Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[GasBandit]

Yeah, not for you. Never mind the millions of people who AREN'T YOU and use it every day. I just don't understand the desire to close it when it doesn't use any taxes (which it says right there in my numbers post).

You don't use feminine hygene products, either. Doesn't mean it is a useless service.

The post office is 8.5 billion dollars in the red. Wonder why they don't show that tidy little number up on their website.

You're also operating under the false premise that if the USPS doesn't deliver mail, then nobody will.

 

[AshburnerX]

You're also operating under the false premise that if the USPS doesn't deliver mail, then nobody will.

No, we're operating under the logical assumption that any privately run alternative is going to pass the costs of delivering mail onto the consumer, instead of eating it themselves like the USPS currently does (mainly because IT HAS TO.) UPS isn't going to settle for breaking even on it's deliveries like the USPS has to, it actually has investors it needs to please.

 

[Covar]

maybe my math is wrong but if they're falling short 8.5 billion dollars a year and move 171 billion pieces of mail a year that would be a $0.05 across the board. Not quite $4 a letter but certainly a "why the hell aren't they?" question.

 

[Krisken]

Which, you know, they will raise prices as they need to (which they do).

 

[Norris]

The post office is 8.5 billion dollars in the red. Wonder why they don't show that tidy little number up on their website.

You're also operating under the false premise that if the USPS doesn't deliver mail, then nobody will.

So some private entity will give daily mail service to (at minimum) the 69 million people without internet, to the rural areas where few people live but distances between mailboxes can be great, etc, etc? And they will do this for prices at least as cheap as those of the post office?

The problem with private sector solutions, as see...everywhere really, is that those whom it is not cost effective to serve get fucked in the ass. With medical care, it is the sick and poor. Here, it would "just" be the poor. The private sector is more successful and cost effective than the public sector, yes, but a big part of it is their ability to say "no, we will not help you". Which is fine, if you're not part of that group.

 

[Shakey]

So some private entity will give daily mail service to (at minimum) the 69 million people without internet, to the rural areas where few people live but distances between mailboxes can be great, etc, etc? And they will do this for prices at least as cheap as those of the post office?

The problem with private sector solutions, as see...everywhere really, is that those whom it is not cost effective to serve get fucked in the ass. With medical care, it is the sick and poor. Here, it would "just" be the poor. The private sector is more successful and cost effective than the public sector, yes, but a big part of it is their ability to say "no, we will not help you". Which is fine, if you're not part of that group.

We also see that with internet service. The rural areas aren't cost effective, so they aren't served at all. The only thing that has changed that is government money.
Even with the post office, rural businesses don't have the option to have mail delivered to them. Businesses have to have a po box. Whch sucks balls when companies send packages through the post office and won't send to po boxes.

A big one is Amazon. We can't use the free delivery option because they will most likely use the post office and Amazon will not accept po boxes as a delivery address. Even though I could throw an orange at the god damn post office from our building and hit it.

 

[Covar]

So some private entity will give daily mail service to (at minimum) the 69 million people without internet, to the rural areas where few people live but distances between mailboxes can be great, etc, etc? And they will do this for prices at least as cheap as those of the post office?

The problem with private sector solutions, as see...everywhere really, is that those whom it is not cost effective to serve get fucked in the ass. With medical care, it is the sick and poor. Here, it would "just" be the poor. The private sector is more successful and cost effective than the public sector, yes, but a big part of it is their ability to say "no, we will not help you". Which is fine, if you're not part of that group.

Just like the power companies, denying service to people.

 

[Shakey]

Just like the power companies, denying service to people.

Until the government stepped in to form electric coops and help fund the building of all those power lines that's exactly what they were doing.

 

[AshburnerX]

Until the government stepped in to form electric coops and and help fund the building of all those power lines that's exactly what they were doing.

... and that's what the internet providers are doing now. Except they are also trying (and succeeding) to prevent the government from setting up net coops.

 

[Eriol]

If you want a non-theoretical look at what happens to a country without a post office, look to Canada. They've been on strike for the last week or so.

End result: nobody cares. Maybe a few cheques aren't getting through, but everything else keeps humming along. Sure there's edge cases where bad things might be happening (old age pension, etc), but the post office isn't even close to as important as it used to be. And frankly, there are solutions for everything that letter mail is used for now, and the rest of the cases too. Very very little would fall through the cracks.

They're being legislated back to work soon though.

 

[Espy]

It seems like even if it costs a bit more to send a letter I'd be fine with seeing the amount of junk mails cut down. I don't know the numbers but I would guess that junk mail (credit card offers, flyers, etc) are the majority of sent mail.

 

[Covar]

I throw away 90% of my mail before I even close my mailbox. I love that my apartment complex puts out a trashcan at the mailboxes for junk mail.

 

[Chad Sexington]

If you want a non-theoretical look at what happens to a country without a post office, look to Canada. They've been on strike for the last week or so.

End result: nobody cares. Maybe a few cheques aren't getting through, but everything else keeps humming along. Sure there's edge cases where bad things might be happening (old age pension, etc), but the post office isn't even close to as important as it used to be. And frankly, there are solutions for everything that letter mail is used for now, and the rest of the cases too. Very very little would fall through the cracks.

They're being legislated back to work soon though.

It's been nearly two weeks, in fact, but also the post office is on a 'rolling strike' so on certain days, certain cities aren't working. So we're not actually without any postal service at all...

 

[Covar]

It's been nearly two weeks, in fact, but also the post office is on a 'rolling strike' so on certain days, certain cities aren't working. So we're not actually without any postal service at all...

...

Why the hell are they bothering then? If you don't cause a disruption for the business or for the citizen all you're doing is showing that you have a minimal impact, and probably aren't worth your demands.

 

[Disconnected]

strikes. the canadian way.

 

[Krisken]

strikes. the canadian way.

I was thinking that too.

Look, they don't want to destroy anything. Unless, of course, the Leafs do a crap job at hockey.

 

[Chad Sexington]

...

Why the hell are they bothering then? If you don't cause a disruption for the business or for the citizen all you're doing is showing that you have a minimal impact, and probably aren't worth your demands.

It gets better. The government introduced legislation to force the postal workers back to work, and since 9PM last night, the opposition has been filibustering it so it won't happen.

Canada.

 

[Eriol]

It's been nearly two weeks, in fact, but also the post office is on a 'rolling strike' so on certain days, certain cities aren't working. So we're not actually without any postal service at all...

It was a "rolling strike" for the first while, and then the post office itself locked them out, so it's 100% down now (at least that's my understanding).

 

[Chad Sexington]

It was a "rolling strike" for the first while, and then the post office itself locked them out, so it's 100% down now (at least that's my understanding).

Reeeeeally. Huh. I am not at my usual news-standard, as I've been out of town and very busy. Well, that's lovely. Won't bother sending any postcards home, I guess.

 

[GasBandit]

I'll be interested to see how all that turns out.

FBI sting stops Seattle terror plot.

Seized cellphone of bin Laden courier exposes links to Pakistani intelligence service.

Economists have now downgraded their 2011 economic forecasts to as little as half what they expected at the beginning of the year.

From the American Thinker … Economic Slavery: Modern-Day Indentured Servitude. Or, as I like to call it, "STOP SPENDING."

George Will: The Republican contest probably will become a binary choice — Romney and the Not Romney candidate. If Rick Perry becomes the latter, he will do so by his visceral appeal to social conservatives, and by trumping Romney’s economic expertise with “Texas exceptionalism”

A must-read from Victor Davis Hanson: There Are No Socialists.

On Capitol Hill this year, one of President Obama’s most troublesome critics has been Senator Obama.

The Failure of Al Gore.

Patient groups are concerned that many cancer treatments are being rationed by the NHS because they are deemed too expensive.

The TSA is at it again! This time telling a 95 year old woman to remove her adult diaper.

Kevin Willamson in National Review: How much credibility does the GOP have on taxes?

Pro-union protestors show up to a Chris Christie townhall and start singing about being ”sent to Auschwitz.”

There have been calls for Clarence Thomas to step down over a few ethics issues. Do you think he has acted inappropriately?

 

[Chad Sexington]

I'll be interested to see how all that turns out.

At last check, the Conservative government had tabled legislation to force the workers back to work but the opposition has been filibustering it since Friday night.

Whoop, edit: They've passed legislation forcing them back to work. Re-edit: Better article.

Tangentially related, while completely delirious with illness and high on cold medication on Friday night, someone tweeted "Priiiiivattiiiiizeeeee the pooooost offiiiiice..." which sent me into gales of laughter from which I was unable to recover... and I cannot explain why. The moral is, don't do drugs.

 

[@Li3n]

A must-read from Victor Davis Hanson: There Are No Socialists.

So Greece and Ireland are the only socialist countries in Europe now?

 

[AshburnerX]

There have been calls for Clarence Thomas to step down over a few ethics issues. Do you think he has acted inappropriately?

Perhaps... but call me when it's Scalia up there. He's the one who's REALLY been up to no good.

 

[Krisken]

More on why people question Thomas being ethical (that WSJ article doesn't cover much of anything).

 

[GasBandit]

President Obama's regulatory czar Cass Sunstein told a group in Washington yesterday that Barack Obama is responsible for less regulatory costs than George Bush. Based on data from the Government Accountability Office, as analyzed by the Heritage Foundation, Cass Sunstein wrong.

Democrats ought to agree to GOP lawmakers' demands for $2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, according to the heads of Obama's fiscal panel.

why the GOP shouldn’t go wobbly on taxes

Should American taxpayers being financing another Greek bailout?

Senators Tom Coburn and Joseph Lieberman unveiled a major Medicare proposal yesterday.

The latest column from Walter Williams: Ignorance, Stupidity or Manipulation. Or, Charlie Rangel doesn't understand the 3/5ths compromise.

According to the Department of Labor, you might be union busting if…

Written by a former Obama colleague and advisor: Our Untransparent President.

Is Texas the new California?

Illinois has borrowed more than $1 million this year to help cover its own expenses from money taxpayers give to charity.

Georgia State University has done a study on the economic benefits of switching to a consumption-based tax system.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Is Texas the new California?

If you mean unable to make the budget, then yes. Our state government is nearly in the shambles they are. That is with out having the social safety-nets that Californians enjoy.

 

[GasBandit]

If you mean unable to make the budget, then yes. Our state government is nearly in the shambles they are. That is with out having the social safety-nets that Californians enjoy.

Is having an unemployment rate 50% higher than Texas one of those safety nets? Also, 2011 has been the first year the budget got into trouble, whereas I don't think california has balanced a budget since 01.

 

[sixpackshaker]

8% to 11% is not 50%. It is 3% higher.

No wonder whenever conservatives get into power they screw everything up.

The budgets in Texas have been getting slashed for years, now we are losing 1,000's of jobs with State, Local, and Teaching jobs getting laid off. Just none of the media in Texas want to take this administration to task for what they are really doing to us.

 

[Eriol]

8% to 11% is not 50%. It is 3% higher.

No wonder whenever conservatives get into power they screw everything up.

The budgets in Texas have been getting slashed for years, now we are losing 1,000's of jobs with State, Local, and Teaching jobs getting laid off. Just none of the media in Texas want to take this administration to task for what they are really doing to us.

Totally making numbers up here:

Year 3045:
Number of people in state: 1,000,000
Number of people unemployed: 80,000
Unemployment rate: 8% (80,000 / 1,000,000 = 0.08 = 8%)

Year 3046:
Number of people in state: 1,000,000
Number of people unemployed: 110,000
Unemployment rate: 11% (110,000 / 1,000,000 = 0.11 = 11%)

Unemployment increase/decrease between 3045 and 3046 based on number of population: 11% - 8% = 3% of population is unemployed which were employed
Unemployment percentage difference between 3045 and 3046: (11% - 8%) / 8% = 0.375 = 37.5% INCREASE
Unemployment percentage difference calculated the other way: (11% - 8%) / 11% = 0.273 = 27.3% decrease if the opposite had occurred.

Tell me that ANY government wouldn't be advertising it the second way (27.3%) if they had gone down (good news), but they advertise the first way (3%) when the news is bad, and it goes up.

The numbers aren't wrong. It's just what you're trying to downplay.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Sorry if their Unemployment rate is 50% higher that means only 42% of Californians are not Unemployed.

 

[Krisken]

It's crap wording, meant to frighten and exaggerate. Just means people have to be smarter when they hear others spouting percentages, especially in a political thread on the internet.

 

[GasBandit]

8% to 11% is not 50%. It is 3% higher.

According to google, [http="google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS433US433&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=california+unemployment+rate"]California's unemployment rate is 11.9%[/http]. Texas' [http="google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS433US433&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=texas+unemployment+rate"]is 8%[/http]. 12 is 50% higher than 8. I guarantee you that makes a palpable difference on the ground, looking for work. Especially when the magic disaster number seems to be 10%.

 

[Krisken]

Not really. 12% is 4% higher than 8%. When you use percentages, you can't start changing the number being used to make the percentage. It's misleading at the very best and downright ignorant at the worst.

 

[Eriol]

How about "x number more people are unemployed this year, which is 50% more than last year!"

As I said above (and a couple of you apparently ignored) the numbers can be sensational, or not, but none of them are wrong until you start saying "x percent more". That STRONGLY implies the "mathematical" definition, which is that 8 is 100% more than 4, and 12 is 50% more than 8. If you say "unemployement is up 3 percentage points" then that's different. That's not what you're saying.

 

[Krisken]

Sorry Eriol, I stopped reading when you started making numbers up.