I haven't followed politics or US politics much, so excuse me if this is a stupid question.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3594e/3594ed82511d459ad4f879c5b933937c65093cdc" alt=""
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Grettin
42381 Posts
I haven't followed politics or US politics much, so excuse me if this is a stupid question. ![]() | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 08 2013 02:10 Grettin wrote: I gotta ask, i hope this belongs here after all. I'm watching Gen. Dempsey and Sec. Panetta's hearing at Senate about Benghazi attack. Is it normal that these kind of people are being heard and questioned when something like this happens or is this case just special of its kind? I haven't followed politics or US politics much, so excuse me if this is a stupid question. ![]() The Banghazi attack was unique in the damage it dealt, and an uncharacteristic mistake for what has been relatively successful foreign policy for the past 4 years. Republicans are seizing the opportunity. | ||
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On February 08 2013 03:26 aksfjh wrote: Show nested quote + On February 08 2013 02:10 Grettin wrote: I gotta ask, i hope this belongs here after all. I'm watching Gen. Dempsey and Sec. Panetta's hearing at Senate about Benghazi attack. Is it normal that these kind of people are being heard and questioned when something like this happens or is this case just special of its kind? I haven't followed politics or US politics much, so excuse me if this is a stupid question. ![]() The Banghazi attack was unique in the damage it dealt, and an uncharacteristic mistake for what has been relatively successful foreign policy for the past 4 years. Republicans are seizing the opportunity. It was obviously an awful mistake, but I'm not even really sure if it counts as a foreign policy mistake at all since it had positive consequences, galvanizing Libyans against anti-American Islamists, at the cost of just four lives. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 08 2013 05:31 HunterX11 wrote: Show nested quote + On February 08 2013 03:26 aksfjh wrote: On February 08 2013 02:10 Grettin wrote: I gotta ask, i hope this belongs here after all. I'm watching Gen. Dempsey and Sec. Panetta's hearing at Senate about Benghazi attack. Is it normal that these kind of people are being heard and questioned when something like this happens or is this case just special of its kind? I haven't followed politics or US politics much, so excuse me if this is a stupid question. ![]() The Banghazi attack was unique in the damage it dealt, and an uncharacteristic mistake for what has been relatively successful foreign policy for the past 4 years. Republicans are seizing the opportunity. It was obviously an awful mistake, but I'm not even really sure if it counts as a foreign policy mistake at all since it had positive consequences, galvanizing Libyans against anti-American Islamists, at the cost of just four lives. In the world of politics, you're playing for a perfect game, not just a net positive. Sometimes calculated sacrifices are made, but hardly at the expense of lives, much less American lives. The result may have had a positive spin, but it's still a mistake any way you look at it. | ||
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
No on the contrary, politicians dont aim for a perfect game. They always aim for the highest net positive. They are willing to set aside their core ideologie just to make a deal with a net positive. America made another foreign policy mistake btw with osama. They are now building an amusement park on the place he died wich will no doubt serve as a sort of memorial in the future. They should have just caught him and taken to the usa, to be detained for life without contact with the outside world. | ||
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On February 07 2013 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Show nested quote + On February 06 2013 23:49 Saryph wrote: So the Post Office is cancelling delivery of mail on Saturdays in an attempt to cut costs. This is a consequence of the lame duck session of Congress in December of 2006, when in two days a Republican controlled Congress introduced and passed through both houses a law that has placed an unfair burden on, and essentially bankrupted, the postal service. I have a question for some of the more frequent posters here. Why did the Republicans, who are the first ones to complain about government inefficiency, pass a bill that destroyed the postal service, an entity that doesn't even receive taxpayer dollars for their operation. They're having to pay billions of dollars each year into a fund for the retirement of people who aren't even working yet. It seems counter to the image of the Republican party. Edit: Spelling is hard. It's just accounting. From what I've read it was an attempt at resolving* the USPS's financial woes, though it was an imperfect attempt - and a, largely, inflexible one at that. Something boring from the CBO here. A nice Bloomberg article here. Edit: As stated in both links about 25% of private companies voluntarily use this accounting treatment because they deem it appropriate - not because they are trying to destroy themselves! *Edit 2: By resolve I do not mean fix. The underlying economic issues facing the USPS mean that pain must be felt. The legislation passed by Republicans was aimed at answering the question "who will will bear the pain and by what means?" and not aimed at reducing the pain - that's a task for the USPS itself. This is very puzzling to me. How is it that a monopoly, such as the USPS, goes broke? Is it because they are required to fund the health care costs of retired employees as the article says? Clearly, FedEx isn't broke, is that because they don't have to? Or is the USPS broke because of legislation that demands they provide more service than they can profitably afford, such as requiring mail to be delivered everyday, at a certain speed, everywhere in the country, etc? And couldn't the USPS pass the cost onto customers so that they are profitable, or does the government cap the amount USPS is allowed to charge? Anyway, mail is old fashioned. People should use email. Government agencies seem to send everything my mail, they should stop this. Letters should be emailed and the postal service should be exclusively for parcels, or other things that cannot be emailed. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On February 08 2013 22:12 paralleluniverse wrote: Show nested quote + On February 07 2013 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On February 06 2013 23:49 Saryph wrote: So the Post Office is cancelling delivery of mail on Saturdays in an attempt to cut costs. This is a consequence of the lame duck session of Congress in December of 2006, when in two days a Republican controlled Congress introduced and passed through both houses a law that has placed an unfair burden on, and essentially bankrupted, the postal service. I have a question for some of the more frequent posters here. Why did the Republicans, who are the first ones to complain about government inefficiency, pass a bill that destroyed the postal service, an entity that doesn't even receive taxpayer dollars for their operation. They're having to pay billions of dollars each year into a fund for the retirement of people who aren't even working yet. It seems counter to the image of the Republican party. Edit: Spelling is hard. It's just accounting. From what I've read it was an attempt at resolving* the USPS's financial woes, though it was an imperfect attempt - and a, largely, inflexible one at that. Something boring from the CBO here. A nice Bloomberg article here. Edit: As stated in both links about 25% of private companies voluntarily use this accounting treatment because they deem it appropriate - not because they are trying to destroy themselves! *Edit 2: By resolve I do not mean fix. The underlying economic issues facing the USPS mean that pain must be felt. The legislation passed by Republicans was aimed at answering the question "who will will bear the pain and by what means?" and not aimed at reducing the pain - that's a task for the USPS itself. This is very puzzling to me. How is it that a monopoly, such as the USPS, goes broke? Is it because they are required to fund the health care costs of retired employees as the article says? Clearly, FedEx isn't broke, is that because they don't have to? Or is the USPS broke because of legislation that demands they provide more service than they can profitably afford, such as requiring mail to be delivered everyday, at a certain speed, everywhere in the country, etc? And couldn't the USPS pass the cost onto customers so that they are profitable, or does the government cap the amount USPS is allowed to charge? Anyway, mail is old fashioned. People should use email. Government agencies seem to send everything my mail, they should stop this. Letters should be emailed and the postal service should be exclusively for parcels, or other things that cannot be emailed. USPS will live by special laws and die by special laws. It is not truely private and it is not truely a government responsibility either. It is a "monopoly" in the sense that it has government ties. It is a competitive company in the sense that it competes where private companies feel they can profitably compete. The line is blurry and unless something drastical happens USPS will be stone-dead in a few decades because private companies has been lobbying for it or because the areas where they do not have competition is too hard to turn a profit on. Whether it is a tragedy that USPS dies is irrelevant and how fast it dies is mostly political, but with its current structure it is doomed to die at some point no matter what! | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
President Barack Obama nominated openly gay Justice Department attorney Todd Hughes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday, a move that drew praise from LGBT groups. Hughes would be the first openly gay judge to sit on the federal appeals court bench if confirmed by the Senate. Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Institute, issued a statement applauding Obama for the nomination. "If confirmed, Todd Hughes would become the first openly gay federal appeals court judge in U.S. history. His nomination is a testament to the expanding opportunities for openly LGBT Americans who want to serve their country, and to the president's respect for the depth of talent and experience within the LGBT community. We look forward to his confirmation by the U.S. Senate," Wolfe said. It's not the first time the president has nominated an openly gay man to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In April 2010, Obama nominated Deward DuMont. After waiting more than 18 months for a confirmation hearing, however, he withdrew his nomination. Obama also nominated Raymond Chen, a lawyer in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for the Court of Appeals, on Thursday. Source | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 08 2013 22:12 paralleluniverse wrote: Show nested quote + On February 07 2013 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On February 06 2013 23:49 Saryph wrote: So the Post Office is cancelling delivery of mail on Saturdays in an attempt to cut costs. This is a consequence of the lame duck session of Congress in December of 2006, when in two days a Republican controlled Congress introduced and passed through both houses a law that has placed an unfair burden on, and essentially bankrupted, the postal service. I have a question for some of the more frequent posters here. Why did the Republicans, who are the first ones to complain about government inefficiency, pass a bill that destroyed the postal service, an entity that doesn't even receive taxpayer dollars for their operation. They're having to pay billions of dollars each year into a fund for the retirement of people who aren't even working yet. It seems counter to the image of the Republican party. Edit: Spelling is hard. It's just accounting. From what I've read it was an attempt at resolving* the USPS's financial woes, though it was an imperfect attempt - and a, largely, inflexible one at that. Something boring from the CBO here. A nice Bloomberg article here. Edit: As stated in both links about 25% of private companies voluntarily use this accounting treatment because they deem it appropriate - not because they are trying to destroy themselves! *Edit 2: By resolve I do not mean fix. The underlying economic issues facing the USPS mean that pain must be felt. The legislation passed by Republicans was aimed at answering the question "who will will bear the pain and by what means?" and not aimed at reducing the pain - that's a task for the USPS itself. This is very puzzling to me. How is it that a monopoly, such as the USPS, goes broke? Is it because they are required to fund the health care costs of retired employees as the article says? Clearly, FedEx isn't broke, is that because they don't have to? Or is the USPS broke because of legislation that demands they provide more service than they can profitably afford, such as requiring mail to be delivered everyday, at a certain speed, everywhere in the country, etc? And couldn't the USPS pass the cost onto customers so that they are profitable, or does the government cap the amount USPS is allowed to charge? Anyway, mail is old fashioned. People should use email. Government agencies seem to send everything my mail, they should stop this. Letters should be emailed and the postal service should be exclusively for parcels, or other things that cannot be emailed. The accounting issue is a bit of a red herring. The retirement costs are real - they exist and therefore they must be accounted and paid for somehow. FedEx may not be required to pre-pay the benefits, but they are required to account for them. The core issue at USPS is that revenues are falling faster than expenses: even if the pre-pay requirement is removed this remains true: ![]() So even if we ignore the expense (or assume the USPS will default on that obligation) the USPS is still running at a loss. USPS does have regulatory requirements that hobble their ability to restructure but I'm unsure how big a deal that is. The USPS is capped on raising postage rates by inflation. The USPS has been raising rates and revenue has fallen slower than mail volume, but there's a tradeoff there - as rates rise volume should fall faster as more customers move to electronic alternatives. The USPS is also required to deliver mail everywhere but that comes with the territory. If they shed that requirement than they lose a lot of public support for their monopoly. The situation reminds me of the baby bell telecoms. As cell phones became more popular the landlines business went into decline and painful restructuring ensued and in many cases is still ongoing. Edit: Comparing to FedEx is OK, but FedEx mainly delivers parcels while USPS is mainly letter delivery. Parcel delivery is growing along with e-commerce, while letter delivery is declining. Parcel and letter delivery also have different underlying cost / revenue characteristics. It's a useful comparison to make but its not apples to apples. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 09 2013 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Show nested quote + On February 08 2013 22:12 paralleluniverse wrote: On February 07 2013 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On February 06 2013 23:49 Saryph wrote: So the Post Office is cancelling delivery of mail on Saturdays in an attempt to cut costs. This is a consequence of the lame duck session of Congress in December of 2006, when in two days a Republican controlled Congress introduced and passed through both houses a law that has placed an unfair burden on, and essentially bankrupted, the postal service. I have a question for some of the more frequent posters here. Why did the Republicans, who are the first ones to complain about government inefficiency, pass a bill that destroyed the postal service, an entity that doesn't even receive taxpayer dollars for their operation. They're having to pay billions of dollars each year into a fund for the retirement of people who aren't even working yet. It seems counter to the image of the Republican party. Edit: Spelling is hard. It's just accounting. From what I've read it was an attempt at resolving* the USPS's financial woes, though it was an imperfect attempt - and a, largely, inflexible one at that. Something boring from the CBO here. A nice Bloomberg article here. Edit: As stated in both links about 25% of private companies voluntarily use this accounting treatment because they deem it appropriate - not because they are trying to destroy themselves! *Edit 2: By resolve I do not mean fix. The underlying economic issues facing the USPS mean that pain must be felt. The legislation passed by Republicans was aimed at answering the question "who will will bear the pain and by what means?" and not aimed at reducing the pain - that's a task for the USPS itself. This is very puzzling to me. How is it that a monopoly, such as the USPS, goes broke? Is it because they are required to fund the health care costs of retired employees as the article says? Clearly, FedEx isn't broke, is that because they don't have to? Or is the USPS broke because of legislation that demands they provide more service than they can profitably afford, such as requiring mail to be delivered everyday, at a certain speed, everywhere in the country, etc? And couldn't the USPS pass the cost onto customers so that they are profitable, or does the government cap the amount USPS is allowed to charge? Anyway, mail is old fashioned. People should use email. Government agencies seem to send everything my mail, they should stop this. Letters should be emailed and the postal service should be exclusively for parcels, or other things that cannot be emailed. The accounting issue is a bit of a red herring. The retirement costs are real - they exist and therefore they must be accounted and paid for somehow. FedEx may not be required to pre-pay the benefits, but they are required to account for them. The core issue at USPS is that revenues are falling faster than expenses: even if the pre-pay requirement is removed this remains true: ![]() So even if we ignore the expense (or assume the USPS will default on that obligation) the USPS is still running at a loss. USPS does have regulatory requirements that hobble their ability to restructure but I'm unsure how big a deal that is. The USPS is capped on raising postage rates by inflation. The USPS has been raising rates and revenue has fallen slower than mail volume, but there's a tradeoff there - as rates rise volume should fall faster as more customers move to electronic alternatives. The USPS is also required to deliver mail everywhere but that comes with the territory. If they shed that requirement than they lose a lot of public support for their monopoly. The situation reminds me of the baby bell telecoms. As cell phones became more popular the landlines business went into decline and painful restructuring ensued and in many cases is still ongoing. Edit: Comparing to FedEx is OK, but FedEx mainly delivers parcels while USPS is mainly letter delivery. Parcel delivery is growing along with e-commerce, while letter delivery is declining. Parcel and letter delivery also have different underlying cost / revenue characteristics. It's a useful comparison to make but its not apples to apples. As a side note, I hate it when graphs truncate the bottom of the scale. Obviously, it's bad that USPS is running deficits, but that graph makes it look like something HUGE is going on at first glance. | ||
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
I don't think he can completely ignore talking about deficits, given that the sequester is imminent. He should clearly reject Republicans saying that there will be no tax hikes as the deal averting the fiscal cliff contained entirely tax hikes. This ignores the fact that the deficit reduction deal of 2011 contained entirely spending cuts, much more so than recent tax hikes. In fact, and I know this will never happen, he should ask for the sequester to be delayed until 1 year after the unemployment rate hits 6.5%. Obama should continue to assert that the best way to achieve fiscal sustainability is not through cuts and suffering but through growth and jobs. It would also be good, if he outlines some debt relief for underwater homeowners, and ways to make it easier for them to refinance, or otherwise fix the drag caused by the slow housing recovery. However, SotUs usually seem to achieve nothing substantial. So one should not expect much. | ||
Grettin
42381 Posts
ah. State of the Union address i presume. | ||
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On February 12 2013 08:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: If Ted Nugent actually shouts during the SotU it will be an amazing gift to Democrats. John Boehner must be terrified that he can't control his own caucus. If I were writing that speech I would probably make sure to add in a few gun violence parts just to see if Ted can control himself because I dont see a way he doesnt make himself look bad the question is though how bad. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 12 2013 23:24 Grettin wrote: So what is SotU, when is it and where can i watch/listen? Thanks in advance. ah. State of the Union address i presume. Indeed. CNN will probably have an online stream, but I normally tune into the radio (to avoid a lot of the stupid commentary). | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 12 2013 23:07 paralleluniverse wrote: SotU tonight. The media buzz seems to suggest that Obama will focus on jobs, instead of the counterproductive obsession with deficits. Hopefully, he really will focus on jobs, ask for more spending on infrastructure, education, etc. It's doubtful that he will get it, but reshaping the public debate is a important step now. I don't think he can completely ignore talking about deficits, given that the sequester is imminent. He should clearly reject Republicans saying that there will be no tax hikes as the deal averting the fiscal cliff contained entirely tax hikes. This ignores the fact that the deficit reduction deal of 2011 contained entirely spending cuts, much more so than recent tax hikes. In fact, and I know this will never happen, he should ask for the sequester to be delayed until 1 year after the unemployment rate hits 6.5%. Obama should continue to assert that the best way to achieve fiscal sustainability is not through cuts and suffering but through growth and jobs. It would also be good, if he outlines some debt relief for underwater homeowners, and ways to make it easier for them to refinance, or otherwise fix the drag caused by the slow housing recovery. However, SotUs usually seem to achieve nothing substantial. So one should not expect much. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think those cuts were just reductions in the baseline growth rate of spending. | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2![]() Rain ![]() Flash ![]() Mong ![]() Hyuk ![]() BeSt ![]() ggaemo ![]() Mini ![]() Rush ![]() Dewaltoss ![]() [ Show more ] Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations
StarCraft 2 • StrangeGG StarCraft: Brood War![]() • intothetv ![]() • AfreecaTV YouTube • Kozan • IndyKCrew ![]() • LaughNgamezSOOP • Laughngamez YouTube • Migwel ![]() • sooper7s Dota 2 League of Legends |
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Online Event
Replay Cast
SOOP Global
ByuN vs Zoun
Rogue vs Bunny
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Rogue
ByuN vs SKillous
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL Nation Wars 2
Online Event
AI Arena 2025 Tournament
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] The PondCast
SOOP StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
|
|