100% Failure Rate

The simple fact is that we, as a society, have outgrown the system, and you are witnessing it crumble under the weight. We've become too diverse and demanding; too dependent upon a government body (and less dependent on ourselves and each other) to pave the way to "happiness." With that, we have willingly handed over our rights and personal freedoms to an entity that is not only incapable of granting our collective wishes (because "we the people" can't even AGREE on what we need/want), but also not interested in benefiting anything outside of itself(a reflection of human selfishness as a whole). We have given too much responsibility to our governments because we can't seem to take responsibility for ourselves and our own actions. We have sacrificed our right to make decisions and solve problems amongst ourselves because we have given that authority to our governments to make decisions and solve our problems for us; so that we wouldn't have to live with our own consequences. Well, what happens regardless--is that we ultimately have to live with our consequences. When we are not happy with those consequences, the government becomes the scapegoat, and we complain that we are powerless. Obama is not to blame. Bush was not to blame. The government is not to blame. Who is? First, take a look in the mirror, and then go outside and take a look at your neighbors.

Life is a reflection of itself at all levels. If you observe the way things work on one level, you can be sure it works that way on all levels. Why do politicians lie? Because we all lie. Why are government entities selfish, greedy and corrupt? Because we are all selfish, greedy and corrupt. Why is there a lack of humanity in ruling bodies? Because there is a lack of humanity in the collective humanity. Our economic situation is a reflection of what happens when we the people sell our souls to capitalism and consumerism; the pursuit of "material happiness." It's all about "me," and who cares what happens to "you," at least I got my "piece of the pie." If you really thought that a nation built on financial gain and monetary power would ever stand the test of time and work to benefit all, you are truly lost. The priority becomes financial gain and monetary power; not human prosperity.

Before you change the world, you must change the self and lead by example. BE on the inside a reflection of what you wish to see on the outside. The more people do this, the more we turn ourselves and our nation toward higher ground. Until we learn how to bring humanity to the forefront of our daily personal lives, we will never have a humane body governing over our daily personal lives. And THAT, I doubt will happen overnight; or even within our children's generation. All we can do now, at this moment, is set the example for them to grow from, and that ultimately will determine how the next moment and the next generation defines itself. Things only get worse before they get better because we as a whole insist on hitting rock bottom before we reach for the light at the top. It's never too late (or too soon) to start reaching.

Vocabulary words for this lesson:

Main Entry: hu•mane:
1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals
Main Entry: com•pas•sion:
1: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it
Main Entry: con•sid•er•ation:
1 : continuous and careful thought
2 a : a matter weighed or taken into account when formulating an opinion or plan
b : a taking into account
3 : thoughtful and sympathetic regard
4 : an opinion obtained by reflection
Main Entry: re•flec•tion:
6 : a thought, idea, or opinion formed or a remark made as a result of meditation
7 : consideration of some subject matter, idea, or purpose
Main Entry: thought•ful:
1 a : absorbed in thought: MEDITATIVE
b : characterized by careful reasoned thinking
2 a : having thoughts: HEEDFUL
b : given to or chosen or made with heedful anticipation of the needs and wants of
others
Main Entry: golden rule:
1 capitalized G&R : a rule of ethical conduct referring to Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31: do to others as you would have them do to you
2 : a guiding principle

P.S. What does all of this have to do with politics? EXACTLY!

Lets get something straight. Why do we even vote anymore? Politicians are in it for themselves not to help us. Really tho why vote? It doesn't matter who wins because they all have the same intentions. What would happen if no one voted? It would show that we have lost confidence in the government. But we get so caught up apathy that we don't do anything about it. They have failed whether it be Obama or all the presidents before him...they have all failed. So what are you going to do about it. Time to wake up my friends.

I'm seeing this from an average person's viewpoint. The post office seemed to work, in its time.

I'll touch on some of the other points people have made in this thread. Capitalism seems to be destroying this country faster then socialism is. I'm sorry if that offends you but that is the way I see it. I have watched people I know, and now my family faces the destruction health bills has in this economy. We own our home, we own three vehicles, we're not rich but we get by. We're not living of the government we pay taxes. The government lives of of us, the people in this thread. It's impossible to escape taxes.

The email was a response to making public health-care, let's not play coy and ignore why this email was sent out. I truly believe in my heart that every one in this country deserves equal health care. The capitalist system cannot supply me with that. If you wanna talk about a fail beyond measure, look at the market in this country, and at the economy, and the billions and billions of dollars we've thrown away to corporate interests and banks.

The government was set upon this earth to better the lives of it's citizens, they should be beholden to us. I read the constitution. I respect it, it was a brilliant piece of legislation. But I don't see it in practice. I see the average person being screwed by government and corporate interests. The very fact that the corporations own our government becomes more and more apparent to even the most deluded of us by the passing day. You can't tell me that the government is so much worse at running things then the free enterprise system. Between the choice of thew two, I'd have to pick the government. At least the government has some regulation.

I believe if the government was responsible for our well being, as I think they were intended to be, we'd see a better ran system when it came to the fda, and the medical industrial machine. You can't tell me the insurance guys are here to help, I know better, I've been here.

what I fail to see in these arguments is a sensible line of what exactly we should have. I'm not against you making it filthy stinking rich, I salute bill gates, but we have to have a fundamental platform from which to build ourselves from.

If people had the ability to play their lives out without gambling on disaster we'd have a more balanced system without the ups and downs I see caused. The average person out here, the middle class, we're a dying breed, and we know it. There is the slimmest chance that after they get done screwing and milking us dry, we might have some form of health-care backbone in this country. We're not drinking kool aid, we know better. No one should believe that a politician is gonna save them, but there's a chance that one sliver of something useful might come out of this....

And yes my vote does match my words I voted green party and independent. Call me whatever label you cna apply, if I get health-care of of these #holes, I will wear the label proudly.

reply to post by Seiko
Awesome response. I appreciate your logic, and your honesty. I think if more people would stop playing partisan politics and simply look at the facts it would become clear that both "sides" are the same. It's the middle class getting screwed and yet we're left to fight amongst ourselves over labels and ideologies that are outdated and meaningless. Left .... right .... conservative .... liberal .... Republican .... Democrat .... Capitalist .... Socialist ....
Sure they have meaning, but whats the difference when it's really about the elite, the corporations, and super-wealthy vs. the rest of us from the upper middle on down to poverty.... we're all a dying breed. Thanks again for you insight. Good Luck

Peace
-AAH

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Seiko

 

The Post Office has a serious deficit every year. If it were a business it would have gone bankrupt long ago. Just do your homework and you will find it is a financial disaster.

Why does a service have to make money?

Frankly, there are some things that you have to pay for that are worth the cost. The USPS is one of them.

Medicare is another.

I'm fine with capitalism, but there are some thing that need to be subsidized. Basing the idea that if something doesn't make money that it's a failure is just short-sighted and borderline unethical.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios

 

By crushing all the cars in Cash for Clunkers they removed the best used cars from the market. Now used cars are at an all time high. Who got hurt. The poor working people. I'd call that a failure.

As some have said, the OP is very much flawed in facts and logic, and this statement goes in the same direction.

A lot of people got a break buying a more adequate means of transportation which requires less gas, and let me assure you, 100% of these people are working people. And I haven't noticed any drop in inventory of used cars no matter where I drive.

reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios


The problem with your argument is that the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) was a temporary shot in the arm for the automotive industry. It doesn’t solve the long term issues the industry is facing and failed to meet its primary purpose. The program was intended to provide economic incentives to U.S. residents to purchase a new, more fuel efficient vehicle while trading in a less fuel efficient vehicle in order to cut carbon dioxide emissions. I think I read that the cost of reducing emissions was somewhere between $237 tons and $365 per ton by one estimate. I also understand that the market price for carbon has fluctuated between around $20 and $40 per ton. I’m sure you would agree that isn’t a very efficient way to spend our money. It’s nice that the government gave a bunch of money to the car industry (i.e., members of the United Auto Workers) but I wonder if that money wouldn’t have been better spent helping small business instead. They supply more than 70% of new jobs for the American worker. You know the ones, the toothless uneducated rednecks like myself!

For some reason we unite behind the President that we vote for, quite often anyways. There were diehard Bush supporters, there are diehard Obama supporters.. The President could run the country into the ground and destroy the country, and at least 30+% of the population will still cheer him on, if only to save face.

Congress however...

Is generally hated by everyone. Regardless of your party. I voted Republican the first time, hated them all. Voted Democrat the second time, hated them all. (there was never a third party option for congress or senate, which i found odd..)

During Bush's last year in office, Congress had an approval rating of 20%.

After Obama was elected, that rating actually dropped to a historic low of 18%. *In July of 2008 Congress had a 13% approval rating from Gallop. 13% !$!% percent! .. and this was BEFORE the bailouts!!!

Americans HATE their government, and yet we vote them in, and I wonder why.. And then I remember..... for the most part, there are NO other options. Like I said, I voted for each party once, and each time there was no third party. For the President I may protest, I voted for a third party..

Something has to be done, but the Powers That Be (2 parties) are so ingrained and powerful, so much money, promises, power and influence.. honestly, what CAN be done?

*edited addition of additional research

[edit on 10/29/2009 by Rockpuck]

reply to post by Rockpuck


I agree. Both parties are one and the same. They only look out for themselves. Our country is no longer what it used to be and we are headed down the road of no return. Its a shame that the beacon of light we once where is coming to an end.

reply to post by Blaine91555


One thing I don't see in your OP is any mention of the military. Is the government a failure in that department too? Honest question because it represents 664 billion dollars of our upcoming budget, which is nearly half of the US's total 2010 discretionary allowance.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by Xtraeme]

I tell you, the solution is in my ebook, free to read and linked in my sig.

Bypass them on the internet!

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Even though it's a federal agency, the Postal Service has not received any taxpayer funding since the early 1980s, when it was phased into an independent, self-sufficient financial entity. "We're not seeking any tax dollars," said Postal Service spokesman David Partenheimer. "We don't use tax dollars for our operation."

I hate to repeat myself with this quote, but can you disprove it? You are stating they are subsidized by taxpayer money. The spokesman says they are not.

I think you're splitting hairs on this one.

The post office is not a for profit traded company, they are a government regulated one. They are not required to turn profits. I am certain there is waste there, but I'm saying I see no fail.

OK, you are right I need to change the way I'm stating this. First this link though -

7 billion dollar deficit in 2009

Interesting article in today’s New York Times on the US Postal Service: “Increasing Postal Deficits Intensify Talks On Solution”, July 30, B1.

This highlights a key difference between the operations of a private company and a public one. Private delivery companies like UPS and Federal Express are cutting costs to align their operations with current demand. The Post Office, however, being a public company, has its decisions subject to political considerations.

Not exactly what we are talking about and yet relevant in that the Postal Service, even though it pretends to be like a business, is not one in the typical sense.

Now when a business runs a deficit it must obtain funds to even be able to pay its bills or payroll. They can not simply write rubber checks. A business would borrow from a bank until it got back on its feet. The Postal Service would however borrow from the government who borrowed the money they are loaning them. In the real non-governmental world that is suicide.

When this happens year after year it does not take a rocket scientist to see that saying loaning money never intended to be paid back on the backs of the taxpayers is in effect subsidizing. Or that is how I see it. Smoke and mirrors.

I'm not anti-Post Office. We need it to run like a normal business however completely out from under the government thumb. Calling it "independent" is an intellectual lie. It will never be allowed to fail, just as it will never be allowed to run like a normal business. The CEO should have had the power to go to a five day week with a simple stroke of the pen. Instead it is wrapped up in the government bureaucracy that ties its hands and lets it run a "7 billion dollar" deficit needlessly.

reply to post by Evisscerator


I do lean towards the Libertarian point of view on those issues. The government keeps taking more and more control incrementally until eventually it will take complete control of every aspect of our lives. When the move to control behavior started it was the beginning of the end.

Originally posted by anyjerk
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Excellent post

Although let me just say that I think Obama is the smoke and Biden is the mirrors, just like Bush/Cheney

Same game. Different Actors. We the People are very stupid.

reply to post by johnny2127


You have read my intentions correctly. The very nature of a Bureaucracy dooms it.

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


Well stated and thank you for participating.

I've come to realize as we look for somebody to blame, we need to look into a mirror for the answer.

When Obama won the election I had one employee actually running around my office chanting "Obama's going to send me a check"!

reply to post by Blaine91555


we're discussing regulations then. I think we both agree the post office is not a business. What we're seeing is them being forced into a model that no longer works. I have already stated they should change. They should adapt with the market and be more realistic with the supply and demand.

Now on the subject of the private model. For giggles right now I just went to ups, and stated i wanted to send a letter weighing .1 pounds from new york to california. I have a range of prices detailed to dates of expectancy, to compare it to the usps of .44 cents the estimated delivery of tuesday would cost me $15.16. I could send it priority mail 1-3 days from the post office at $4.95.

From an end user standpoint, the post office is winning.

reply to post by imd12c4funn


You are mad as hell and your not going to take it anymore! Ditto!

One thing is for sure, TARP created not a single non-governmental job and helped none of the people it was supposed to help.

I can imagine the way this will be presented in future generations in the history books. Perhaps under the title "Era of the Great Destroyer" or "How Uncle Sam Helped Us to Fail In Four Short Years".

SO how has all of those PRIVATELY OWNED banks and investment houses performed OP,
I'm curious???

Cause it sounds like a call to give um back their freedoms so that they can continue being so.... fantastic - outsource our jobs and hoard their money in an "exotic" bank account so they don't have to pay taxes.

I hereby nominate AIG for POTUS and Congress.

I like it

"Don't Tread on me Vote AIG"

reply to post by Seiko


We are not really that far apart I guess.

I think the real question is what could the Postal Service do with a real Executive Staff and competent Board of Directors. What if the government allowed them to become a true mainstream business.

I don't know if you recall but in the mid 1990's they actually sent Postal Inspectors around kicking in Fed-Ex doors in an attempt to intimidate them out of business. Under the law at that time, you could only use Fed-Ex for an verifiable emergency. The public outrage was such that they were forced to drop the issue. The solution of forcing people to use the USPS did not go down well.

I have not sent anything of importance through the US Mail in two decades. Fed-Ex has never failed me but the USPS has many times. For me in those cases it is not a cost issue, but a reliability and service issue. UPS I'm not so thrilled with but that is another issue.

I can't help but wonder how the private sector could do if allowed to take over the normal mail service? Lets say they took it to $1 for first class mail and had the volume the USPS has to work with without the constraints. I could foresee service at a level that would more than make up for the still remarkably low cost.