55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 01:25 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Whoa, you're letting Parados speak for you? You've actually come to that?

Are you insinuating that Parados is a correspondent whom I would be embarrassed to be my speaker? If so, my question is "no, I haven't come to that, I have always been there." Parados's posts emanate reason and intelligence. Although we don't always agree, I would have no problem at all with him speaking for me. Especially in this case, when he's simply right.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 01:32 pm
@Thomas,
Ah okay. I had given you credit for being able to argue a point of view without being insulting too. My mistake. I still accept your withdrawal as calculated retreat, but do have a great day.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 01:33 pm
@Debra Law,
Just another case of okie stepping on ****, because he fails to understand the issue in its totality. They continue to contradict their own party's platform for the "free enterprise system." We really don't know where they stand on anything, because all they do is bitch and proffer no solutions.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 01:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Awww -- you're declining to answer my vocabulary question then?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 01:44 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
I would actually not mind seeing postage rates increase to the point of pricing alot of the junk mail out of existence.

And you think that privatization would give you that? That's not my experience with AT&T, my private provider of cell phone calls and text message service. I get spam text messages all the time -- and AT&T charges me for receiving it. They do not offer a plan under which I pay for text messages sent, but not for text messages received. And neither do their competing cell phone providers in my market.

If junk in the US Mail is a problem for you, Okie, I can give you no hope that privatization is the solution.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 01:49 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Awww -- you're declining to answer my vocabulary question then?


No I'll answer it. There are some Republicans out there who are mostly MAC in their ideology. There are some Republicans who are far more liberal in their ideology than any kind of conservative. There are some Republicans who are pretty pure Libertarian. There are some Republican who are middle of the road or who tilt a bit left or right of center on various issue.

In other words, they are pretty much as much of a mixed bag as are Democrats. And I would guess also those who supported The Federal Marriage Amendment were also a mixed bag.

But what difference does it make what party supports an idea or concept or issue. Does the party that introduces it or supports it or amends it the most factor into whether you think it is a good or bad idea? Or do you actually hold convictions that are based on something of more substance than emotion or partisanship?

It is those convictions that I have been fishing for on this thread. So far no Liberal seems to have any they think enough of to actually make an argument for or defend. Most seem to think accusing or condemning or insulting other members or Republicans is actually making an argument.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 01:57 pm
Parados and JTT read Article I Section 2:
Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I Section 2.
...
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.[/size] The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.
...

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.
...

Federal taxes on states prior to the 16th Amendment, but after the 14th Amendment, were based on "the whole number of free persons"--"excluding Indians not taxed." That is a federal headcount tax. The federal tax on each free person in each state, was uniform. The federal tax per free person did not vary depending on the number of free persons in each state. The federal tax per free person did not vary depending on the amount of property owned by each free person.

Nothing in the 16th Amendment changed the meaning of the word uniform, as used in Article I Section 8, to mean anything other than taxes on each item taxed shall be equal: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.


Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 02:20 pm
@okie,
The post office could save 3.5 billion and start turning an immediate profit simply by eliminating Saturday delivery. That to me seems to be the logical way to go:

Quote:
The Post Office Needs A Bailout
Joe Weisenthal
Mar. 25, 2009, 3:50 PM

With shipping volumes and email eating into their business, the Post Office is facing a $2.8 billion shortfall this year.

But Postmaster General John Patter says the government monopoly could save $3.5 billion a year if it didn't have to deliver on Saturdays anymore. Also, like many other age-old institutions with anachronistic business models, it's got a big retiree payment problem, and it's looking for a way to reduce healthcare costs by $2 billion.

We're not too against the idea of cancelling Saturday shipping. Certainly we wouldn't miss most of the junk mail and bills we usually get, but that would mean missing out on Netflix DVDs sent out on Friday and that would be unacceptable.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-post-office-needs-a-bailout-2009-3


But as for junk mail, you probably are correct that targeted bulk mail like church newsletters that must be sorted and delivered to specific addresses and such as that are not profitable for the post office. But saturation junk mail--that stuff like grocery flyers, etc. that don't require a name or any kind of special handling but are simply stuffed into every single mailbox--is enormously profitable for the post office. And a lot of us do like those grocery flyers etc. and they are profitable for the folks sending it out or they wouldn't keep doing it. They provide a lot of jobs so, I think we have to be careful in how we handle that.

This issue and several others are discussed in this informative article from the Christian Science Monitor:

Quote:
Americans hail a postman's junk-mail jihad
Numerous groups try to trim the burden of 100 billion pieces of mail a year.
By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the December 2, 2008 edition

Apex, N.C. - To the folks on his route through the cul-de-sacs of Apex, N.C., Steve Padgett wasn't just a great mailman but a decent guy who once sent a pink teddy bear to an ailing neighborhood kid.

It turns out, though, that the solidly built Vietnam vet everyone knew as "Mailman Steve" had a secret: Around his yard and house investigators discovered the soggy remains of ... well ... junk mail. Instead of delivering the stuff, he'd spent years accumulating about a tractor-trailer's worth of pizza flyers and Victoria's Secret catalogs. The funny thing was: No one ever complained.

When a federal court in Raleigh, N.C., sentenced Padgett on Nov. 18 to three years of probation, a $3,000 fine, and 500 hours of community service for delaying and destroying mail, the judge nearly commended him. Locals thanked him and some out-of-towners went online to beg him to take over their routes. "He was our spam filter," says Tom Glembocki of Apex.

That outpouring suggests that Americans are eager to junk junk mail, which would explain the efforts now under way to create the equivalent of the five-year-old "Do Not Call Registry" for the 100 billion pieces of printed ads jammed into mailboxes each year.

This year, ForestEthics, a San Francisco-based forest-protection group, has collected more than 73,000 signatures for its "Do Not Mail Registry." Bills to control unwanted mail have been introduced in 19 states in the last two years, though none has yet passed. One website called the Office of Strategic Influence is urging Americans to send the industry a message by using the "No Postage Necessary" return envelopes to send bricks and old college textbooks straight back to Madison Avenue.

Perhaps sensing a shift in popular culture, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), which represents more than 3,000 companies, released in October DMAchoice, an upgraded version of a long time consumer opt-out program that tweaks mailing lists to make them more effective for advertisers and less onerous for consumers.

If anything, direct mail is becoming even more crucial for advertisers as newspapers " the king of ad carriers " decline and e-mail and Internet advertising prove themselves more effective in niche markets than mass outreach, Even in this difficult economy, the bulk mail market is expected to reach $176.9 billion this year, up 2.1 percent from 2007.

Furthermore, Americans are conflicted about junk mail.

On the one hand, they're conscious of the waste. The direct mail industry contributes as much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere each year as would 20 billion people mowing their lawns at the same time, estimates ForestEthics.

"It is hard to imagine waste more unnecessary," says James Hansen, a well-known NASA climate scientist, in a statement released with the report.

On the other hand, not all junk mail gets junked.

"The basic economic view of advertising is that there's exactly as much advertising produced as is demanded by customers," says John Lynch, a Duke University marketing professor. "Even though it has annoying side effects, [direct mail advertising] has certain positive roles in the economy," not the least of which, he says, is helping consumers get a better price on goods.

Bulk mail includes credit card offers, supermarket flyers, a menu for the Chinese place down the street, and political advertising (up 43 percent this year over the 2004 presidential election), besides the avalanche of catalogs.

"The concern is that the legal remedy is fairly coarse and ham-handed, that people respond to the idea at a gross level, like, 'What do I think about junk mail?' versus, 'What do I think about Land's End?' " says Mr. Lynch.

For its part, the DMA points out that the industry directly and indirectly employs more than 10 million Americans. It benefits small businesses the most because it's one of the few forms of broad-reach advertising they can afford, says Linda Woolley, a vice president for the organization.

Direct mail is also the bread and butter for the US Postal Service, which has seen it rise by nearly 12.5 million pounds since the fall of 2007 even while total mail weight declined by 9.5 million pounds over the same time period.

"Once people actually look at what's behind the economics of these 'do not mail' [laws] that have been proposed in various states, they realize that doing something like this would put a lot of people out of work ... and that the original intent of trying to save trees is not something that would merit losing all those jobs," says Dan Mihalko, a spokesman for the USPS Office of Inspector General.

Here in Apex, a quaint Raleigh bedroom community, reaction to Padgett's jihad against junk mail has been mostly favorable.

"I get so much of it and I throw more than half of it away," says resident Jim McNeil. Padgett "is seen as a hero."

Popular sympathy rubbed off on even the judge in the case, who gave Padgett credit during the sentencing phase "for a life well lived." According to court records, the now-former mailman wasn't moved by ideological concerns but was instead motivated by health problems combined with his desire to resist the assembly-line aspect of delivering bulk mail in favor of taking the time to give neighborhood dogs a biscuit or chatting over fences.

To some, though, Padgett broke a basic social compact. "I say yes to a 'do not mail' list," says Apex resident Kevin Rodrigues. "But if something has my name on it, deliver it."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1202/p01s04-ussc.html
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 02:34 pm
@Foxfyre,
As a matter of fact, I won't feel any change if they delivered our mail every other day. That'll save the USPS even more.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 02:44 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Perhaps you wish to subsidize junk mail, but I am not that hot on doing that.


Please provide us with proof that you are subsidizing "junk" mail, i.e., bulk rate mail. You fail to understand that the USPS is self-supporting. It relies on its revenue to pay its operating costs. You also fail to understand that the USPS is required by law to provide universal service to everyone in the entire country no matter where they live. In other words, the USPS (unlike private carriers) cannot determine that it is unprofitable to provide service to small towns or rural routes in Oklahoma and simply discontinue service. It is the money generated through VOLUME, including profits generated from payments by bulk mailers, that make it possible for the USPS to meet its universal service obligation and to make those services affordable to YOU. Your rant against "junk" mail is wholly irrational and without any merit whatsoever. You're simply imagining a problem that doesn't exit.

Quote:
I think the solutions are relatively simple. Institute some common sense cost savers, such as drop to 5 day delivery and make the cost of bulk mailing actually carry its own weight.


Eliminating service on Saturday doesn't make sense. You can't simply store the mail that otherwise would have been delivered on Saturday until Monday. Where would the USPS store all the mail for the entire country, that otherwise would have been delivered on Saturday, where it won't clog the system? Whether there exists a 5 day or a 6 day service plan, the mail must still be moved daily to its point of distribution. So you're not saving any money there. And then we must begin to determine how to enable the carriers to handle twice the volume on Monday. (BTW, they CAN'T.) You're not considering the logistics and practicalities of the suggestion.

In reality, you're not saving any money by eliminating Saturday deliveries--you're simply creating a new business model that provides less service but saves little, if any, money in the cost department.

Do you think Wal Mart would save money if it closed on Saturday? Maybe. But isn't it much better for the business as a whole if its moving merchandise out of all of its stores on Saturday rather than closing its doors?


Quote:
"Postmaster General John Potter told the House that the post office may run out of money by the end of the year if it does not get aid.


Unfortunately, the recession has been hard on everyone. Perhaps we can spare a few TARP dollars? or are those dollars for PRIVATE business only?

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 02:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

As a matter of fact, I won't feel any change if they delivered our mail every other day. That'll save the USPS even more.


Brilliant!, but the idea sounds familiar...



H2O MAN wrote:


The private sector would quickly find a way to make general mail delivery a profitable service.

The first thing they would probably do is NOT deliver 6 days a week...

0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 03:08 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I wish that mailing mail cost at least 5 times more than it does now. It would force people to find more economical ways to communicate information. More email, less snail mail. More faxing, less mail. More scanning, less mail, etc.

The low cost of mailing a letter today is in large part responsible for billions of tons of landfill waste.


Yes. Mail volumes are not growing by leaps and bounds because new technology has replaced many forms of mail. Personal correspondence often takes place in email. Bills and payments are often sent and paid electronically. Yet, the USPS still provides a valuable and affordable service that must, by law, be made available to everyone in the entire country.

Is it possible to reduce services and increase prices (for both the USPS and private carriers) in order to encourage consumers to use different means? Sure. But, I understand that conservatives are emphatically opposed to "cap and trade" measures that force people to find new ways of doing things in order to conserve our resources and environment.

Why don't we just recycle paper rather than tossing it in the circular file for disposal in a landfill? That would save trees and create jobs in the recycling industry. That would be good for the environment and good for the economy. Hmmmmmm.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 03:16 pm
@Debra Law,
Funny that you should mention recycling; after major renovations on our house last year, I started to shred boxes of old accounting records (kept over from my consulting days a few decades ago), and our city provides different containers to recycle papers and other products. I'm still not finished, but I think I've cleared out about 15-boxes of stuff - most of which have gone through our shredder.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 03:20 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
I thought conservatives were in favor of the free market.


Okie [at least I'm quite sure it was Okie; hard to tell them apart sometimes and I know that he'll correct me if I'm wrong] was making derisive comments about the media covering Michael Jackson, which is an obvious money maker, and I thought that a wee bit strange too, a conservative complaining about good old fashioned capitalism.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 03:26 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Federal taxes on states prior to the 16th Amendment, but after the 14th Amendment, were based on "the whole number of free persons"--"excluding Indians not taxed." That is a federal headcount tax. The federal tax on each free person in each state, was uniform. The federal tax per free person did not vary depending on the number of free persons in each state. The federal tax per free person did not vary depending on the amount of property owned by each free person.

Gee, can you tell me which tax that was? I can find nothing in the US code anywhere that taxed the states based on a head count.

You are proving quite well you don't know a thing about the history of taxation in the US let alone the constitution.

Income tax is an indirect tax so your bolded section doesn't apply.
The 14th amendment says NOTHING about taxes. It only states how representatives are to be allocated based on the census.

But just in case you missed these two points
Quote:
direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states

Quote:
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

Since income tax is NOT apportioned based on census any reference to the census is moot when it comes to income tax.

It really is quite funny how you post things ican without regard to what they actually say. Then when people point out that they contradict your argument you continue to make the same argument and post the same contradictory facts over and over.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 03:35 pm
@parados,
Quote:
You are proving quite well you don't know a thing about the history of taxation in the US let alone the constitution.


I'm devastasted! This can't be true.

Now what am I to do with all Ican's downloaded posts. I was going to have them printed and bound.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 03:40 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:


Why don't we just recycle paper rather than tossing it in the circular file for disposal in a landfill?



The idea of recycling looks good on paper... but the cost in time & fuel is much
higher than the initial production cost and distribution of the original item.

The better plan is to reduce the overall volume of junk mail generated each and every day.

The better plan for American Conservatism is to reduce the overall size, scope and daily cost of government.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 03:54 pm
@JTT,
It should work well as a joke book at the convention of constitutional scholars.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 03:58 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Well, I'll give you props for at least writing coherent sentences for awhile, but I declare victory as you have offered absolutely nothing coherent in rebuttal. But I'm really disappointed that you choose to be the typical liberal on this thread and turn tail and run when challenged to support your point of view. I had chosen to believe you are better than that.

That is funny coming from Fox. She has had me on ignore for some time now because I kept responding to her.

But ignoring what others are saying isn't turning tail and running in Foxfyre's version of reality.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 04:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Just another case of okie stepping on ****, because he fails to understand the issue in its totality. They continue to contradict their own party's platform for the "free enterprise system." We really don't know where they stand on anything, because all they do is bitch and proffer no solutions.


Who said "liberals" are not in favor of free enterprise? I'm defending it while the conservatives on this board are trying to dismantle it. Okie wants to prevent businesses from soliciting customers through the mail. Go figure.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 03/09/2025 at 09:05:05