The Republican Thread

[DukeNukeEm]

The issue I think I'd take with that is that I'm pretty sure by law the only people allowed to put things in your mailbox are your USPS letter carriers. Other services can bring things to your door, but in terms of mail, that's something of an enforced monopoly.

The USPS is not feasible, thats why the government funds it the way they do. It's really no different than Amtrak.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think some people missed my point about the USPS.

 

First, for SOME of its business, it is absolutely a monopoly. Obviously, if you are talking about shipping packages of some significant size, or express services, they have competition. For letter mail, there is zero real competition.

 

And for BOTH those scenarios, it makes no sense for the USPS to advertise, or to run up budget shortfalls. None. In the letter mail (and junk mail - its biggest business) categories, if the costs doesn't cover their costs, then you raise the cost. That simple. In the express or package areas, since there are multiple private competitors, there is no reason for USPS to even exist in that space. So either way, them spending money on advertising, and running up budget holes, is just a waste of money.

 

And by the way, I didn't say (I don't think) that the USPS was bloated. In fact, I specifically didn't get into the efficiency issue, as I know nothing about that at USPS. I said that their pricing should be set to match up with its operating costs, and that its operating costs should not include advertising.

 

I stand by my sentiment here. The USPS advertising budget is 100% waste, their pricing needs to match operational costs per task, and they need to get away from the mentality of competing in multi-private entity spaces.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The USPS is not feasible, thats why the government funds it the way they do. It's really no different than Amtrak.

The USPS is very feasible if it uses a pricing structure to match its costs. And if fewer people use it at higher costs, that means they are finding more efficient ways to do things, which is better anyway.

 

Amtrak has some similarities, but also some major differences. One major difference you need to think about is that there is no offset cost for lack of use. If fewer people send letters, and fewer businesses send out annoying flyers that no one reads, who loses? The only thing I can see is a few less people working for the USPS. But SOME of that business will go elsewhere, in some other way, and put the money into private business, which is actually an improvement.

 

With Amtrak, if it dies or shrinks back, people will take cars most of the time instead. More money for the oil companies and convenience stores, yes. But also much worse traffic and pollution, which costs us all money. Plus a car is far less cost-efficient by nature, so the people who switched are losing money too.

 

[hawksfan61]

The USPS is not feasible, thats why the government funds it the way they do. It's really no different than Amtrak.

 

The USPS is nothing like Amtrak. Amtrak has never been able to operate without being subsidized by the government. Up until very recently, the post office turned a profit every year, despite being mandated to be revenue neutral.

[hawksfan61]

I think some people missed my point about the USPS.

 

First, for SOME of its business, it is absolutely a monopoly. Obviously, if you are talking about shipping packages of some significant size, or express services, they have competition. For letter mail, there is zero real competition.

 

And for BOTH those scenarios, it makes no sense for the USPS to advertise, or to run up budget shortfalls. None. In the letter mail (and junk mail - its biggest business) categories, if the costs doesn't cover their costs, then you raise the cost. That simple. In the express or package areas, since there are multiple private competitors, there is no reason for USPS to even exist in that space. So either way, them spending money on advertising, and running up budget holes, is just a waste of money.

 

And by the way, I didn't say (I don't think) that the USPS was bloated. In fact, I specifically didn't get into the efficiency issue, as I know nothing about that at USPS. I said that their pricing should be set to match up with its operating costs, and that its operating costs should not include advertising.

 

I stand by my sentiment here. The USPS advertising budget is 100% waste, their pricing needs to match operational costs per task, and they need to get away from the mentality of competing in multi-private entity spaces.

 

Kapkomet may have more insight to this seeing as he has worked on the business side, but the impression I have been given is that the package aspect of their business is what makes them money, not letters. Bulk/Junk mail accounts for a significant source or their revenue, but that and letters alone will not allow them to ever turn a profit. They will forever be suckling at the teat of the federal government that way. I don't disagree that perhaps their advertising budget is excessive, but the point is up until recently they made money, even with that advertising budget. Of course with the economy the way it is now perhaps it is time for them to explore getting rid of some of that advertising, but I highly doubt you will ever see the post office get out of the package business.

Edited January 29, 2009 by hawksfan61

[NorthSideSox72]

Kapkomet may have more insight to this seeing as he has worked on the business side, but the impression I have been given is that the package aspect of their business is what makes them money, not letters. Bulk/Junk mail accounts for a significant source or their revenue, but that and letters alone will not allow them to ever turn a profit. They will forever be suckling at the teat of the federal government that way. I don't disagree that perhaps their advertising budget is excessive, but the point is up until recently they made money, even with that advertising budget. Of course with the economy the way it is now perhaps it is time for them to explore getting rid of some of that advertising, but I highly doubt you will ever see the post office get out of the package business.

This sort of gets to my point. If the letter and junk mail businesses aren't making money, then they need to either cut services or increase prices. It should be that simple. The answer for a government agency should not be to spend extra money advertising and get into a space already serviced by multiple private entities. That should not be the role of a government agency, IMO. They shouldn't turn a profit anyway - they should be budget neutral, just as (IMO) many other government agencies that provide a specific service (i.e. Passport Office). They should charge what it costs to do that thing they do.

 

I tend to be a big use-fee guy when it comes to government budgeting. I just think that is a better way for many agencies to operate.

 

 

[mr_genius]

any predictions for the Senate vote on the economic stimulus bill?

 

I believe it will pass, I just wonder if any Republicans will actually vote for this thing or if any Democrats will vote against it.

[Balta1701]

any predictions for the Senate vote on the economic stimulus bill?

 

I believe it will pass, I just wonder if any Republicans will actually vote for this thing or if any Democrats will vote against it.

Answer me this first...which vote are you counting...the cloture vote (The only one that really counts) or the up/down vote? I wouldn't be surprised to see a handful of people do the voting yes on cloture and voting no on the bill deal here in order to try to cover both sides.

[mr_genius]

Answer me this first...which vote are you counting...the cloture vote (The only one that really counts) or the up/down vote? I wouldn't be surprised to see a handful of people do the voting yes on cloture and voting no on the bill deal here in order to try to cover both sides.

 

Balta, the cloture vote isn't the only one that counts, you know this. Yes, endless debate (filibuster) can stop a bill; but there still needs to be support on the ya or nay portion. Voting yes on cloture to stop debate and then 'no' on the bill seems like a reasonable thing to do. I would probably do that.

 

I am trying to fish out some predictions on the ya or nay vote.

Edited January 29, 2009 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

any predictions for the Senate vote on the economic stimulus bill?

 

I believe it will pass, I just wonder if any Republicans will actually vote for this thing or if any Democrats will vote against it.

I think it needs 60 votes (I'm not sure what's going on with the second MN seat or if that counts or makes it 59 needed instead). I think all of the 58 in the Dem caucus should vote for it, they need at least a couple Republicans to pass it which will probably happen, I don't think the opposition in the Senate is as hard as it is in the House from the Republicans. I'm sure Obama would rather it pass with 70 yeas than barely scraping by though, the question is whether it actually does pass comfortably.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think it needs 60 votes (I'm not sure what's going on with the second MN seat or if that counts or makes it 59 needed instead). I think all of the 58 in the Dem caucus should vote for it, they need at least a couple Republicans to pass it which will probably happen, I don't think the opposition in the Senate is as hard as it is in the House from the Republicans. I'm sure Obama would rather it pass with 70 yeas than barely scraping by though, the question is whether it actually does pass comfortably.

The Senate will pass a different bill, with some more GOP-friendly provisions, to clear the 60 with room to spare. The House will then pass that version, then Obama will sign.

 

[mr_genius]

I think it needs 60 votes (I'm not sure what's going on with the second MN seat or if that counts or makes it 59 needed instead). I think all of the 58 in the Dem caucus should vote for it, they need at least a couple Republicans to pass it which will probably happen, I don't think the opposition in the Senate is as hard as it is in the House from the Republicans. I'm sure Obama would rather it pass with 70 yeas than barely scraping by though, the question is whether it actually does pass comfortably.

 

i don't think a filibuster is the right move here, so hopefully 60 votes will not be neccesary. i think the senate GOP will all vote no and a couple democrats will vote no. i still think it'll pass.

 

[mr_genius]

The Senate will pass a different bill, with some more GOP-friendly provisions, to clear the 60 with room to spare. The House will then pass that version, then Obama will sign.

 

we shall see. i would definitely like to see some major changes, but the Republicans aren't in charge and i wouldn't expect to see major changes. i could be wrong.

[NorthSideSox72]

we shall see. i would definitely like to see some major changes, but the Republicans aren't in charge and i wouldn't expect to see major changes. i could be wrong.

In the Senate with cloture rules, they need at least a couple cross-overs. I think they will ensure that with a few tasty tax cuts.

 

[lostfan]

The Senate will pass a different bill, with some more GOP-friendly provisions, to clear the 60 with room to spare. The House will then pass that version, then Obama will sign.

I think you're right.

[mr_genius]

In the Senate with cloture rules, they need at least a couple cross-overs. I think they will ensure that with a few tasty tax cuts.

 

i heard something about lowering the 10% tax bracket to 5% and the 15% to 10%. that could push the bill into bipartisan landslide territory.

 

 

as far as cloture, i still think it would be a mistake to drag this out to a neccesary 60 vote. give the dems this bill if they want it IMO.

[lostfan]

i heard something about lowering the 10% tax bracket to 5% and the 15% to 10%. that could push the bill into bipartisan landslide territory.

 

 

as far as cloture, i still think it would be a mistake to drag this out to a neccesary 60 vote. give the dems this bill if they want it IMO.

Then you run the risk of looking like pussies like the Dems did circa 2003-2005, the GOP is in "back to basics" mode right now. At least the House is, I don't know about the Senate.

[mr_genius]

Then you run the risk of looking like pussies like the Dems did circa 2003-2005, the GOP is in "back to basics" mode right now. At least the House is, I don't know about the Senate.

 

i think that is a risk worth taking in the current environment. but the GOP often does things i disagree with.

[kapkomet]

Then you run the risk of looking like pussies like the Dems did circa 2003-2005, the GOP is in "back to basics" mode right now. At least the House is, I don't know about the Senate.

That's because the House GOP is from pretty safe GOP areas - most of these guys will not lose their seats even if things swing even more to the left. Their political danger is next to nil.

 

 

[lostfan]

That's because the House GOP is from pretty safe GOP areas - most of these guys will not lose their seats even if things swing even more to the left. Their political danger is next to nil.

True, good point. The districts that they'd be in danger of losing, the Dems have most of those anyway right now.

[mr_genius]

True, good point. The districts that they'd be in danger of losing, the Dems have most of those anyway right now.

 

It's more dangerous for a Republican to vote for these bailout/stimulus bills right now than to go against them.

Edited January 29, 2009 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

It's more dangerous for a Republican to vote for these bailout/stimulus bills right now than to go along with them.

I think you meant to put a negative in one of those options because it looks like you're saying the same thing.

[mr_genius]

I think you meant to put a negative in one of those options because it looks like you're saying the same thing.

 

dude i fixed it. stop replying so fast.

 

[lostfan]

dude i fixed it. stop replying so fast.

 

 

I figured that's what you meant but I wasn't sure.

[mr_genius]

 

I figured that's what you meant but I wasn't sure.

 

i've been watching too much blagojevich coverage i think. it's messing with my brain.