• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

Kandi1977 said:
Not services like the post. If you want to run that as a profitable company, that means it will have to be concentrated only to densely populated areas, with no or very poor service to remote locations. That's not how essential services should be run.
Click to expand...

Again there is a huge difference to running at a profit and making huge loss

Even if you are going to make losses you should strive to cut the loss where you can otherwise whats the alternative? Higher taxation to cover the losses all over the place because people believe you just chuck cash at agencies because they are a service?
 
Grays_1890 said:
Again there is a huge difference to running at a profit and making huge loss

Even if you are going to make losses you should strive to cut the loss where you can otherwise whats the alternative? Higher taxation to cover the losses all over the place because people believe you just chuck cash at agencies because they are a service?
Click to expand...
The reason the USPS is making a massive loss is not related to the operational costs but the funding of the pension, which was an act of a GOP controlled congress primarily done to allow their talking heads to make the same argument you have just done. To privatise the postal services is a long held republican goal (ie they are greedy pricks).

Should government services be as efficient as they can be? Of course, but that is not what is going on here. This is just Trump fudging with the postal service because of the elections. And you don't have to take my word for it. Trump has come out and said that is exactly what he is doing.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Again there is a huge difference to running at a profit and making huge loss

Even if you are going to make losses you should strive to cut the loss where you can otherwise whats the alternative? Higher taxation to cover the losses all over the place because people believe you just chuck cash at agencies because they are a service?
Click to expand...

You also have to look at who is cutting the costs and what their agenda is. In the case of the USPS, even a toddler can figure it out mate.
 
thfcsteff said:
You also have to look at who is cutting the costs and what their agenda is. In the case of the USPS, even a toddler can figure it out mate.
Click to expand...

Of course, like I said at the start I am conversing about services and if they should be run at losses, not about Trump and USPS.
 
Grays_1890 said:
But the IRS regardless does its job whilst covering its expenditure and does it well especially as its role is not just to collect tax but investigate cheating within taxation which takes alot of resources and money to do.

Im not 400% but I am sure there are other agencies that make huge profit from user fees like The Nuclear Regulatory Commission too.

I worked in Canadian Government within the Tourist Board for 6 years and I was taken to task for hosting clients at Wimbledon Tennis, the process was interesting as I had to sit an EY finance course specifically run for Government and I can tell you when you spend the crowns money you have to keep one eye on the losses, I agree the process is not to make money but you dont want black holes either regardless if it is deemed a pen stroke
Click to expand...
Tax is not profit as the IRS is not a commercial enterprise. In fact, the tax investigation ability of the IRS is much diminished under successive administrations. The goal of this is to make it impossible to chase the big fish with their expensive lawyers, accountants, etc. So instead they go after the little guys. The tax revenue drops, the government borrows sometimes off the same big fish they can't tax properly and hey bingo. They get richer and richer.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
If you've been following the USPS, then I'm sure you'll know that it lost nearly $9B last year. It's unfunded liabilities are double it's annual revenue. Cost saving initiatives have continually failed and dwindled over the years, and they operate in an industry that is unlikely to exist in a few year's time. Despite all this, they keep spending more and more each year.

Do you genuinely think that there shouldn't be someone taking a scythe to the company (or preferably putting it out of its misery)? Do you genuinely think that it's more likely that a right-leaning government has decided not to take out a failing and obsolete business and instead has created a giant conspiracy, involving various branches of govt, the management of the USPS, the unions, workers, etc?
Click to expand...

Don't shift the debate without context.
What is at discussion here is the TIMING of this "fiscal responsibility"...
That you have chosen to try several angles to defend the action as anything other than another petulant "presidential" action designed to further game a system he has been gaming since he came in tells me either you approve of such poorly disguised
Banana Republic tactics or you really don't know the ins and outs of this and are applying a "general theory"...I will believe it is the former.
 
thfcsteff said:
Don't shift the debate without context.
What is at discussion here is the TIMING of this "fiscal responsibility"...
That you have chosen to try several angles to defend the action as anything other than another petulant "presidential" action designed to further game a system he has been gaming since he came in tells me either you approve of such poorly disguised
Banana Republic tactics or you really don't know the ins and outs of this and are applying a "general theory"...I will believe it is the former.
Click to expand...
If we're talking timing, then surely announcing a second, successive failure to make any payments into the swollen and under-funded pension fund would be a good reason to move.
 
thfcsteff said:
Two entirely different subjects in context though aren't they.
Click to expand...

Not in the context that I just chimed into the conversation that someone else was having? I just added that I felt public services in general should be run with an eye on cost and efficiencies.
 
Rorschach said:
LOL. Ok then, I'll bite. Spell out Trump's brilliant economic policies and how they are better than Biden's?
Click to expand...

his policies are actually bad imo - but not as bad as biden's will be.

he got elected on the promise of smaller government (more freedom, more wealth etc) - whilst he may have reduced taxes, hes actually increased government spending (even pre-covid), and money printing. funny this didnt get criticised in the recent dnc - because no doubt the dems probably plan to increase government spending even more. you only have to look at states like california to see what the result of bloated government is, and imo its a much shorter journey from claifornia to venezuela than people think or realise.
 
Wilheldiva said:
his policies are actually bad imo - but not as bad as biden's will be.

he got elected on the promise of smaller government (more freedom, more wealth etc) - whilst he may have reduced taxes, hes actually increased government spending (even pre-covid), and money printing. funny this didnt get criticised in the recent dnc - because no doubt the dems probably plan to increase government spending even more. you only have to look at states like california to see what the result of bloated government is, and imo its a much shorter journey from claifornia to venezuela than people think or realise.
Click to expand...

I don't see any policies in there, just a dems are bad diatribe, but lets park that.

Are you American? GOP supporter perchance?

edit: You know what? Don't answer. That's your business. Have a good one.
 
Last edited:
Wilheldiva said:
i dont think you realise how much of a greater risk to the economy a biden win would cause
Click to expand...
Biden's fine by me with Harris as a running mate.

I think that's a very clear statement that he plans to be centrist. There were plenty of left-leaning candidates he could have chosen but didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back