought. I believe the post office is a slowly dying model in our society anyway. It should scale back in light of the dwindling need for physical parchment delivery in a global technological age.

I still after looking at it's long history refute in any way that is a total fail. It is dying, and it's time is sadly past, but given the track record of delivery of the united states mail, I will never consider it a 100% failure rate.


reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 07:22 AM by HappilyEverAfter
reply to post by johnny2127




Exactly !!!!!!!!
2nd line-------- Exactly twice!


Mod Edit: Removed large quote and replaced with reply to

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by GAOTU789]



reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 07:39 AM by johnny2127
Originally posted by Seiko
Do you have a source to support your claim that the post office only survives by taxpayer money?


Also the post office is facing decreased revenue, and has to scale back. I don't see scaling back as a fail, it makes fiscal sense in a shrinking market.


Yes here is proof. From the govt's GAO (General Accounting Office):

GAO is adding the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) financial condition to the list of high-risk areas needing attention by Congress and the executive branch to achieve broad-based transformation. Amid challenging economic conditions and a changing business environment, USPS is facing a deteriorating financial situation in which it does not expect to cover its expenses and financial obligations in fiscal years 2009 and 2010.This year, USPS expects to increase its year-end debt to $10.2 billion and incur a cash shortfall of about $1 billion(see table).

GAO Website

Also, according to the Federal Trade Commission:

FTC analysts noted USPS subsidies include exemptions from certain state and local taxes and licensing requirements for its competitive products operations. These subsidies are worth between $39 million and $117 million a year, according to FTC.


Michael Schuyler, a senior economist at the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation who has spent years studying USPS, said the FTC report provides a "good economic analysis." He says the report could have gone farther.

"Although the FTC spent a lot of time talking about the mailbox monopoly, the report did not put a dollar estimate on the value of that monopoly," Schuyler said. "That's a very big subsidy. Just on that one item I'm sure they did lowball the Postal Service's subsidy benefits."

FTC Report

These govt loans are required for them to stay 'in business' or they would have collapsed. Additionally there have been billions in govt pension guarantees to help keep them afloat.

Satisfied now? That enough proof when it comes from the govt's accountant and the Federal Trade Commission?


[edit on 29-10-2009 by johnny2127]


reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 07:46 AM by Seiko
reply to post by johnny2127


I had already replied to you above, in short; Yes I admit they're losing money, no I do not consider a business who's time has passed a 100% fail.


reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 07:56 AM by johnny2127
Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by johnny2127


I had already replied to you above, in short; Yes I admit they're losing money, no I do not consider a business who's time has passed a 100% fail.


Well what I posted before wasn't a specific reply to you. You asked for proof they have taken govt money. I was just showing you specifically that.

If you consider the US Postal Office to have been somewhat a success, that is your right. Personally when I look at every govt program's eventual financial implosion, I would say logically, LETS NOT TRUST GOVT TO RUN IT. Govt is not efficient, and no one would argue it is. Govt programs do not provide high quality service, which no one argues that they do. So my question is, if having the govt run programs ends up more expensive that private businesses, provides worse service, and eventually implodes, why would we trust govt to run these programs? Give govt the programs the private sector cannot run. And the govt's role should then be to regulate the private businesses. Not run the businesses or sectors themselves. History have shown they all eventually fail.



reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 08:05 AM by Helmkat
reply to post by Blaine91555


Blaine I have to say I am somewhat suprised at your post. It speaks in absolutes and we all know thats not the case. Each of the arguments offered are called into question with a minimum of research and common sense. Because the email does not offer a true picture, it is in fact disinformation.

Disinformation makes me


reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 08:25 AM by 2 cents
Human Beings are greedy and selfish.

If any of you think that government will be a white knight to save you from greedy corporate capitalism -- you're wrong, very wrong.

You see people are selfish and greedy and government is composed of people. So when selfish, greedy people from corporations meet with selfish, greedy people in government you get abusive government that is used to help satisfy the selfish greed of those people in government and the corporations.

If any of you think that free market capitalism is the white knight to save us from greedy power hungry government -- you're wrong, very wrong.

You see we have entire industries that put profit above people's welfare. The food industry and drug industry come immediately to mind. The majority of corporations abhor competition. They want monopolies, or next best, two or three corporations controlling the market - oh yeah that's choice.

The problems of the world may be summed up in the following statement

Human Beings are selfish and greedy.

No system of government can overcome the inherent selfishness of Human Beings - all are doomed to fail. All we can hope for is the inevitable disaster that human greed and selfishness will bring upon ourselves collectively. Then through a brief awakening the majority will see the error and we collectively will set things right - if only for a brief moment in time.

Nothing last forever and we can hope, maybe, not even human selfishness and greed.


reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 08:50 AM by superluminal11
reply to post by Blaine91555



You are 100% correct up until the Blame all on Obama comes at the end.

You have to remember...when you have just about every president that is somehow blood related even if it is 200th cousins removed 14 times, it is still blood bound.

So like one of the posters said...it is a strategy from a group that is hidden and out in the open at the same time that is orchestrating it all.

It is above religious, political or national affiliation. That said, it isnt the Vatican or Jews or Masons or Islam or China, or Russia or Israel or UN or G20, or secret societies. They are above titles. They know group and tribal think is what keeps you blind in a never ending frenzy dividing and conquering you 1 drop at a time.

That "secret covenant" on the internet that came out awhile back is probably the closest thing to the truth that is happening and has been happening for a long long time.
The Secret Covenant



[edit on 29-10-2009 by superluminal11]


reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 08:50 AM by PjZ101
reply to post by Quazze


You know i don't totally disagree with you, what you are saying is unfortunately true. But I always believe you can do something and that someday soon something will be done, things are starting to stir as we speak, type and text. So my advice is be a little bit positive. But again you are right about us being slaves and doing all the "normal" good subservient things at the present time.


reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 08:54 AM by Artephius Abraxas Helios
reply to post by Sky watcher
The program did exactly what it was designed to do. The automobile industry was bottoming out even with the bailout money....the auto sales industry had huge lots full of inventory and no buyers on the lots. I have friends that sell cars for a living, and they didn't like the paperwork and the slow reaction time it took for the Government to pay them, but they were sure glad to see customers back on the lots. Many have chosen to continue their own version of cash for clunkers to continue enticing buyers. Furthermore, the US auto manufacturers benefited as well. I'm sorry if some buyers chose to buy the more dependable more efficient foreign vehicles, but in many ways our industry needs to do a better job of providing competition....that's the free market. As for the "people like you" comment you made, I've already got into one flame war on this thread because of that type behavior, I don't need to do it again. Simply know this: you have no idea who you're talking to; and blaming the "failures" of a nation on people on the internet because they don't fall lock step in line with your brand of politics is not only childish and silly, but really illustrates your own intellectual shortcomings.

Peace
-AAH



reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 08:59 AM by Snarf
reply to post by Blaine91555


"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.


I agreed with your thread until you got to this.

Cash for Clunkers worked. It helped boost auto sales. Who cares if things were foreign made or not? It doesn't bother you to buy Chinese noodles, Japanese toys, or computer parts made in Taiwan.

It didnt go "broke" it just ran out of funds faster than they thought - which means it worked better than they thought it would.

This...despite what faux news will tell you...is a good thing.


reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 08:59 AM by tdatreefrog
Originally posted by Artephius Abraxas Helios
Ok, let's see here:
Cash for clunkers went "broke" because it was successful beyond their imagining.

Medicare and Medicaid help have helped literally hundreds of millions of Americans over the years and continue to do so today. They are in financial holes, but saying they are broke is a sweeping oversimplification used for your political ends and is not a factual analysis.

The "war on __blank__" mentality is one that comes from the right....does the war on .....terror, drugs, crime, etc ring any bells, and you are correct, it has been a failure.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped millions of Americans to buy homes, the private market is one that lead to the bubble and its ultimate bursting.

The USPS is one of the most efficient examples of mail delivery the world has ever seen. You drop a letter in your mailbox with a 44 cent stamp on it, and by tomorrow afternoon its across the country, wow, that sure is an example of a failure!?!

Social Security: Come on now, are you really saying you want you or your parents or grandparents to be denied Social Security because it's a failure as well, or are you just playing partisan politics?

Oh wait, don't answer, that was a rhetorical question.

Your facts are wrong, your arguments weak, your conclusions questionable, and your methods are patronizing to those of us who think for ourselves. Might I suggest you come back and try again after a little nap?

-Peace
AAH


Ok as a sales manager at a large auto dealership I will respectfully disagree with the " success" you claim from cash for clunkers. This program most definately removed far too many affordable good used cars while putting people with no payments much further in debt. It was also a nightmare for us dealers to actually get paid for the cars we destroyed. The used car market price has skyrocketed as a result of supply. Now used cars are harder to come by and much higher in price resulting in an increasing number of cash buyers to now become financed buyers when they cant afford the new going rate for used. The overwhelming success you speak of was followed by a massive fallout the following month which only canceled out the bubble of sales it inflated. I work for one of the largest dealers in the US and I assure you these are the facts not opinions.


reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 09:46 AM by Artephius Abraxas Helios
reply to post by tdatreefrog
Ok as a sales manager at a large auto dealership I will respectfully disagree with the " success" you claim from cash for clunkers. This program most definately removed far too many affordable good used cars while putting people with no payments much further in debt. It was also a nightmare for us dealers to actually get paid for the cars we destroyed. The used car market price has skyrocketed as a result of supply. Now used cars are harder to come by and much higher in price resulting in an increasing number of cash buyers to now become financed buyers when they cant afford the new going rate for used. The overwhelming success you speak of was followed by a massive fallout the following month which only canceled out the bubble of sales it inflated. I work for one of the largest dealers in the US and I assure you these are the facts not opinions.

While I do not doubt your experience or your facts, I simply have friends who tell another story. It may be that in different States with differing economic climates the outcome was different. I live in Oklahoma, and there's a ton of dealerships up a down I-40 and I-35 near where I live (I'm sure it's similar nationwide). They were all, quite literally, going out of business before the program and are now able to get by. They're not rolling it in, but they are going to be able to weather the current economic storm. To me that's a success story. I heard from my friends the horror stories of trying to get paid from the government, and no doubt it was a pain in the neck...but you got paid. I understand that used cars are now more expensive, but that's ok with me because almost everyone drives a used car...the day you drive the new one off the lot it becomes used!! So, we all driving around with cars that are worth little more today than they would have been a few months ago. I realize that's an oversimplification, but the mechanics of it go to illustrate my point...the program didn't help the used car buyer or dealer or new car manufacturers as individuals....but it did act as a tourniquet to stop the bleeding. You may lose the leg...but you're gonna survive. In light of the alternative, I submit that that my friend, is a resounding success!

Peace
-AAH
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^