201–210 of 575 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's ideological. They believe that the government should not be in the postal business. They probably believe that it's harmful to competition in various ways, and they are probably right in certain narrow contexts.
The existence of billionaires is far more harmful to competition than government is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you talking about? There is a volume column right in the chart. It shows that for every piece of first class mail there is roughly 1.5 pieces of marketing mail
in the interest of clarity: some marketers also use first class mail so there is some marketing mixed in with the first-class mail numbers. https://www.mw-direct.com/blog/posts/first-class-mail-vs-sta...
The amount of narcissism these people (the Koch's, for example) have is just astounding. If you're a billionaire, what could possibly be a reasonable explanation for why you even care about the post office? Why are these people so hell bent on hurting people to feed their own narcissism? The USPS could be improved but struggles primarily due to active efforts to kill it off. But it's a wonderful idea of a service tha…
Its easy to point at a greedy billionaire who wants to ruin [insert public service here] so that he can squeeze out another dollar for himself. But have you considered that they _genuinely_ belive that minimal government and more privatization leads to overall better results? It might just be that they have good intensions, that they really wish for a better outcome for all. I don't share that view, but i do think th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's ideological. They believe that the government should not be in the postal business. They probably believe that it's harmful to competition in various ways, and they are probably right in certain narrow contexts.
The existence of billionaires is far more harmful to competition than government is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But have you considered that they _genuinely_ belive that minimal government and more privatization leads to overall better results? It might just be that they have good intensions, that they really wish for a better outcome for all. Yes, and that makes it even worse. They’re so out of touch with common people and so insulated from routine everyday life, their opinion shouldn’t count for anything. I don’t care if j…
Because you don’t agree with his position. I bet when Bloomberg offers hundreds of millions of dollars to support green energy you suddenly feel great about billionaires working to save the planet.
I’ll take the bait and offer you my position on green energy. My employer performs alternative energy work, so that part would make me feel good, but I don’t have a strong left position on energy. I’m fine with nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, and hydro for generating electricity. I believe reducing the amount of coal we use is generally a good thing. That about sums it up.
Why does the postal service need to turn a profit? It's a government agency. Are any other government agencies required to be profitable?
Yes? I think lots of government agencies that deliver services to paying customers are expected to cover their expenses. It's true that some government activities provide, say, non-excludable public goods using tax money, and so are not expected to collect sufficient revenue through distribution, but other government activities are intended to provide a service that can be valued and efficiently purchased by consumer…
The big-ticket items I pay for as a taxpayer include schools (via local taxes), defense, retirees, and healthcare. None of those cover their expenses, and basically everything else combined is a tiny minority of government expenditure.
(I believe we should more fully fund the non-defense parts of the budget, but let's not pretend they net out in the in-years.)
The family has been fucking the US and world long before Trump was elected. They have a history of funding fake climate change science in order to push favorable legislation for the O&G industry.
Anything that might benefit society (healthcare, social support, ...), they have fought against or funded a PAC to do their dirty work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except demanding that all people in the US to be reliant on the successful use and ownership of a sufficiently reliable computing device is a very real form of discrimination. Arguments of cheapening electronics can be made, but just the issues that many people are having with remote learning is pretty strong evidence to the contrary.
Subsidizing access to computing devices would be much more beneficial to society than subsidizing junk mail and online shopping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But have you considered that they _genuinely_ belive that minimal government and more privatization leads to overall better results? It might just be that they have good intensions, that they really wish for a better outcome for all. Yes, and that makes it even worse. They’re so out of touch with common people and so insulated from routine everyday life, their opinion shouldn’t count for anything. I don’t care if j…
I agree with you in that wealthy people are given too much power in the U.S. In the U.S., becoming wealthy has somehow become a fast pass to do basically whatever you want and inflict change that could affect millions of people negatively or be self-beneficial (to the wealthy person) or both. Allowing individuals to accumulate so much wealth is just not good for the common people, and the fact that our government is…