Lipstick on the pig [[economy)

[ghettopalmetto]

Since when is what the Constitution doesn't say logic? To the contrary. I would think the thrust of any endeavor is not to be stupid about it and lose money. Seems logical.

That's because you focus only on money. If you changed your paradigm, you'd realize that some things are done for a Greater Good.

There are a ton of things people [[and government) do that aren't monetarily profitable. Maybe we should have never paved our roads, since they don't make anyone any money. Parks? Let's get rid of those money-wasters. Schools? They should be bulldozed so that we don't have to pay for them anymore.

[elganned]

The thrust of government is to provide service to the nation that it deems both necessary and beneficial. Thus, the postal service need not make money in order to fulfill the role set for it be the government.

Government is not a business, it is a service.

[ghettopalmetto]

The thrust of government is to provide service to the nation that it deems both necessary and beneficial. Thus, the postal service need not make money in order to fulfill the role set for it be the government.

Government is not a business, it is a service.

And the services government provides tend to be money-losers, so that private industry doesn't have to lose their ass providing them.

For example, do you think the airlines would embrace paying for airports and the air traffic control system? Now that I think about it, let's get rid of that too. I'm tired of the government wasting my tax dollars on schemes that keep airplanes from crashing into each other. What a waste!

[oladub]

Why is the Postal Service expected to turn a profit?

The Constitution merely says that Congress has authority to establish post offices and post roads. It says nothing of their profitability.

The post office is not allowed to make a profit. Since the Post Office is required to be self-supporting and carry out other chores as mandated by Congress, it must go to Congress occasionally to request a rate hike. Rate hikes are set up so the Post Office will have a couple of years of profit. Its profits are set aside until inflation forces the use of the profit to offset debt. A couple of years of profit are followed by a couple of years of losses. It evens out to be non-profit at which time it is time to go back to Congress to request another rate hike.

[elganned]

For example, do you think the airlines would embrace paying for airports and the air traffic control system? Now that I think about it, let's get rid of that too. I'm tired of the government wasting my tax dollars on schemes that keep airplanes from crashing into each other. What a waste!

Right. Let 'em crash; the pilots who die won't be able to pass their stupid genes on to the next generation, and in a few generations there won't be any more crashes. A money-saver if ever I heard one.

Same goes for traffic lights. Junk 'em all. Save billions in energy costs.

[Jimaz]

Same goes for traffic lights. Junk 'em all. Save billions in energy costs.

I predicted they'll move traffic lights to dashboards and coordinate them via wireless. Mark my words.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "you'd realize that some things are done for a Greater Good."

Even if the Chinese have to pay for it. WTF? again WTF?

[ghettopalmetto]

Quote: "you'd realize that some things are done for a Greater Good."

Even if the Chinese have to pay for it. WTF? again WTF?

We wouldn't need to borrow as much Chinese money if we didn't hand out billions of dollars to the super-rich in 2001 with Bush's first round of tax cuts. I'm jus sayin.

You gotta pick one or the other. Yachts for billionaires, or balancing the budget.

[Jimaz]

Or the cost of war. Remember the peace dividend?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "We wouldn't need to borrow as much Chinese money if we didn't hand out billions of dollars to the super-rich in 2001 with Bush's first round of tax cuts."

Oh I agree, but your assertion that the government should implement whatever, the cost be dam'd, is a bit cuckoo. No free lunches.

[ghettopalmetto]

Or the cost of war. Remember the peace dividend?

I thought our Fiscally Responsible President was gonna get that fucking thing to pay for itself. Yet whenever the Democrats in Congress proposed reducing funding for our Oil Expedition, they were attacked as "UnAmerican". Where's the follow-through, GOP?

[ccbatson]

When did GWB ever claim that the war would pay for itself?

[ghettopalmetto]

When did GWB ever claim that the war would pay for itself?

--------------------

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."

Richard Perle, chair
The Pentagon's Defense Policy Board
July 11, 2002

"The likely economic effects [of a war in Iraq] would be relatively small.... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."

Lawrence Lindsey
White House economic adviser
September 16, 2002

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."

Kenneth Pollack
former director for Persian Gulf affairs
National Security Council
September 2002

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be US taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."

Paul Wolfowitz
Deputy Secretary of Defense
testifying before the defense subcommittee
of the House Appropriations Committee
March 27, 2003




And I do believe our esteemed former Vice President explicitly said that "The invasion will pay for itself." I can't find a source at this time.


----------------------------




I have not advocated, or even implied as much, that we should just spend money willy-nilly. But one cannot claim to stand for small businesses and deficit reduction, and then argue against health care reform that would both relieve small businesses of a huge competitive burden and decrease the deficit by $100 billion a year. I have yet to see anyone in the GOP explain this glaring disconnect.






http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/navasky_cerf2

[ccbatson]

"Financing a reconstructuring" is not the same as financing a war...that was your claim, and it is false.

[elganned]

What the heck is a "reconstructuring"? You're tired, Cc; that's not a gaffe you would normally have made.

Get some sleep. It'll all look better in the morning.

[ccbatson]

Yeah yeah, a typo, you get the point.

[jiminnm]

And the services government provides tend to be money-losers, so that private industry doesn't have to lose their ass providing them.

For example, do you think the airlines would embrace paying for airports and the air traffic control system? Now that I think about it, let's get rid of that too. I'm tired of the government wasting my tax dollars on schemes that keep airplanes from crashing into each other. What a waste!

Get your facts straight, GP.

The airlines already pay for air traffic control and a large chunk of airport costs. Last I recall, 7.5-8% of every ticket dollar goes to fund air traffic control. Also, the airlines pay airports per passenger, or by gate, or by flight in and out. That doesn't completely fund airport costs, but it's not supposed to. That's why airports charge for parking and have all the shops - to profit on the operation of the airport.

[elganned]

"Financing a reconstructuring" is not the same as financing a war...that was your claim, and it is false.

[[Yeah, yeah, I know--a typo. Okay.)

Except that one is dollars recirculating in the economy to stimulate growth and the other is dollars poured down a rathole. A slight but important difference.

[ccbatson]

Huh..one isn't even a word...what are you referring too Elganned?

[Stosh]

Huh..one isn't even a word...what are you referring too Elganned?

one [[wn)
adj. 1. Being a single entity, unit, object, or living being.
2. Characterized by unity; undivided: They spoke with one voice.
3. a. Of the same kind or quality: two animals of one species.
b. Forming a single entity of two or more components: three chemicals combining into one solution.

4. Being a single member or element of a group, category, or kind: I'm just one player on the team.
5. Being a single thing in contrast with or relation to another or others of its kind: One day is just like the next.
6. Occurring or existing as something indefinite, as in time or position: He will come one day.
7. Occurring or existing as something particular but unspecified, as in time past: late one evening.
8. Informal Used as an intensive: That is one fine dog.
9. Being the only individual of a specified or implied kind: the one person I could marry; the one horse that can win this race.

n. 1. The cardinal number, represented by the symbol 1, designating the first such unit in a series.
2. A single person or thing; a unit: This is the one I like best.
3. A one-dollar bill.

pron. 1. An indefinitely specified individual: She visited one of her cousins.
2. An unspecified individual; anyone: "The older one grows the more one likes indecency" [[Virginia Woolf).

Idioms:
at one In accord or unity.

one and all Everyone.

one by one Individually in succession.

[Middle English on, from Old English n; see oi-no- in Indo-European roots.]

[ccbatson]

Another great pun for the fellas at the teeter totter on Monday.

[maxx]

Quote: "I mentioned pricing needed to return to 50's levels to make sense of today's incomes as they relate to the cost of living."

Well, people didn't live like we've been living for the last 30 or so years. A telephone was considered a luxury, same with cars etc. Us returning to a 50's style economy is exactly what the powers that be are hoping for.
.

Cars luxuries?
http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEM...bject_615.html

Late 1940s and early 1950s automobile advertising reflects that competition. As more and more cars were sold in the late 1940s and early 1950s, just simply owning a car was no longer a sign of high social status.

[maxx]

The thrust of government is to provide service to the nation that it deems both necessary and beneficial. Thus, the postal service need not make money in order to fulfill the role set for it be the government.

Government is not a business, it is a service.

And healthcare should not be for profit either.

[maxx]

Huh..one isn't even a word...what are you referring too Elganned?

If it isn't a word, what is it?

[maxx]

Oh I see. CC is nit-picking.