The point is that they shouldn't have to. There is absolutely no good, nonpolitical reason for them to be unprofitable. If they were properly run, they could actually generate revenue for government. When politics cost us that much, they're in the way. If poor spending and politics have to go hand in hand, then we need to take away their toys and credit cards. If that is an indication of how they do business, then we can only assume that if we hand them too much business they'll drag the entire nation into poverty. We have little evidence to the contrary.

 

Which actually brings me to a question. I would have far less issues with big government if we could trust it to be at least fiscally responsible. That means putting a balanced budget above politics. That means telling people no. It is my opinion that politics is exactly what causes our government to think of popularity above all else. Every change in spending, even when claimed for good intention, is really just spending tax dollars to attempt to increase public opinion of the party in charge. To buy votes. If all else fails, spend what you have to in order to maintain a good image until you leave office, and let the shit hit the fan for the next guy. There's so little motivation to make long term lasting changes. Creating a crisis just gives you more power.

That is the way I see it. Obviously, with this opinion of how the government is run, one could see how I would adore the private market over the government. My question is this: How could we remove politics from government spending?

To me, it sounds as if I'm asking an impossible question, but my mind operates on theories and statistics more than ideas.

 

Trains reduce dependence on automobile transportation, and consequently on imported oil. Every train system in Europe is subsidized by the government.

The postal service serves areas that would not be profitable for a profit making organization. It would not deliver to out of the way areas or high crime areas.

 

We could create a dictatorship like the one in China. The Chinese economy out competes the U.S. economy. The Chinese government operates at a profit, and buy up American debt.

 

Trains are fine, but when you've got stations seeing too little use something needs to be altered. Sometimes you just need to close down a station.

Are there areas in which UPS or DHL will not ship to? I'm not saying there isn't, but you would be providing me with information that I did not have before. I know UPS turns a wonderful profit. I also know that we have post offices that aren't excessively busy and are within 15 minutes from another post office. That's the kind of thing that drags a business down. Either close down some post offices or raise prices to make up the difference. It's my understanding that local politicians are afraid that closing down post offices will reflect badly on them at election time.

 

You might have a point about UPS.

When visiting my mother I liked to buy items to send back to my home. I would take them to a UPS store, and have them packaged and sent. One time one of them was a book entitled, You Take Jesus, I'll Take God: a Jewish Answer to Christian Missionaries.

When I opened the package, many of the items had been vandalized. After that I went to the Post Office, and packaged my own items.

 

It does seem that they sometimes don't care much about the packages. Always had a great experience from Fedex though.

 

That's exactly what we as American don't want and have been fighting all these years. How's that working out for them in Iran even though their under a theocracy, basically its the same idea.

China, are you kidding me? Ask any chinaman hurt at work losing an arm or leg how their doing starving now on the streets because no one will help them out. Forced into labor etc..., I though libs were against that kind of treatment. China is a major abuser of its people, one of the worst.

Capitalism may not be perfect and no systen is, but its by far the best you can get if kept in check by honest politicians and law enforcement.
Take a really good look at all the good that has come from capitalism vs socialist / communist countries. And what people are happier under which?
If you love those type of systems there's plenty of countries you should visit and see first hand how the people like it, you'll be back kissing the ground of the USA in a hurry.

We need a strong military, that or we get taken down. How is Obama's "extended hand" working out with Iran's Ahmadinejad? He slapped Obozo down and embarrasessed him pretty good in my eyes, showed Obama as weak to the entire world. To bad Palin didn't have the chance to deal with him, then he'd drop his nuke plans in a hurry or get his ass kicked by one tough fearless woman that actually has the balls to do what Obama is afraid to do.

The postal service IMO is in trouble because of the inflated pensions, that would be my bet, alot of businesses and cities are also in the same boat because of that reason anymore. Unions their called, most bad but a few good.

 

Tea Party-backed Republicans spur party switches

By Ellen Wulfhorst
NEW YORK | Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03am EDT


(Reuters) - For lifelong Republican Joe Errigo, deciding to cross party lines and support a liberal Democrat for New York governor wasn't nearly as difficult as one might expect.

Republican candidate Carl Paladino -- backed by the conservative Tea Party movement -- raised such political hackles he spawned a "Republicans for Cuomo" movement supporting Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

Similar groups can be found in heated races elsewhere nationwide, often those featuring Tea Party-endorsed candidates, attacked by Democrats and some moderate Republicans as extreme.

"When I saw his website, I said nobody could be that dumb," said Errigo, an upstate New York Assemblyman, of Paladino, a Buffalo developer and political newcomer.

"He has alienated every group that I could think of," said Errigo. "He should write a book on how to lose an election"...

"Mainstream Republicans are refusing to support the latest crop of insurgent candidates in the Republican Party because of their extremist beliefs," said Deirdre Murphy, spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69R0JQ20101028

 

I was responding to this question:

 

The World's Happiest Countries

Forbes Francesca Levy, 07.14.10, 05:00 PM EDT

The five happiest countries in the world--Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands--are all clustered in the same region, and all enjoy high levels of prosperity.

"The Scandinavian countries do really well," says Jim Harter, a chief scientist at Gallup, which developed the poll. "One theory why is that they have their basic needs taken care of to a higher degree than other countries. When we look at all the data, those basic needs explain the relationship between income and well-being."

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup.html

---------

Is it necessary for me to point out that the Scandinavian countries have the most fully Social Democratic economies?

 

:lol: only if you believe Chinese propaganda . . . their "wealth" is as hollow as ours. When the IMF is done wringing out the usefulness of their population and raw materials, their economic bubble will collapse at least as violently as that of the West, and with a much harsher cost to humanity.

 

Ok, I'll bite - what services and/or products should be provided commonly, via government? Is there any function that you would be uncomfortable privatizing? Also, why would you want a government-run institution to operate at a profit?!?? There is no sound economic reason to create such a beast.

 

To be honest with you, I love the private market. A lot of people don't understand that an adoration for a free market doesn't mean that you don't believe in people's needs being met or that you don't care about people. It just means that you prefer a different method.

People will bitch at the private market because, like literally any other system, it has its death toll. Every system has its flaws, and every style of market has its victims. While every system has its death toll, the private market is the only one that lets you decide to be a victim or to be successful. Provided that you aren't mentally or physically handicapped, in which case I support an entirely socialized experience for you. Besides, I fear for the evolution of our species if we subsidize the lives of the willingly stupid and lazy. The ones who refuse to do anything with their lives despite opportunity and physical/mental ability to do so. Sometimes a person should be allowed to die at their own hands rather than suck the rest of us dry.

I would feel uncomfortable privatizing our social programs, obviously, as they're not a model for a private business. I do, however, believe that our social programs create a void in which they fill. That is to say, they both cause a problem and solve the problem. Their effects on the market can sometimes be unfavorable, and that creates additional dependence on the programs. I don't believe that to always be the case, but I believe it to be an unfortunate side effect of the existence of a social program like welfare, medicare, or medicaid in a capitalist economy. So I strongly believe in extremely heavy oversight for our social programs and I believe that private economists should absolutely be utilized frequently to audit the system.

As for why I would want a government institution to operate at a profit, it's simple really. Obviously as I pointed out, the social programs are not a model that can operate for profit. However, if the government insists on running actual businesses like Fannie, Freddie, and USPS, they are absolute idiots to run them in such a way that they have to continue to pour tax dollars into them because they can't operate efficiently. I know you would agree that tax rates are and should be subject to the state of the economy. If the government insists on running businesses that are a perfectly profitable model so long as they're run efficiently, the government will be given extra income (think of that income the way you think of tax revenue) that is on top of existing taxes and scales according to the economy. It's a wonderful idea to utilize the best parts of a capitalist system for the benefit of all, instead of constantly trashing it.

 

By reducing dependence on petroleum, and consequently greenhouse gasses and air pollution, public transportation serves a social good that merits government subsidies. Many fewer people, per user, are killed or injured in accidents also. Much the same can be said of public libraries, museums, art gallerias, and so on.

 

And mathematically its only a matter of time they will all go the way of Greece.
Socialism doesn't make mathematical sense over the long haul, like Thatcher once said about socialism "eventually you run out of other peoples money". You can have your socialism, I'll stick to being a capitalist till the day I die. I see our socialist welfare system failing here in the USA on a daily basis first hand, why work when there's free money to be had.

 

You do not seem to notice, but the United States has social and economic problems that the Scandinavian countries do not have. In 2009 the unemployment rate in most European countries was lower than in the United States.

 

Hope your still not buying into that global warming scam that's been exposed to be just that. Or did they now change it to "climate change", geez these SOB's never give up. Maurice Strong started this whole global warming BS as a global wide scam, still researching more on him as I have time.

Sure public transportation is great, but I'm not giving up any cars or driving a mini gas saving POS over some scam being perpetuated worldwide to make some corupt people even more rich.
Anything that comes from a progressive leftist take it with a grain of salt.

 

We didn't have these problems either previously,(esp the massive debt) till time caught up with what I've said, eventually in a socialist society you run out of money for all these programs. We've been out of money and borrowing for to long already. I wish China would say enough loans, pay us back now, then you'll see most all these social programs collapse, along w/ out dollar etc... This is why I support this Tea Party so strongly, enough already w/ spending what we don't have.

 

There are at least four reasons why I think global warming is not a scam. First, it makes intuitive sense to me that by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from fossil fuels, we will restore the climate that existed when the fuels became fossil. Most fossil fuels were created when dinosaurs lived. The climate was quite a bit warmer then.

Second, the last decade was the warmest on record. Third, on any complex issue, I believe the consensus of the experts is more likely to be right than wrong. The overwhelming majority of climatologists agree that global warming is happening, that is a man made problem, and a serious one.

Four, it is clear to me that those who deny global warming, and you are an obvious example, are motivated not by a concern for scientific accuracy, but by an unwillingness to accept the implications of global warming. The reality of global warming means that major restrictions on national sovereignty, economic growth, and private property rights are necessary. There are other reasons for regarding America's dependence on automobile transportation as a national problem, but global warming is certainly one of them.