What's new
By:

New? Obama ad

The Thriller said:
I'm sorry, but I didn't feel like your post was worth responding to. Were you being serious? And lets be honest, would you really accept any plan that I put forth?

I personally thought you were joking, especially when you brought up the Post Office. Um, yeah... You may want to google that.
Click to expand...

My mom worked for the post office as a letter carrier for over 20 years. She'd get all pissed anytime anyone suggested the post office was a government run and government funded organization.

The post office has its own budget and they need to try to make money. If they fall short the government will back them, but as we are seeing there is no blank check. They are losing money and seeking ways to stop that by cutting services and reorganizing.
 
The Thriller said:
Fine.

Get rid of it. I don't care about PBS.

But do you realize how many "small" programs will need to be eliminated in order to make a bent in this baby? And to argue over Big Bird as much as we have? Seems silly to me, don't you think? We literally have 2 threads about Big Bird, the media has spent hours talking about this, Romney spent a few mins discussing this in a debate, and now we have political ads?

A bit silly, don't you think? From both parties. Over something so tiny. .01 percent.

No wonder why we can never address larger issues (SS, Defense, Medicare, economy, etc). We're too busy arguing about Big Bird!
Click to expand...


Everything needs to be on the table including defense. .01% might not seem like much, but it should be on the table nonetheless. As for Sesame Street in general..... I believe it was said that PBS gets 450 million or so in taxpayer dollars per year(someone correct me if I am wrong). Last year alone Sesame Street made a profit of 356 million(again correct me if this is inaccurate). I guess it is a nice little double dip they have going there. I get it, Sesame Street doesn't get the entire 450 million. They do get a nice chunk of change out of that though. Everything should be on the table.
 
The Thriller said:
I'm sorry, but I didn't feel like your post was worth responding to. Were you being serious? And lets be honest, would you really accept any plan that I put forth?

I personally thought you were joking, especially when you brought up the Post Office. Um, yeah... You may want to google that.
Click to expand...

Where are your cuts? You said small cuts weren't going to solve anything. We already know that if you taxed the rich 100% we still couldn't pay for all of this. So, cuts HAVE to be made. Smarty pants, where are your big cuts?

p.s. cutting all govt income from the allegedly privately run post office would be a cut...unless the post office receives ZERO income from the govt.
 
Gameface said:
My mom worked for the post office as a letter carrier for over 20 years. She'd get all pissed anytime anyone suggested the post office was a government run and government funded organization.

The post office has its own budget and they need to try to make money. If they fall short the government will back them, but as we are seeing there is no blank check. They are losing money and seeking ways to stop that by cutting services and reorganizing.
Click to expand...

They have their own budget.

What does that mean? Where does the funding for the post office come from? Are you telling the post office receives no income from the govt? Then why do post office employees get federal retirements? Because they are a private corporation?

p.s. the USPS is a government agency. While independent, it is still run by the executive branch.
 
green said:
They have their own budget.

What does that mean? Where does the funding for the post office come from? Are you telling the post office receives no income from the govt? Then why do post office employees get federal retirements? Because they are a private corporation?

p.s. the USPS is a government agency. While independent, it is still run by the executive branch.
Click to expand...

You're right, the Post Master General reports directly to the President every day keeping him updated on the latest mail delivery developments.
 
Gameface said:
I personally like PBS, a lot. I like NPR, and contribute my own money to them. So for me, when the government spends tax payer money on those things it doesn't bug me because I want them destroyed, it bugs me because those things are not the responsibility of the government to provide. It is immoral in my opinion to take people's money by force and spend it on trivialities that the people who had their money taken by force may or may not want or even be in a position to benefit from.
Click to expand...

I think the idea that's fundamentally different from your appraisal is that the idea that free, decent media that doesn't have to answer to advertisers/popularity contests is a trivial thing. For decades, the two leading sources of quality programming in their formats have come from the same places, and everyone but the delusional know exactly who those leaders are.

Dropping a quarter into a well that enhances the quality of information and subsequently the quality of our society to me is not trivial, even if it's not immediately obvious the rewards reaped. I believe we all benefit.
 
green said:
Typical left wing dumbass. I brought up cuts that would make a difference. You ran away. And we wonder why nothing is ever accomplished in the country?

Lets hear it smarty-pants. What cuts to the United Nations, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, social security, etc do you have planned to "make a difference"?

We've been waiting for 20 years for your answer.
Click to expand...
Cutting a defense budget that is greater than the next 13 countries COMBINED and takes up 53% of the government's discretionary budget is a start. That's just being sensible.

And if we're to believe that government is as purely wasteful as the right advertises, there's a lot of fat to cut both in the military, and every other source of spending. That's actually part of their platform. The difference is that some people see long-term dividends to certain types of spending (planned parenthood being a prime example) and some people see it as an opportunity to create a boogeyman.
 
NUMBERICA said:
The difference is that some people see long-term dividends to certain types of spending (planned parenthood being a prime example) and some people see it as an opportunity to create a boogeyman.
Click to expand...

It's been said that a country's greatest resource is its citizens. How is killing off a country's greatest resource a long-term dividend?
 
I take back my stance on PBS...

2520510.jpg
 
Wait....

Is that Big Bird ad real?!?!

Obama runs for President like he's running for student body officer in High School.

Probly not a bad strategy, but still.
 
Green...

Again dude... Just google USPS. Do some reading. Please. You're really embarrassing yourself here.

Everything needs to be on the table including defense. .01% might not seem like much, but it should be on the table nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you.

But when you're trying to construct a house you don't begin with choosing what type of shower drain you're going to install. You're going to begin with the foundation, then a framework, and so on. Likewise, when tackling our debt problem, lets focus on the BIG expenditures first. Especially defense, which hasn't been checked for fat in years. Year after year it seems like we discuss ways to make education, entitlements, etc more efficient while blindly handing the Dept. of Defense a blind check. Who is checking to make sure that they aren't wasting our money?

A small cut to the dept of defense would hardly jeopardize our safety while saving far more than cutting literally hundreds of "small" programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top