 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM "7. You fight deficits with tax cuts... Huh???... Okay, that is like me getting behind on my bills so I figure the best way outta the mess is to quit my job???? I mean, this is some seriously flawed tea..." Hunh? Logicaly you quit spending so much money. Claiming someone is suggesting quitting your job is seriously flawed. What leap of logic or abandonment of logic leads you to this logical fallacy of equivocation? That's what the whole Tea Party thing is about. They are protesting about what the Bush administration did too. You are such a mindless tribalist drone that all you can think about is us against them. You turn everything into Democratic or Republican. And you claim others can't think? The Tea Party movement is a political movement in the United States that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests. The protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and health care reform. Please keep informed so you will know what you are talking about Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM Thank god we don't get all the government we pay for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 19 Oct 10 - 10:17 AM No, the Tea Party is the extreme arm of the Republican Party that was organized by Fox unNews and Dick Armey with hundreds of millions of dollars of health insurance company moeny that was funneled thru Armey's lobbiest firm... This money was used to hire hundreds of "community organizers" (remember them) who went out and di what community organizers do... The money also went into printing, media buy buy patriotic sounding organizations that attacxked Obam and Dems... The lobbiest monet also rented bused, took out protest permits, bought ffo, rented offices, etc., etc... That's the prefect storm for the corpoate pigs... Dumbed down people and a couple trillion dollars sitting around with nuthin' with nuthin to do but collect dust... I mean, if you were to give me half of what Dick Armey and Rupert Murdock (in kind) have spent I could take the "Coffee Party" and organize it into antional force that would make the Tea Party look like a backyard cookout in comparasion... Problem is that the progressives down't have that kind dough... That is the facts, Sawz... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Date: 19 Oct 10 - 10:51 AM Hearing and reading about the Tea Party has been an eye-opener to me. I'd thought all the crazies had been elected. NOT SO. So, one of you in the know: is she or is she ain't a witch? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM Actually, I'm kinda lookin' forward to having some truly looney people in Congress... I mean, I'm tired of LoonieLite... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Date: 19 Oct 10 - 11:49 PM Just watched a Canadian news broadcast in which some stupid misinformed twit (sp?) who's running in Nevada--Sharron Angle--has stated that the terrorists who caused the 9-11 attacks entered the US from Canada. Dear Sharron, I hope you aren't having unprotected sex, because I expect that the pox can still be spread when it's in the third stage. Sincerely, Bruce Murdoch PS Even your director of homeland security has stated that the terrorists having entered from Canada is a myth started because of some erroneous news statements that came out just after 9-11. Get caught up with your reading and may you pass a three-inch diameter gall stone. I hope that the million or so Canadians who visit Nevada in the course of each year boycott your state should you get elected. Bah. The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:02 AM Sorry. I'm so pissed off right now I don't know whether to shit, wind my watch or steal third. I should have said she "implied", not "stated". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:25 AM Well, 999, don't try all three at the same time... But, yeah, yer right... Ahhhhh, make that correct... I mean, Ron Paul wnats to repeal the Civil Rights Act because he thinks that lynchings and keeping black from voting is none of ther federal governments danged business... The guy in Alaska thinks he's like some militart dictator in having his "private" security people (think Blackwater here) ***arrest*** a reporter for trying to ask him a question... The one in Nevada wants to end Social Security and make fun of Hispanics... The one in Delaward wants "creationism" taught in the schools... The one in Wes Ginny thinks it perfectly okay to maul the name of a Hispanic Suprme Court justice??? I mean, lets get real here... These Tealibaners is all about racism and intolerance just their their Afgan counterparts... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM Christine O Donnell questions Coons about the first amendment It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sadly stupid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:03 AM Bobert: Please define fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:41 AM Fact = the truth... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:41 AM Christine O'Donnell is the one who is correct. The Constitution bans the government from establishing a State Religion, a very different concept than the current goal of eliminating all religious referances from the government. Her opponent said that "separation between Church and State" is found in the First Amendment, a really stupid statement. The problem is largely in the people who populate our news media. They don't know anything about anything. They live for gossip and not much more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:55 AM Please define truth Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:06 AM A few years ago, I was listening to a TV reporter when he said "the Titanic sank when it ran into a glacier". These "doofus with a microphone" types are really just looking for an excuse to damage a candidate they don't support. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:19 AM Bobert: "The guy in Alaska thinks he's like some militart dictator in having his "private" security people (think Blackwater here) ***arrest*** a reporter for trying to ask him a question..." Sincre this is a false statement, I expect Bobert would call it a lie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:21 AM Sorry pdq, but you are buying the post-hoc "she was talking about the exact phrase" excuse. If you listent to the run-up conversation, she was clearly making the argument that public schools (the government) should be allowed to teach religion. She was saying that Coons was advocating "government interference" in local school boards when he asserts that public schools should teach science, while families and churches teach religion. Listen to the whole conversation please, and you will see that she really does *not* understand the 1st Amendment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:05 PM Perhaps the news media failed to bring this to our attention... CTV.ca News Date: Wed. Apr. 22 2009 1:22 PM ET The furor began when {Janet} Napolitano was asked to clarify statements she had made about equal treatment for the Mexican and Canadian borders, despite the fact that a flood of illegal immigrants and a massive drug war are two serious issues on the southern border. "Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on, it didn't have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year," she said. "Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there." When asked if she was referring to the 9-11 terrorists, Napolitano added: "Not just those but others as well." However, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan downplayed the comments and said that Napolitano is well aware that Canada was not the source of the 9-11 terrorists. "We spoke about it back in March, and we were sharing a chuckle at the fact that the urban myth does circulate," he told CTV's Power Play. "Ms. Napolitano understood quite clearly, then and now, that none of the September 11 terrorists came through Canada, as the 9-11 Commission found." Still, that positive outlook wasn't shared by other Canadian officials. On Tuesday afternoon, RCMP Commissioner William Elliot expressed frustration with the comments during an interview on CTV's Power Play. "I was somewhat surprised and disappointed," he said, adding he hopes the misconception has been cleared up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:23 PM Bobert's havin' a little trouble with the definition of truth methinks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM Is the way to Thunder Dome? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Oct 10 - 01:15 PM Is Thunderdome in Arizona? DAY 58 June 16 Obama meets with BP CEO for 20 minutes DAY 59 June 17 Meets with advisers to start lawsuit against Arizona DAY 60 June 18 Beers and baseball! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM On Feb. 9, 2009, Mary Rakovich, a recently laid-off automotive engineer, set out for a convention center in Fort Myers, Fla. with protest signs, a cooler of water and the courage of her convictions. She felt compelled to act, having grown increasingly alarmed at the explosion of earmarks, bailouts and government spending in the waning years of the Bush administration. Today the ranks of this citizen rebellion can be counted in the millions. The rebellion's name derives from the glorious rant of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who in February 2009 called for a new 'tea party' from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. By doing so he reminded all of us that America was founded on the revolutionary principle of citizen participation, citizen activism and the primacy of the individual over the government. That's the tea party ethos." Actually, as we understand it, the Tea Party phenomenon was inspired by the libertarian-republicanism of the Ron Paul presidential campaign that created small activist cells. Rick Santelli and we have seen his "glorious rant" had nothing to do with this spontaneous manifestation of anti-state protesting. Santelli's TV statement came much later. The reason we have concentrated on this article is because it is a superb example of how the mainstream media reworks memes to make them palatable and useful to the powers-that-be. The Tea Party, initially, was an amorphous and generalized uprising against the modern welfare/warfare state. It was libertarian in nature and fairly specific about its point of view. Today, that specificity has been mislaid (perhaps the movement is too big for one point of view) and the mythmaking has begun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Date: 20 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM Thanks, pdq. Trust you`re well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:52 PM Sorry, Swz but I given you the defination of the truth... BTW, pdq... The reporter was "arrested" and handcuffed by the private security people hired to protect the Republican candidate for trying to ask a question of the candidate... I mean, there is video of it... What part of this is, in your opinion, not factual??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq Date: 20 Oct 10 - 05:44 PM Sorry, but what case are you taking about? Sharron Angle, Janet Napolitano or Christine O'Donnell? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 20 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM None of the above... Google up "Alaska Senate race, Reporter arrested" and you'll get the story... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:06 PM "A reporter for the Alaska Dispatch, an online news site, was handcuffed and arrested by private security guards at a middle school in Anchorage Sunday after trying to question Republican Senate hopeful Joe Miller following a town hall meeting. The guards who arrested the reporter worked for Miller through Drop Zone Security, a private security firm in Anchorage. According to accounts in the Anchorage Daily News and the Dispatch, the problems started when the reporter, Tony Hopfinger, followed Miller down a hallway in an effort to ask questions about Miller's time as a government lawyer for the Fairbanks North Star Borough in 2009. Miller did not respond to the questions, having announced last week that he will no longer speak about his past work experience or personal life. Hopfinger told the Dispatch that as he followed Miller, he was wrapped up in a crowd of Miller supporters and security guards and pushed someone away from him. That's when a Drop Zone guard grabbed him. "He throws me up against the wall," Hopfinger said. "He handcuffs me." Hopfinger also said the guards took his video camera, the contents of which had been erased when it was later returned to him. The guards then called the Anchorage Police to report Hopfinger for trespassing and assault. Anchorage police responded to the scene, took statements for nearly an hour and released Hopfinger. William Fulton, the owner of Drop Zone Security, would not identify the guards who handcuffed the reporter, but said that Hopfinger was "getting really pushy with Joe. Joe was trying to get away from him." He said the reporter then "shoulder-checked a guy into a locker." Fulton also said that Hopfinger was technically trespassing at the school because the Miller campaign had rented out a room there for the town hall meeting, which the Miller campaign considered a private event. " http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/18/joe-miller-security-guards-handcuff-reporter-at-alaska-campaign/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:07 PM "the reporter then "shoulder-checked a guy into a locker."" NOW I know how Bobert wants me to treat Obama... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:01 PM I also looked into this incident. Calling the guy who was detained by private security guards a "reporter" is not correct. He has his own political website. There is no paper or news organization to work for. He has been following Joe Miller around and asksing personal questions that no candidate should have to put up with. He has filed harassing lawsuits also. The blogger tried to get to Miller by bodychecking someone into a gym locker, which is why he was detained. He had already been asked to leave and told he was in trespass before he bumped the Miller supporter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 20 Oct 10 - 08:04 PM Ahhhh, that ain't exactly what the video shows but interesting take (mythology) on the events... I mean, if that was a body check then they got some purdy wussy folks up there in Alaska... But if ya'll want to stick with the body check mythology, have at it... BTW, Joe MIller is a grad of West Point, ain't he??? I mean, don't they teach 'um how to defend themselves there??? Tell ya' what, it's been 30 years since I was into martial arts but if someone assaults me (body check) I still know what to do... Ya'llz story is a little on the unbelievable side, especially since some of it was caught on video... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:42 PM "Sorry, Swz but I given you the defination of the truth..." Not in this thread Bobert. You sure keep information to yourself. You claim you know a lot of things and when asked, you just clam up and throw another stink bomb. Has anybody seen Bobert's definition of the truth? The so called reporter followed the candidate into the restroom. Harassment? Stalking Bullying? Said reporter refuses to make any charges. The prosecutor is not charging the candidate with anything. So what is the problem? Need a hankie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:48 PM "In this day and age, money is almost never the difference between victory and defeat." Impact of campaign money overstated Charlotte Observer Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2010 Over the past few months, there's been a torrent of commentary about political donations and campaign spending. This lavish coverage is based on the premise that campaign spending has an important influence on elections. I can see why media consultants would believe money is vitally important: The more money there is, the more they make. I can see why partisans would want to believe money is important: They tend to blame their party's defeats on the nefarious spending of the other side. However, I can't see why the rest of us should believe this. The evidence to support it is so slight. Let's start with the current data. A vast majority of campaign spending is done by candidates and political parties. Over the past year, the Democrats, most of whom are incumbents, have been raising and spending far more than the Republicans. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats in the most competitive House races have raised an average of 47 percent more than Republicans. They have spent 66 percent more, and have about 53 percent more in their war chests. The Wesleyan Media Project says that between Sept. 1 and Oct. 7 Democrats running for the House and Senate spent $1.50 on ads for every $1 spent by Republicans. Despite this financial advantage, Democrats have been sinking in the polls. I suppose they could argue that the conditions could be even worse if they didn't have the money edge, but this is a weak case. It's more plausible to argue that the ad buys just didn't make that much difference. After all, money wasn't that important when Phil Gramm and John Connally ran for president. In those and many other cases, huge fundraising prowess yielded nothing. Money wasn't that important in 2006 when Republican incumbents outraised Democrats by $100 million and still lost. Money wasn't that important in the 2010 Alaska primary when Joe Miller beat Lisa Murkowski despite being outspent 10 to 1. It wasn't that important in the 2010 Delaware primary when Mike Castle, who raised $1.5 million, was beaten by Christine O'Donnell, who had raised $230,000. The most alarmed coverage concerns the skyrocketing spending of independent groups. It is true that Republicans have an edge when it comes to outside expenditures. This year, for example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending $22 million for Republicans, while the Service Employees International Union is spending about $14 million for Democrats. But independent spending is about only one-tenth of spending by candidates and parties. There is no way the $13 million Karl Rove influences through the group American Crossroads is going to reshape an election in which the two parties are spending something like $1.4 billion collectively. Moreover, there's no real evidence that independent expenditure is any more effective than candidate expenditure. In 2008, Democrats had a huge independent advantage, now the Republicans do. The main effect of this money is to make the rubble bounce. Let's say you live in Colorado. Conservative-leaning groups have spent $6.6 million attacking Michael Bennet, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, according to Opensecrets.org, a nonprofit site that monitors spending in politics. Liberal-leaning groups have spent $6.9 million attacking his Republican opponent, Ken Buck. There is no way a slightly richer ad campaign is going to make much difference. Political scientists have tried to measure the effectiveness of campaign spending using a variety of methodologies, but there is no consensus in the field. So why is there so much money in politics? Well, every consultant has an incentive to tell every client to raise more money. The donors give money because it makes them feel as if they are doing good and because they get to hang out at exclusive parties. The candidates are horribly insecure and grasp at any straw that gives them a sense of advantage. In the end, however, money is a talisman. It makes people feel good because they think it has magical properties. It probably helps in local legislative races where name recognition is low. It probably helps challengers get established. But federal races are oversaturated. In this day and age, money is almost never the difference between victory and defeat. It's just the primitive mythology of the political class. Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/10/20/1773505/impact-of-campaign-money-overstated.html#ixzz12xNe4sgJ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:24 AM Glad to see that you are enjoying the Charlotte Observer, Saws... It's "right" up yer alley with the Front Pagew being the editorial page as well... Like the printed version of Fox... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:03 AM Old Yiddish expression: For instance is not proof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Donuel Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:07 AM Overstated or not, it is a game changer this was my first picture of the problem but am now working on a masterful illustration of the problem http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/constitution.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Nov 10 - 01:31 PM Red Ink For Post Office: $8.5B Lost Last Year WSJ Nov 12, 2010 AP The Postal Service said Friday it lost $8.5 billion last year despite deep cuts of more than 100,000 jobs and other reductions in recent years. The post office had estimated it would lose $6 billion to $7 billion, but a sharp decline in mail took a toll. Increased use of the Internet and the recession, which cut advertising and other business mail, meant less money for the agency. For the year ending Sept. 30, the post office had income of $67.1 billion, down $1 billion from the previous fiscal year. Expenses totaled $70 billion, a decline of about $400 million. The post office also was required to make a $5.5 billion payment for future retiree health benefits. "Over the last two years, the Postal Service realized more than $9 billion in cost savings, primarily by eliminating about 105,000 full-time equivalent positions more than any other organization, anywhere," chief financial officer Joe Corbett said in a statement. "We will continue our relentless efforts to innovate and improve efficiency. However, the need for changes to legislation, regulations and labor contracts has never been more obvious." The post office is currently in contract negotiations with two of its unions, with two more scheduled to be negotiated next year. The loss of $8.5 billion in 2010 was $4.7 billion more than the previous year. Mail volume totaled 170.6 billion pieces, compared with 176.7 billion in 2009, a decline of 3.5 percent. At the same time, volume was declining the post office was required to begin service to thousands of new addresses to accommodate population growth and new businesses. The post office has asked Congress for permission to reduce mail delivery to five-days-a-week and to eliminate annual payments for future retiree health benefits. A request from the agency for a 2-cent increase in postage rates to take effect next year was recently turned down by the independent Postal Rate Commission. The post office has appealed that decision in federal court. While the post office does not receive tax money for its operations it still must answer to Congress, which has been reluctant to agree to closing of local post offices and centers. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., blamed the loss on the recession and "operating restraints placed on postal management." The result, he said, may represent the most serious threat to the post office in its 200-year history. "If corrective action is not taken quickly, the Postal Service will likely run out of cash and borrowing authority by this time next year, placing its ability to continue operations in serious jeopardy," said Carper, who urged quick congressional action. Fredric V. Rolando, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, said the loss "comes as no surprise." "For the Postal Service to improve its financial situation, the government must let the USPS manage its financial affairs in the most effective manner possible, like any other business," he said. "Essential to that process would be for Congress to fix an onerous congressional mandate from 2006, which obligates the Postal Service to make annual payments of $5.5 billion to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. No other institution in America, public or private, has to do this." Some have suggested privatizing the service, but the requirement to provide service everywhere in the country at the same price is not likely to be attractive to private companies. Of particular concern has been the decline in the lucrative first-class mail, largely consisting of personal letters and cards, bills and payments and similar items. First-class mail volume fell 6.6 percent in 2010, 8.6 percent in 2009, and 4.8 percent in 2008. Traditionally, this mail has produced more than half of total revenue. Volume for standard mail advertising and similar business items improved somewhat, indicating some signs of economic recovery, but generates less income. Postmaster General John Potter, who retires in December, has developed a 10-year plan for the future of the post office, but parts of that plan require congressional action. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 12 Nov 10 - 02:43 PM Yeah, like who needs mail delivery every danged day but Sunday??? How about 4 deliveries a week??? That alone would put the Postal Service back in the black.... And up the rates on junk mail... Right now they pay less to have their junk delivered (and it's heavier) than do I when I pay a bill... 4 days is plenty... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Nov 10 - 03:45 PM HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Ups runs OK, No gummint bailouts needed. Fedex doin' fine. And they pay taxes to boot. DHS couldn't keep up with the competition so they are history. But how about the Post Office branch of the government, like Fannie and Freddie allways inefficient and needin' a bail out. Why the hell shouldn't they compete with the successful businesses? The non-failed economic models? The big problem for the PO is Email and online commerce. They should have seen it coming and gotten into the Internet at the beginning. I would personally like to have one entity in charge of Email that could fight spam which is 90% of email traffic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:24 PM UPS doesn't have to deliver bills and junk mail, Sawz... That ain't the government's fault... Tell ya' what... Start mailing yer bills using UPS then maybe you'll get it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Nov 10 - 01:48 PM "Yeah, like who needs mail delivery every danged day but Sunday??? How about 4 deliveries a week??? That alone would put the Postal Service back in the black.... And up the rates on junk mail... Right now they pay less to have their junk delivered (and it's heavier) than do I when I pay a bill... 4 days is plenty..." I am 100% in agreement with Bobert. Hooray! I object to the junk mail. #1. It causes the destruction of more trees and pollutes the environment, increases use of energy and pollution from transportation, production, delivery. #2. It increases the load on land fills except for what gets recycled. #3. The companies gets to deduct it as an advertising expense. #4. Who wants it anyway? I regard it as spam. My wife showed mw a little crystal vase about 2" high she bought 5 years ago. The company has been mailing her a catalog ever since then. Why? Evidently it costs them nothing. I am getting two identical ads from a health care outfit every week, one with a middle initial and one without. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Nov 10 - 09:44 PM "UPS doesn't have to deliver bills and junk mail, Sawz... That ain't the government's fault." Who's fault is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 23 Nov 10 - 09:51 PM We agree... Make the junk mail folks pay the same $$$ to mail me junk as I have to pay to mail a letter then they might think twice... But, no, because the mailer companies do a certain amount of sortin' before the junk mail is taken to the Post Office they get "bulk rate"??? Hey, that is messed up... And their junk is heavier/larger than the average letter or check sent to pay a bill??? UPS needs to do some serious rethinking... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Nov 10 - 11:21 PM What I am asking Bobert is if it is not the government's fault that UPS doesn't have to deliver bills and junk mail, who's fault is it? If it is nobody's fault, what bearing does it have on anything. Should it be somebody's fault? Bills have to pay the full rate so they should not be a money looser, They should raise the rate on junk mail, I think they call it bulk mail to .44 like everything else. A bunch of lobbyists [who Obama said weren't going to run things in Washington any more] fight raising the rates. I think people should have to pay a penny to send email. I think the Post Office should have gotten into the Email business on the ground floor. I realize it would be a real task to charge for email now but at the early stages it could have been done. They should have seen it coming. 90% of email is now spam. The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam e-mails results in the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as 3.1 million passenger cars using 2 billion gallons of gasoline. The annual energy used globally for spam totals 33 terawatt hours (TWh)--enough energy to power 2.4 million homes each year. Industry Ramps Up Efforts to Preserve Junk Mail A little-noticed, April 2008 press release from an organization called the National Association of Printing Leadership (NAPL) announced that it had awarded its 2008 "Technical Leadership Award" to Benjamin Y. Cooper for his work as "a dedicated champion and eloquent spokesman for the print media." Sounds innocent enough, but who exactly is Cooper, and what did he do to merit this award? Cooper is a principal in the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm Williams & Jensen, who for almost three decades has been the chief lobbyist for the U.S. printing industry. He also heads Mail Moves America (MMA), a pro-junk mail front group that works to prevent the passage of "Do Not Mail" laws that would give consumers a way to opt out of receiving junk mail, similar to the way "Do Not Call" lists have helped people end unwanted telemarketing calls. Formed in 2007, MMA is the creation of the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), a trade association for companies and industries that profit from the creation and sending of junk mail, like printers, advertisers, paper manufacturers and paper catalogue retailers. On its web site, MMA says "Do Not Mail" laws would be "bad public policy." It dismisses the accusation that junk mail destroys trees as "a myth," saying simply, "Direct mail is not trees, it is printed communication." In a July 10, 2007 press release, DMA President & CEO John A. Greco, Jr. called state bills to set up "Do Not Mail" lists "misguided legislation" that is "being driven by environmental, privacy, and consumer groups who often distort the facts in their efforts to eliminate advertising mail to consumers." Greco said MMA responds aggressively to Do Not Mail list initiatives with "convincing information about the consumer benefits of advertising mail." U.S. Postal Service: Using Third Party Technique to Preserve Junk Mail? The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is another player with a vested interest in the junk mail issue. It derives a substantial portion of its revenues from bulk mailers, so giving people the ability to opt out from receiving junk mail would threaten its budget. The Postal Service is prohibited from lobbying Congress on its own behalf, so it cannot directly oppose "Do Not Mail" legislation. According to the Washington Post, however, the USPS is "working closely with the Direct Marketing Association ... in its new campaign -- Mail Moves America -- which is designed to quash the Do Not Mail initiatives." Thus, even our trusted post office is not beyond using the third party technique to achieve a business goal. A related pro junk-mail effort is a new web site called IP Moves the Mail, started by the International Paper Company. International Paper is a multinational corporation with offices around the world, and as a paper manufacturer, it stands to lose business if laws are enacted that reduce the quantity of paper being dropped into mailboxes. "IP Moves the Mail" therefore facilitates pro-junk mail activism, urging visitors to contact their legislators and oppose passage of "Do Not Mail" bills. Most people don't like the mounting number of unsolicited ads that arrive in their mail and would be happy to have a way to be rid of them. In a world of diminishing resources, junk mail consumes tremendous amounts of dwindling resources, most of which ends up as trash. At a time when people are increasingly using electronic communication, is it right or sensible to give credence to a fight to preserve what might be an anachronistic industry whose time might be naturally winding down anyway? Would it be so bad to create a way for only those consumers who want paper junk mail to be the ones to receive it? Despite the junk mail industry's "sky-is-falling" attitude, legislation allowing consumers to block unwanted mail probably wouldn't end the world. "Do Not Mail" bills, in addition to saving increasingly precious natural resources, just might give people some peace until advertisers start finding more ingenious and less harmful ways to put their ads under our noses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Ebbie Date: 24 Nov 10 - 01:09 AM Just for clarification - When you say that "a bunch of lobbyists... fight raising the rates", I'm sure you realize that it is the direct marketing industry that is fighting them. You say: "I think people should have to pay a penny to send email. I think the Post Office should have gotten into the Email business on the ground floor." I disagree. By this time we would be paying a dollar for each email. Or maybe they would be charging per word. For something sent through the air that costs them nothing. We buy the machines that send the messages. We pay the costs of internet hookups. We provide the bodies who perform the actions. Why should the Post Office profit? Why not the Utility companies? Why not your local Congressperson? "90% of email is now spam." Not in my house. Source, please. This sounds very impressive, but I really would like to see the source: The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam e-mails results in the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as 3.1 million passenger cars using 2 billion gallons of gasoline. The annual energy used globally for spam totals 33 terawatt hours (TWh)--enough energy to power 2.4 million homes each year." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 24 Nov 10 - 04:07 AM Members of the US Tea Party should have been with me yesterday when I walked through the Manchester (UK) suburb of Ancoats. This was the world's first industrial district - which started to develop in the last half of the 18th century. It was largely a place of cotton mills driven by steam and jerry-built houses for the workers. For around 150 years it represented huge profits for the mill owners, who didn't live there, and a living hell for their workers who did - a place permanently shrouded in smoke, grime and poverty. When UK manufacturing collapsed in the 20th century, so did Ancoats. For nearly all of the time that I have known it, it has been a wasteland - a vast, empty, brick-strewn acreage dotted with the decaying hulks of cotton mills. But in the opening years of this century a decision was taken to re-develop it and property developers bought up huge swathes of the empty acreages. But Manchester planners take a completely laissez-faire approach to planning (they appear to exist purely to 'rubber-stamp' the excesses of property developers) and now Ancoats is randomly dotted with extravagant architectural creations - mostly empty - and, in an odd way, it even more bleak and depressing than it was before. Ancoats demonstrates, to me at least, that unregulated capitalism is malign and insane - and sorely in need of much more regulation - not less! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:34 AM We have towns like that here, too, Shimrod... If you drive thru downtown Youngstown, Ohio, it's block after block of boarded up buildings where there used to be shops, department stores and restaurants... All empty since the Japanese stole our steel industry in the 80s and the "Jeanette Furnace" was closed down... "With Jenny burnin' things gonna be all right" (from a song I wrote about Youngstown entitled "Youngstown Night...) The theft of our steel industry is a prime example of what can happen when government has it's blinders on and refuses to participate pro-actively in the global economy... This is purdy much what we hear from Tea Bag Nation... They are ignorant of economic theory/practice and think simple solutions such a "free trade" will just magically fix everything... They blame the government when those approaches don't work, however, but are too darned stubborn in their ignorance to bother to learn how economies work and how little "free trade" exists in the real world of tax loopholes, subsidies, tariffs, currency manipulation, etc. ... But like I have said many times, these people will seek out the very best doctor if they get cancer but are perfectly willing to turn the government over to angry people who don't understand economics any better than they do???? Go figure??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 24 Nov 10 - 08:55 AM BTW, in case anyone didn't get the "Jenny burnin'" reference, "Jenny" is what the folks in "Yunks-town" called the Jeanette Blast Furnace and it was the heart-'n-soul of "yunks-town's" economy... In reality, there are lots of small towns in Ohio that are dependent on the auto industry... The Repubs like to proclaim that the stimulus didn't create/save jobs... I'd bet the farm that there were one heck of alot of happy people when it was announced that the "mean 'ol gov-mint" was going to make a loan to GM and Chrysler... I mean, entire Ohioian town would have been wiped out like Youngstown was wiped out during Reagan's "asleep-at-the-wheel", laissez faire, "free trade" botcheded experiment... Same thing is going on today... Obama devalues the dollar to make the US more competitive on the world market and the same flat-earthers scream for "free trade"... Like Barney Frank asked a flat-earther, "On which planet do you reside???" I mean, Tea Party Nation is so hypocritical it is beyond belief... They say that want or don't want "this-'er-that" but are ready to blame the "mean 'ol gov-mint" for everything that happens bad??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: akenaton Date: 24 Nov 10 - 11:11 AM Look Bob, Of course you are right, these people are politically naive and easy pickin's for those who would manipulate them. But they are no more naive than those on the left who think they can make this system work by regulation. We have ever increasing numbers of old folk, sick folk, unemployed folk and an ever decreasing number of people contributing to the revenue pot. Govt actually encouraged deregulation, not primarily to make the rich richer(although this did happen and is still happening), but to boost growth and provide revenue to replace what we have lost since becoming uncompetitive globally. The balance has gone, we are bust. If we believe in Capitalism, we must accept what is happening as a natural progression of the system. It will survive and prosper in the "underdeveloped" East. At least the Tea Party are promoting the idea that govt doesn't always know best what is good for us .....Their goals might be different in some respects from yours and mine, but if the capitalist model is not shaken to the core, we might as well lie down and let the bastards cover us up. All protest is Progressive the goals can only be achieved when the obstruction has been removed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Date: 24 Nov 10 - 04:55 PM Regulation and govern, Ake, are words with very similar meanings... We have had a 30 year moratorium on regulating stuff and we now have arsenic and anti-biotics in our water, we have air that in many parts of the country is not at all safe to breath, we have oil spills that make the Exxon Valdez look like nuthin'... We have mines blowing up... We have a major decline in life expectancy... We have the highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized nation... We have slipped from 1st in math and science to 21st... We have had over 2400 police officers shot since January, 2000... We have stagnated wages of the working class... We have not seen our minimum wage (indexed) go up but go down... We have more poverty... No, Ake... What we need is one shitload of regulation/governing... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:24 PM Government agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA) have the best code breakers and hackers in the world. It`s unfortunate they don`t give a shit about spam. I am sure it`s within their abilities to find and deal with people who generate spam and hack various sites. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Nov 10 - 09:30 PM Ebbie: The thing about the lobbyists fighting raising rate on junk mail iis in the article I posted. I don't understand your question. Lobbyists work for whoever hires them. ISPs profit from providing internet service and people use email which lowers the income of the post office. Why shouldn't the post office provide the service and regulate email? The information on spam is easy to find if you google a string of the text in qoutes: "The annual energy used globally for spam totals 33 terawatt hours" |
