Ron Paul trending #10 on Yahoo Search
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The FDA has a mandate to keep your ass safe.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
A corporation's only responsibility is to the people that it pays, not to the people that are its customers.
This is backwards, according to a person like me. You're saying that the government will protect you while the private sector has no care for its customers. I have a healthy distrust for government. I can see your point of view on corporations, I dislike them as well... the bigger anything is, the less it cares about the little people, whether it's a government or a corporation. But I have to say, if it's a small business, they will tend to care for its customers, because consumerism is where business flourishes, whether big or small. But the smaller the company, the more any one sale matters to its everyday activity. A corporation does have to pay its clients, partners, employees, expenditures, whatever. But in order to pay all of those, in order to actually exist, it must have customers. The bigger it is, the less they care about each and every sale, true. But it still must have those customers, in order to thrive (if really good quality), or just exist at all (if just average). As for the FDA, in order to exist, it has to just be average. It doesn't care about quality, it doesn't care about each and every customer. It will be paid necessarily. First off, it was created outside of the realm of the Constitution in the first place. Second, if it was created without authority, why should it obey its own authority? It won't just randomly do whatever it wants, but it will skirt anything that is inconvenient if it chooses. It will get paid either way, through mandatory taxation created by the Congress. So why should it do a great job? It can get by with an average job. There's no competition, it is the monopoly.
josda1000 wrote:
A corporation does have to pay its clients, partners, employees, expenditures, whatever. But in order to pay all of those, in order to actually exist, it must have customers. The bigger it is, the less they care about each and every sale, true. But it still must have those customers, in order to thrive (if really good quality), or just exist at all (if just average).
Every company sees the following as a business decision: If you make something a specific way that has a problem (defect in design, materials, or a byproduct that is a hazard) you look at the cost of making it vs how much less you would make were you to fix it. You then figure out how much you have to pay in law suits from people hurt. If you make more money with the problem in place than with redoing it, you simply keep going. The Big Three knew for years that tempered glass would save people who got thrown through windshields because there were no seat belts. It was cheaper not to have seat belts and tempered glass. How many people died until they were forced to? Give me someone who's only job is to make sure these folks stay honest anyday.
-
I did. I think these would need some extra regulation along the same lines... Keep in mind, though, that if these were legalized, I think the price would already drop WAY down from what we see now. A lot of the high prices of illegal drugs are due to the difficulty and risk involved in getting them into the country. With weed in particular, though... I don't think anything beyond normal sales tax would make sense for that. I mean, you can grow the stuff in your back yard. For more sophisticated drugs, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style) would require a bit of extra tax on them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style)
I think laws requiring accuracy in dosing, purity, and potency are needed, but I don't see how the FDA would be able to enforce it. The only solution would be to take random samples of the end product directly from the store shelves, and then test for accuracy of labeling and purity. The FDA as it is now is just an over-bloated bureaucracy designed to line the pockets of the corporate entities that influence the bureaucracy. Simple basic laws and categorizations are the only things such agency is to enforce.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
You just helped my argument here. I was talking about the federal level being much more inefficient, nevermind the fact that FEMA is unconstitutional and has no authority at the base level. You're now talking about the state instead of the federal level. Unless I misunderstand your thought process somehow.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Using the resources that [FEMA] have at their disposal Iowa departments had a ton more communication and coordination. Efforts to save equipment and people were much more efficient.
See correction in bold. I think that's what he meant. FEMA provided the resources and manpower to let the state/local guys do what they knew needed to be done. Basically... "Hey, we see you guys in Iowa are in trouble... Here's a ton of people, a lot of financial support, and all the machinery and communication networks you need... Tell us where to put them."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Almost dead on.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Basically... "Hey, we see you guys in Iowa are in trouble... Here's a ton of people, a lot of financial support, and all the machinery and communication networks you need... "
Add the following at the end. "Here's where to put it best, if you think otherwise we will get that figured out and we will help with anything you need." The best reason to have FEMA is that the sort of things that require them to come in would be a HUGE financial drain on every state. Having that equipment available "just in case" you get a 100 year flood sucks. But having a federal version makes sense. Someone is bound to have a disaster needing this sort of equipment, manpower and logistics support pretty much every year or close enough in the 50 states. So, do you expect local governments to have the necessary extra gear to handle major emergencies on their budget and not get used very often at all, so it is a drain? Or do you spread it out, make it available to every state and have that gear get used consistantly so it is an asset?
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Horde vs Alliance
:laugh:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)That was in there just for you. :)
-
I definitely hear this loud and clear. And that's precisely why I've got my show, to see if this bad habit can be broken. And it really seems to be breaking (not because of my show, but the movement in general.)
I'm all for it. I don't think the habit is breaking though. I think it is simply getting a 3rd party. Kind of. This party, for better or worse, is being filled with some pretty far out there characters and the religious right is attempting to subvert it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
As for the aid itself, people always contribute to causes, no matter what they are, privately
I can see your viewpoint on this, but I still think the government is better equipped to make a real difference. Corporations are in it for profit, and only donate for the publicity. Individuals donate out of pure philanthropy, sure, but unless a certain cause gets a big media backing, people might not even know about it. Too many charity organizations are based on religion (Sorry, but I refuse to donate to these - Even if there was an anti-religion one that preached atheism, I would still refuse) or very inefficient/corrupt (15% to the starving, 85% to the administrators?)... The government has large amounts of money that can be put into play rather quickly, even if the issue isn't that popular. If the CIA is getting their hands on it, then that's a reason to smack the CIA out of the way, not to stop aid entirely.
josda1000 wrote:
Soooo... which agencies would you be OK with actually dismantling?
Homeland Security (That's what the CIA, NSA, and FBI are for). CIA should be kept out of domestic affairs, possibly reduced somewhat. I'm not familiar with all of the various commerce agencies, but I assume that some could be trimmed away. The Dept. of Energy helps with regulation... Keep the power flowing, keep the plants as safe and clean as possible. Also funds some energy research (Keeping in mind that anything discovered privately becomes locked up and patented, not available for everyone to develop). Also works with the country's nuclear materials stockpile... Important stuff, and I think better kept at the federal level. FEMA has been a joke lately, but it still has a valid reason for existing... It's for when the local police/fire/EMS are outgunned by mother nature, and need some extra help. Restructure it, sure... Redesign it... Rethink it... But don't remove it. Dept. of Education: Actually, I might backpedal on this one... Just looked them up specifically in WP... "...the primary function of the Department of Education is to formulate federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.". This probably could be handled on the state level.
josda1000 wrote:
It can get quite a bit better. The price of a letter is now 44 cents (is it just
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Corporations are in it for profit, and only donate for the publicity.
Yeah, but I'm not talking about them.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Individuals donate out of pure philanthropy, sure, but unless a certain cause gets a big media backing, people might not even know about it.
Agreed, but they can research if they really want to donate for a specific cause they deem worthy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Too many charity organizations are based on religion (Sorry, but I refuse to donate to these - Even if there was an anti-religion one that preached atheism, I would still refuse) or very inefficient/corrupt (15% to the starving, 85% to the administrators?)
Where did you get this stat? I find this hard to believe. As to your religious views, this is just a matter of life. Most people have a belief of theism or atheism, period. Either you have to get over it, or realize that all charities mean well, since they actually exist to benefit others, not themselves. You have a view of atheism, which is fine. I suggest that you either contribute to a cause you deem worthy, or find an atheistic charity, or both. Because you will not find a charity, I'm betting, in which at least 90% of the people contributing have a view they hold strongly, no matter the issue. This is, of course, if you feel you want to contribute. I don't; I'm in debt up my ass.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the price increases are mainly inflation.
I have to agree. Damned Federal Reserve... lol
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If there were multiple carriers, would you have a separate box for each one?
I'm guessing not. Think of when you ship a box: you choose either FedEx or UPS. And I'm guessing that you choose the same company every time. I'm guessing that you could use a flag or sticker or something and put it on your box, telling the certain company you wish to use to take the mail, as opposed to having a different colored flag for a different company; Red could be FedEx, Brown for UPS, Blue for USPS, something to that effect. As for postage, idk. I'm just making this up as I go. There's another thing: the private sector breeds creativity, while the public sector doesn't, because of all the rules and the suction of capital through taxe
-
josda1000 wrote:
you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years ... you'd rather have some guy that would usurp power
These are your assumptions. I did not say who I would (were I a citizen of the USA) vote for. You asked me "What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul?", to which I replied that two of them were too old. The only thing I rated Obama on was his age: i.e. he was young enough to undertake the office of president. I made it clear that I do not give much credence to any politician's pre-election promises - policies are negotiable.
josda1000 wrote:
Who's to say that Paul won't live another 20 years? He looks vital, thinks completely soundly, etc.
I don't think you really appreciate the stress of the office of president of the USA.
Bob Emmett wrote:
They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. But you haven't been talking about policy. Name one policy you're against that Paul is for.
You have just agreed that policies are negotiable, so what does it matter what Paul says he will would like to do, when he may discover it to be impractical once he is in office?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
Bob Emmett wrote:
I don't think you really appreciate the stress of the office of president of the USA.
I think I do. I see Obama turning gray already... is he too old now? lol jk
Bob Emmett wrote:
The only thing I rated Obama on was his age: i.e. he was young enough to undertake the office of president.
To me, this is kind of a backstab to the Constitution as well. The Constitution says that the President must be 35 years of age or older, there's no maximum age. But you're still not laying down what I think you should: isn't there more to a man than just age? How about experience in politics, or life in general? Obama had almost no experience whatsoever in politics, though he was a professor and a Senator. As for Paul, he's been around since the seventies. He knows politics, and he knows the Constitution.
-
josda1000 wrote:
A corporation does have to pay its clients, partners, employees, expenditures, whatever. But in order to pay all of those, in order to actually exist, it must have customers. The bigger it is, the less they care about each and every sale, true. But it still must have those customers, in order to thrive (if really good quality), or just exist at all (if just average).
Every company sees the following as a business decision: If you make something a specific way that has a problem (defect in design, materials, or a byproduct that is a hazard) you look at the cost of making it vs how much less you would make were you to fix it. You then figure out how much you have to pay in law suits from people hurt. If you make more money with the problem in place than with redoing it, you simply keep going. The Big Three knew for years that tempered glass would save people who got thrown through windshields because there were no seat belts. It was cheaper not to have seat belts and tempered glass. How many people died until they were forced to? Give me someone who's only job is to make sure these folks stay honest anyday.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You then figure out how much you have to pay in law suits from people hurt. If you make more money with the problem in place than with redoing it, you simply keep going.
I definitely fully agree. So, if people get hurt too much, the word will spread, and there's a protest or a boycott on the product, forcing them to fix that product. And guess what: that's all in the private sector. You asked to give you someone whose only job is to make them be honest, and that is precisely the type of thing that gives you the honesty, without the force of government. Sometimes it's necessary to get the government involved if fraud is committed in this situation, but otherwise, it's the will of the people getting into the fray, as opposed to government. Especially at a federal level.
-
josda1000 wrote:
As for the aid itself, people always contribute to causes, no matter what they are, privately
I can see your viewpoint on this, but I still think the government is better equipped to make a real difference. Corporations are in it for profit, and only donate for the publicity. Individuals donate out of pure philanthropy, sure, but unless a certain cause gets a big media backing, people might not even know about it. Too many charity organizations are based on religion (Sorry, but I refuse to donate to these - Even if there was an anti-religion one that preached atheism, I would still refuse) or very inefficient/corrupt (15% to the starving, 85% to the administrators?)... The government has large amounts of money that can be put into play rather quickly, even if the issue isn't that popular. If the CIA is getting their hands on it, then that's a reason to smack the CIA out of the way, not to stop aid entirely.
josda1000 wrote:
Soooo... which agencies would you be OK with actually dismantling?
Homeland Security (That's what the CIA, NSA, and FBI are for). CIA should be kept out of domestic affairs, possibly reduced somewhat. I'm not familiar with all of the various commerce agencies, but I assume that some could be trimmed away. The Dept. of Energy helps with regulation... Keep the power flowing, keep the plants as safe and clean as possible. Also funds some energy research (Keeping in mind that anything discovered privately becomes locked up and patented, not available for everyone to develop). Also works with the country's nuclear materials stockpile... Important stuff, and I think better kept at the federal level. FEMA has been a joke lately, but it still has a valid reason for existing... It's for when the local police/fire/EMS are outgunned by mother nature, and need some extra help. Restructure it, sure... Redesign it... Rethink it... But don't remove it. Dept. of Education: Actually, I might backpedal on this one... Just looked them up specifically in WP... "...the primary function of the Department of Education is to formulate federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.". This probably could be handled on the state level.
josda1000 wrote:
It can get quite a bit better. The price of a letter is now 44 cents (is it just
Ian Shlasko wrote:
very inefficient/corrupt (15% to the starving, 85% to the administrators?)...
So you are against government sponsored taxpayer funded charities.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Almost dead on.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Basically... "Hey, we see you guys in Iowa are in trouble... Here's a ton of people, a lot of financial support, and all the machinery and communication networks you need... "
Add the following at the end. "Here's where to put it best, if you think otherwise we will get that figured out and we will help with anything you need." The best reason to have FEMA is that the sort of things that require them to come in would be a HUGE financial drain on every state. Having that equipment available "just in case" you get a 100 year flood sucks. But having a federal version makes sense. Someone is bound to have a disaster needing this sort of equipment, manpower and logistics support pretty much every year or close enough in the 50 states. So, do you expect local governments to have the necessary extra gear to handle major emergencies on their budget and not get used very often at all, so it is a drain? Or do you spread it out, make it available to every state and have that gear get used consistantly so it is an asset?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
So, do you expect local governments to have the necessary extra gear to handle major emergencies on their budget and not get used very often at all, so it is a drain? Or do you spread it out, make it available to every state and have that gear get used consistantly so it is an asset?
I would make it a state thing, personally. Here's one way to kill two birds with one stone: Knock out FEMA (which is part of Homeland Security, if Ian reads this...), and cut back on the federal income tax, since it wouldn't exist any longer. Since Ian and I are on the same page with Homeland Security at the very least, let's knock out that entire organization. We would cut back on the income tax at the same time as well, saving money, resources, and a lot of other things. That would reboost the power of all of the states at once, possibly upping each state's income tax, but at least it would be more relative to the people living in each state. The states can decide how to handle it more appropriately to each population. If any state felt they should, they could even spread it out even more and have each county delegated power in this regard.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style)
I think laws requiring accuracy in dosing, purity, and potency are needed, but I don't see how the FDA would be able to enforce it. The only solution would be to take random samples of the end product directly from the store shelves, and then test for accuracy of labeling and purity. The FDA as it is now is just an over-bloated bureaucracy designed to line the pockets of the corporate entities that influence the bureaucracy. Simple basic laws and categorizations are the only things such agency is to enforce.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The only solution would be to take random samples of the end product directly from the store shelves, and then test for accuracy of labeling and purity.
Which is pretty much what the FDA does with other products, with the minor difference that it takes these samples BEFORE they hit the store shelves.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Simple basic laws and categorizations are the only things such agency is to enforce.
Right... That's what the FDA enforces... What's your point?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
So, do you expect local governments to have the necessary extra gear to handle major emergencies on their budget and not get used very often at all, so it is a drain? Or do you spread it out, make it available to every state and have that gear get used consistantly so it is an asset?
I would make it a state thing, personally. Here's one way to kill two birds with one stone: Knock out FEMA (which is part of Homeland Security, if Ian reads this...), and cut back on the federal income tax, since it wouldn't exist any longer. Since Ian and I are on the same page with Homeland Security at the very least, let's knock out that entire organization. We would cut back on the income tax at the same time as well, saving money, resources, and a lot of other things. That would reboost the power of all of the states at once, possibly upping each state's income tax, but at least it would be more relative to the people living in each state. The states can decide how to handle it more appropriately to each population. If any state felt they should, they could even spread it out even more and have each county delegated power in this regard.
josda1000 wrote:
(which is part of Homeland Security, if Ian reads this...)
Homeland Security was created as a sort of bubble around lots of other agencies, including FEMA, the FBI, NSA, etc... FEMA doesn't need Homeland Security in order to continue its existence.
josda1000 wrote:
I would make it a state thing, personally
I think the point rag is trying to make is that FEMA eliminates redundancy. Instead of 50 small stockpiles of manpower/equipment/funding, you have one big pot. That way, when a big disaster hits (Katrina, the Iowa flooding rag mentioned, etc), you have an entire country's worth of resources available, instead of having to go out to individual states and ask for help. On the other side, how often does one state have a disaster like that? Once a decade? Do you keep all of that equipment around for 10 years, just so you'll have it for that one week it's needed? Probably not... You might start to cut funding after a while, figuring it's not necessary. Then when the disaster hits, you're screwed. FEMA works nationally, and there's ALWAYS going to be SOME kind of disaster in a given year, in a country this big... So they can keep up to date and keep their equipment ready. Think of it as a big insurance policy. Every state buys into it (Well, all the people do, through taxes), and when disaster hits, you collect on your policy and get FEMA's help.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
So, do you expect local governments to have the necessary extra gear to handle major emergencies on their budget and not get used very often at all, so it is a drain? Or do you spread it out, make it available to every state and have that gear get used consistantly so it is an asset?
I would make it a state thing, personally. Here's one way to kill two birds with one stone: Knock out FEMA (which is part of Homeland Security, if Ian reads this...), and cut back on the federal income tax, since it wouldn't exist any longer. Since Ian and I are on the same page with Homeland Security at the very least, let's knock out that entire organization. We would cut back on the income tax at the same time as well, saving money, resources, and a lot of other things. That would reboost the power of all of the states at once, possibly upping each state's income tax, but at least it would be more relative to the people living in each state. The states can decide how to handle it more appropriately to each population. If any state felt they should, they could even spread it out even more and have each county delegated power in this regard.
This still makes states spend way more than they need to. For all the stuff a state would normally have to deal with, they already have the infrastructure and equipment. FEMA comes in with the big guns, stuff no state can afford on their own that they would need access to. A lot of people see the federal government as some sort of evil. They made it for a reason. It is there to handle things that are on a scope that can't be handled locally. Major disasters are one of these things. When 3+ states see tons of flooding, FEMA shows up. Hurrican destroys a city + a few hundred miles of coast in 3 states, FEMA. Wildfire in 3 states covering hundreds of miles of forest? FEMA helps out. Drop the rest of Homeland Security, sure, but keep it so that an entity that can help 3-4 states at once when they are all suffering a disaster they can't handle can do its job. Local control doesn't always mean better control.
-
josda1000 wrote:
(which is part of Homeland Security, if Ian reads this...)
Homeland Security was created as a sort of bubble around lots of other agencies, including FEMA, the FBI, NSA, etc... FEMA doesn't need Homeland Security in order to continue its existence.
josda1000 wrote:
I would make it a state thing, personally
I think the point rag is trying to make is that FEMA eliminates redundancy. Instead of 50 small stockpiles of manpower/equipment/funding, you have one big pot. That way, when a big disaster hits (Katrina, the Iowa flooding rag mentioned, etc), you have an entire country's worth of resources available, instead of having to go out to individual states and ask for help. On the other side, how often does one state have a disaster like that? Once a decade? Do you keep all of that equipment around for 10 years, just so you'll have it for that one week it's needed? Probably not... You might start to cut funding after a while, figuring it's not necessary. Then when the disaster hits, you're screwed. FEMA works nationally, and there's ALWAYS going to be SOME kind of disaster in a given year, in a country this big... So they can keep up to date and keep their equipment ready. Think of it as a big insurance policy. Every state buys into it (Well, all the people do, through taxes), and when disaster hits, you collect on your policy and get FEMA's help.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
On the other side, how often does one state have a disaster like that? Once a decade? Do you keep all of that equipment around for 10 years, just so you'll have it for that one week it's needed? Probably not... You might start to cut funding after a while, figuring it's not necessary. Then when the disaster hits, you're screwed. FEMA works nationally, and there's ALWAYS going to be SOME kind of disaster in a given year, in a country this big... So they can keep up to date and keep their equipment ready.
That's one of my biggest points. Your state pays for a piece of equipment to handle a flood that happens once a century and gets to use it... once a century. The fed does it and gets to use it there that year, and in the other 2-4 states dealing with that flooding. A few years later they do it somewhere else that just got this kind of flooding. Instead of being wasted and collecting dust while rusting the stuff is being used. Taxpayer money is used more efficiently. I'd rather pay the Federal government $5/year for some equipment that gets used every few years (even if it is not for me) than $3/year for equipment that gets used once every decade.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Corporations are in it for profit, and only donate for the publicity.
Yeah, but I'm not talking about them.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Individuals donate out of pure philanthropy, sure, but unless a certain cause gets a big media backing, people might not even know about it.
Agreed, but they can research if they really want to donate for a specific cause they deem worthy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Too many charity organizations are based on religion (Sorry, but I refuse to donate to these - Even if there was an anti-religion one that preached atheism, I would still refuse) or very inefficient/corrupt (15% to the starving, 85% to the administrators?)
Where did you get this stat? I find this hard to believe. As to your religious views, this is just a matter of life. Most people have a belief of theism or atheism, period. Either you have to get over it, or realize that all charities mean well, since they actually exist to benefit others, not themselves. You have a view of atheism, which is fine. I suggest that you either contribute to a cause you deem worthy, or find an atheistic charity, or both. Because you will not find a charity, I'm betting, in which at least 90% of the people contributing have a view they hold strongly, no matter the issue. This is, of course, if you feel you want to contribute. I don't; I'm in debt up my ass.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the price increases are mainly inflation.
I have to agree. Damned Federal Reserve... lol
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If there were multiple carriers, would you have a separate box for each one?
I'm guessing not. Think of when you ship a box: you choose either FedEx or UPS. And I'm guessing that you choose the same company every time. I'm guessing that you could use a flag or sticker or something and put it on your box, telling the certain company you wish to use to take the mail, as opposed to having a different colored flag for a different company; Red could be FedEx, Brown for UPS, Blue for USPS, something to that effect. As for postage, idk. I'm just making this up as I go. There's another thing: the private sector breeds creativity, while the public sector doesn't, because of all the rules and the suction of capital through taxe
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed, but they can research if they really want to donate for a specific cause they deem worthy.
In an ideal world, that might work... But in this world, people don't know about things unless the media tells them. Therefore, only causes with good publicity would get help.
josda1000 wrote:
Where did you get this stat? I find this hard to believe.
Intentionally exaggerated. Just making a point. If I donate $1,000 to a charity, I want as much of that $1,000 as possible to actually go towards helping people. Some charities have tons and tons of overhead. I'm not saying I want a charity full of non-religious people... Just a charity that isn't in any way financially, politically, or organizationally linked to a religion. I don't want my money being used to send missionaries to convert people in Africa.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm guessing not. Think of when you ship a box: you choose either FedEx or UPS. And I'm guessing that you choose the same company every time.
Shipping a package is something most people do once in a blue moon, so driving to the nearest FedEx/UPS office is alright. Sending letters, such as monthly bills, greeting cards, business mailers, etc... That stuff is every day, and in large quantities. I'm not saying the private sector couldn't do it, but I'm saying it adds a LOT of complexity to a system that already works. Also, you should know that the US Postal Service is NOT funded by taxes. Hasn't been since around 1980. That's why they're having budget problems. (With the exception of the Army Post and such, which I'm assuming use some military funds)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
very inefficient/corrupt (15% to the starving, 85% to the administrators?)...
So you are against government sponsored taxpayer funded charities.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Examples, from the DOJ in Oregon: http://www.doj.state.or.us/charigroup/pdf/oregons_20_worst_charities.pdf[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Corporations are in it for profit, and only donate for the publicity.
Yeah, but I'm not talking about them.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Individuals donate out of pure philanthropy, sure, but unless a certain cause gets a big media backing, people might not even know about it.
Agreed, but they can research if they really want to donate for a specific cause they deem worthy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Too many charity organizations are based on religion (Sorry, but I refuse to donate to these - Even if there was an anti-religion one that preached atheism, I would still refuse) or very inefficient/corrupt (15% to the starving, 85% to the administrators?)
Where did you get this stat? I find this hard to believe. As to your religious views, this is just a matter of life. Most people have a belief of theism or atheism, period. Either you have to get over it, or realize that all charities mean well, since they actually exist to benefit others, not themselves. You have a view of atheism, which is fine. I suggest that you either contribute to a cause you deem worthy, or find an atheistic charity, or both. Because you will not find a charity, I'm betting, in which at least 90% of the people contributing have a view they hold strongly, no matter the issue. This is, of course, if you feel you want to contribute. I don't; I'm in debt up my ass.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the price increases are mainly inflation.
I have to agree. Damned Federal Reserve... lol
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If there were multiple carriers, would you have a separate box for each one?
I'm guessing not. Think of when you ship a box: you choose either FedEx or UPS. And I'm guessing that you choose the same company every time. I'm guessing that you could use a flag or sticker or something and put it on your box, telling the certain company you wish to use to take the mail, as opposed to having a different colored flag for a different company; Red could be FedEx, Brown for UPS, Blue for USPS, something to that effect. As for postage, idk. I'm just making this up as I go. There's another thing: the private sector breeds creativity, while the public sector doesn't, because of all the rules and the suction of capital through taxe
Oh wow, actually... I thought that 85%/15% was a huge exaggeration, but I just did some quick research, and apparently some are even worse! Check out this list from the Department of Justice in Oregon: http://www.doj.state.or.us/charigroup/pdf/oregons_20_worst_charities.pdf[^] All but the last four kept MORE than 85% as administrative costs...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed, but they can research if they really want to donate for a specific cause they deem worthy.
In an ideal world, that might work... But in this world, people don't know about things unless the media tells them. Therefore, only causes with good publicity would get help.
josda1000 wrote:
Where did you get this stat? I find this hard to believe.
Intentionally exaggerated. Just making a point. If I donate $1,000 to a charity, I want as much of that $1,000 as possible to actually go towards helping people. Some charities have tons and tons of overhead. I'm not saying I want a charity full of non-religious people... Just a charity that isn't in any way financially, politically, or organizationally linked to a religion. I don't want my money being used to send missionaries to convert people in Africa.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm guessing not. Think of when you ship a box: you choose either FedEx or UPS. And I'm guessing that you choose the same company every time.
Shipping a package is something most people do once in a blue moon, so driving to the nearest FedEx/UPS office is alright. Sending letters, such as monthly bills, greeting cards, business mailers, etc... That stuff is every day, and in large quantities. I'm not saying the private sector couldn't do it, but I'm saying it adds a LOT of complexity to a system that already works. Also, you should know that the US Postal Service is NOT funded by taxes. Hasn't been since around 1980. That's why they're having budget problems. (With the exception of the Army Post and such, which I'm assuming use some military funds)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
(With the exception of the Army Post and such, which I'm assuming use some military funds)
Correct. This used to be done in house but like so much of the military has been contracted out for the sake of "efficiency." The result has been slower mail and a higher incidence of damaged or opened packages.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I don't think you really appreciate the stress of the office of president of the USA.
I think I do. I see Obama turning gray already... is he too old now? lol jk
Bob Emmett wrote:
The only thing I rated Obama on was his age: i.e. he was young enough to undertake the office of president.
To me, this is kind of a backstab to the Constitution as well. The Constitution says that the President must be 35 years of age or older, there's no maximum age. But you're still not laying down what I think you should: isn't there more to a man than just age? How about experience in politics, or life in general? Obama had almost no experience whatsoever in politics, though he was a professor and a Senator. As for Paul, he's been around since the seventies. He knows politics, and he knows the Constitution.
josda1000 wrote:
But you're still not laying down what I think you should: isn't there more to a man than just age? How about experience in politics, or life in general?
Yes, when I am voting for a Member of Parliament (MP), I judge the candidates on similar criteria, not their party, nor their party's manifesto*. Consequently, I have voted Labour, Conservative, Liberal, even Welsh Nationalist, just to get a good constituency MP. Fortunately, we do not have an elected Head of State, and the Prime Minister can be any MP who can get sufficient support to form a Government, which is usually the Leader of the majority party. * Only in as much as they give you a general indication of a party's intentions. Manifestos are generally shredded, metaphorically speaking, once power is attained.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
This still makes states spend way more than they need to. For all the stuff a state would normally have to deal with, they already have the infrastructure and equipment. FEMA comes in with the big guns, stuff no state can afford on their own that they would need access to. A lot of people see the federal government as some sort of evil. They made it for a reason. It is there to handle things that are on a scope that can't be handled locally. Major disasters are one of these things. When 3+ states see tons of flooding, FEMA shows up. Hurrican destroys a city + a few hundred miles of coast in 3 states, FEMA. Wildfire in 3 states covering hundreds of miles of forest? FEMA helps out. Drop the rest of Homeland Security, sure, but keep it so that an entity that can help 3-4 states at once when they are all suffering a disaster they can't handle can do its job. Local control doesn't always mean better control.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Local control doesn't always mean better control.
I have to agree, if that guy in New Orleans really did what you said. My God, what an idiot. Anyway...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
For all the stuff a state would normally have to deal with, they already have the infrastructure and equipment. FEMA comes in with the big guns, stuff no state can afford on their own that they would need access to.
Yes, because that's what you see today. If things were in the hands of the states, we'd see things very different, I'd say. States would send a lot less money to the federal government, costing taxpayers a lot less, for the very fact that there would be fewer employees to pay with the taxes. FEMA could obviously afford things, but the states could decide for themselves what to buy, what not to, what's needed, what's not, that sort of thing. States could definitely afford these things if the money just stayed in the state in the first place.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
A lot of people see the federal government as some sort of evil.
You got that right lol
ragnaroknrol wrote:
They made it for a reason. It is there to handle things that are on a scope that can't be handled locally.
Big disagreement here. The federal government is made to create a union. Each state was its own nation-state before the federal government was made. In effect, each state had its own currency, its own militia, its own government (which still exists today of course). All of these things are now on the federal level.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When 3+ states see tons of flooding, FEMA shows up.
Sure, but why can't each state have its own FEMA type doohicky?