• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nikki Haley: 'I could not look my kids in the face and justify that flag'

Montecresto said:
The pony express would carry your letter across the country for ten dollars in the mid 1850's, and it would take a couple of weeks!! What's that in today's money, $300.00? The price of stamps haven't gone up.
Click to expand...

When I was in high school in the 90's, the price of stamps was 29 cents. Now its 50. Tell me that 50 is less than 29. It ain't so.
 
roguenuke said:
Although I agree that some things the federal government does are not good, I'm curious as to what things you think those are. Most of the other stuff is handled by the states. And the feds step in generally when a citizen of that state feels their rights have been oppressed by a state.
Click to expand...

We need welfare reform, big time. It was meant to be a temporary relief, not something that passes from generation to generation. We also need to encourage education in this country, including trade schools for young adults who may not be able to earn a 4 year degree in some field or other. I'm not against helping anyone. In fact working at a food bank for the elderly has pretty much become my "career" you might as well say. Also we need to get the economy going again, and frankly I don't have the first danged clue how to do it. I'll leave that to someone with experience in that area.
 
HorseLoverGirl said:
When I was in high school in the 90's, the price of stamps was 29 cents. Now its 50. Tell me that 50 is less than 29. It ain't so.
Click to expand...

That is an awfully small change in price though, especially considering the competition the USPS faces (with the widespread use of the internet and cell phones) and the fact that most other things have seen a much more significant jump in price (I could get a candy bar in the 90s for 50 cents, now you're lucky to find one for a dollar or less).
 
roguenuke said:
That is an awfully small change in price though, especially considering the competition the USPS faces (with the widespread use of the internet and cell phones) and the fact that most other things have seen a much more significant jump in price (I could get a candy bar in the 90s for 50 cents, now you're lucky to find one for a dollar or less).
Click to expand...

I remember my granddaddy telling me about when he worked on the railroad for 25 cents an hour. That was back when money actually went somewhere. Try making that now and you couldn't afford squat. My dad always talks about $2000 a semester covering his college expenses at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma Washington. Now a semester at UPS will run you 22 grand, and that's just for tuition. Its ridiculous.
 
HorseLoverGirl said:
When I was in high school in the 90's, the price of stamps was 29 cents. Now its 50. Tell me that 50 is less than 29. It ain't so.
Click to expand...

50 cents is significantly lower than $300.00, which was the cost to mail a letter in a time period when the government was the size that the framers and yourself preferred it to be. ;)
 
HorseLoverGirl said:
Can't argue with that.
Click to expand...

I think the founders did make a mistake by not limiting states more, but in regards to the court there isn't that much more they could have done. Still, the idea that one government is better than many is very foolish and people should feel ashamed arguing for it.
 
HorseLoverGirl said:
We need welfare reform, big time. It was meant to be a temporary relief, not something that passes from generation to generation. We also need to encourage education in this country, including trade schools for young adults who may not be able to earn a 4 year degree in some field or other. I'm not against helping anyone. In fact working at a food bank for the elderly has pretty much become my "career" you might as well say. Also we need to get the economy going again, and frankly I don't have the first danged clue how to do it. I'll leave that to someone with experience in that area.
Click to expand...

Those are things that I can agree with easily. I think there are plenty of things that need to be reformed in welfare. But that isn't something the states could not do if they were to simply try to do so. The biggest problems there are cultural clashes and beliefs as well as greed, on both the parts of those who get welfare in some cases (like those you talk about) as well as in those that are on the higher end, that have a lot of power over the spending power and potential resources a family has, whether it is in how much they are paid or how much their expenses are. The rest is pretty much right there where I see things as well (not sure if we'd agree on specifics, but definitely in a general sense it appears). But those aren't things that are generally being restricted by the federal government. The states can do things about those things you mentioned if they are willing to try, which for some places may mean actually bringing in more revenue.
 
And really cares about the postal service? Historically speaking they have lost every single time competition appeared in their sector.
 
Montecresto said:
50 cents is significantly lower than $300.00, which was the cost to mail a letter in a time period when the government was the size that the framers and yourself preferred it to be. ;)
Click to expand...

Tell me how much does it cost to send a letter via email? Now colleges have contact links on their webpages, so you don't have to buy a whole freaking roll of stamps to request information from different schools. Wish that had been in place when I was in high school! I used to get stamps from the place where my dad worked just to send off requests for info from this school or that school.
 
Henrin said:
And ahem and who really cares about the postal service? Historically speaking they have lost every single time competition appeared in their sector.
Click to expand...

They aren't exactly a very profitable service, but we still need them. Not everything is electronic yet
 
Montecresto said:
50 cents is significantly lower than $300.00, which was the cost to mail a letter in a time period when the government was the size that the framers and yourself preferred it to be. ;)
Click to expand...

It was never needed in the first place. Private enterprise proved in the 19th century it could do postal service better than the government.
 
Henrin said:
It was never needed in the first place. Private enterprise proved in the 19th century it could do postal service better than the government.
Click to expand...

No, it simply can't, not in the exact same way the postal service can. There is no guarantee that private service won't refuse to mail certain materials, due to their nature, perhaps from the competition of the service. The USPS cannot refuse to do such a thing.
 
HorseLoverGirl said:
Denial of the facts is par for the course for the anti South crowd. That much we know.
Click to expand...

But I'm not anti south. I live there, I love the south. And had they been fighting exclusively for states rights, the right to self determination, I'd have been completely on their side. I'd have told Lincoln, it's not worth 600,000 American lives to preserve the Union. Really, it's no big deal. But it was that stance on slavery that mortally wounded their position. Pity you haven't the ability to recognize that.
 
roguenuke said:
Those are things that I can agree with easily. I think there are plenty of things that need to be reformed in welfare. But that isn't something the states could not do if they were to simply try to do so. The biggest problems there are cultural clashes and beliefs as well as greed, on both the parts of those who get welfare in some cases (like those you talk about) as well as in those that are on the higher end, that have a lot of power over the spending power and potential resources a family has, whether it is in how much they are paid or how much their expenses are. The rest is pretty much right there where I see things as well (not sure if we'd agree on specifics, but definitely in a general sense it appears). But those aren't things that are generally being restricted by the federal government. The states can do things about those things you mentioned if they are willing to try, which for some places may mean actually bringing in more revenue.
Click to expand...

Yep there definitely need to be some changes made. I just don't know how to do it
 
roguenuke said:
No, it simply can't, not in the exact same way the postal service can. There is no guarantee that private service won't refuse to mail certain materials, due to their nature, perhaps from the competition of the service. The USPS cannot refuse to do such a thing.
Click to expand...

If the only benefit is that they can't deny service then frankly that benefit is worthless. The market place is capable of dealing with businesses that refuse service to consumers.
 
Henrin said:
If the only benefit is that they can't deny service then frankly that benefit is worthless. The market place is capable of dealing with businesses that refuse service to consumers.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. Not in something so important as communication. And while communication is certainly changing to the point where written communication may need to be rethought as far as how often it is a needed to be delivered, it should never become completely obsolete.
 
Montecresto said:
But I'm not anti south. I live there, I love the south. And had they been fighting exclusively for states rights, the right to self determination, I'd have been completely on their side. I'd have told Lincoln, it's not worth 600,000 American lives to preserve the Union. Really, it's no big deal. But it was that stance on slavery that mortally wounded their position. Pity you haven't the ability to recognize that.
Click to expand...

No it was the economic consequences the north would suffer that caused the war at first. Most states up north didn't care one way or the other if the south left. However they realized that in the cold of winter there was a good chance the ports would freeze, and the South would have control of the Mississippi not to mention ports that didn't freeze, they realized oh ****, we're screwed! The South also would have been able to expand out west and still allow slavery (which was on its way out anyway, since only a minority of the wealthiest Southerners had slaves to begin with).
 
Henrin said:
It was never needed in the first place. Private enterprise proved in the 19th century it could do postal service better than the government.
Click to expand...

Ben Franklin was the first postmaster general, and he'd heartily disagree with you.
 
roguenuke said:
No, it really isn't. Not in something so important as communication. And while communication is certainly changing to the point where written communication may need to be rethought as far as how often it is a needed to be delivered, it should never become completely obsolete.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, if the liberal determines something is needed the government must do it. Spare me.
 
HorseLoverGirl said:
No it was the economic consequences the north would suffer that caused the war at first. Most states up north didn't care one way or the other if the south left. However they realized that in the cold of winter there was a good chance the ports would freeze, and the South would have control of the Mississippi not to mention ports that didn't freeze, they realized oh ****, we're screwed! The South also would have been able to expand out west and still allow slavery (which was on its way out anyway, since only a minority of the wealthiest Southerners had slaves to begin with).
Click to expand...

It was always the minority of southerners that owned slaves, which was the source of their wealth, and wasn't going to be surrendered easily. I don't know of anybody that denies the various elements at stake, and in the southern states charters for secession. But denying that the preservation of slavery was high on the list is dishonest of you, and doesn't make for quality debate.
 
Henrin said:
So what? He was proven wrong.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. But what's the point in this rabbit trail, you too wishing the government was the size it was in 1803?
 
Montecresto said:
It was always the minority of southerners that owned slaves, which was the source of their wealth, and wasn't going to be surrendered easily. I don't know of anybody that denies the various elements at stake, and in the southern states charters for secession. But denying that the preservation of slavery was high on the list is dishonest of you, and doesn't make for quality debate.
Click to expand...

So do you deny that slavery was still going on up north? Or do you think it was only a southern thing? Remember how the slaves got here in the first place. They were brought from Africa, some traded for rum in the Caribbean, then some were brought to the north, who in turn sold them to the south. I never denied that the south at the time was wanting to preserve slavery, however it was on the way out. A lot of plantation owners worked their own fields. Not to mention the north was taxing the south ridiculous tariffs to pay off the War of 1812, and because the north had the votes in Congress, there was pretty much nothing the South could do about it.
 
Henrin said:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, if the liberal determines something is needed the government must do it. Spare me.
Click to expand...

For Pete's sake. If the conservative determines that something is needed the government must do it too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom