• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Something should be done!" VS "I should do something!"

It would have been discovered by some other explorer

Exactly!

With the help of government subsidies

And without government subsidies it would never have been discovered, right? Come on, keep up. It makes it easier if I don't have to run 10 steps ahead of you every time.
 
Exactly!



And without government subsidies it would never have been discovered, right? Come on, keep up. It makes it easier if I don't have to run 10 steps ahead of you every time.

Given your poor record of predicting what actually happened, I laugh at your implication that you can predict what would have happened
 
How did you derive that stupid idea from "we should get rid of patents?" Is there something wrong with you?
It's the logical conclusion of taking patent protection away. Gates invents DOS. IBM takes DOS and sells it with their machines. Gates is screwed because he spent time and money making something new and made no profit from it. The same applies to anyone who invents new products whether it's IBM or Joe Tinker working in his basement.


IBM would have a lot more competition without patents. Try again.
IBM may not even exist at all without patents along with the whole microchip computer industry. There wouldn't be nearly as much innovation without patents - try again.
 
Last edited:
This is a joke right? I get it. "Good one" lol.
Still dodging the question I see.

I will not dignify this question with an answer. You asked me how the government subsidizes the USPS. I'm gonna have to assume that is a joke.
You don't want to answer the question because it would ruin your case. Show me your facts. If the government subsidizes the USPS then it will be in the federal budget and should be easy to find.

Here, let me help you out ...

By the Numbers *

65 billion — 2012 revenue, in dollars
160 billion — number of mailpieces processed
40 — percent of the world’s mail volume handled by the Postal Service
1.8 billion — dollar amount paid every two weeks in salaries and benefits
522,144** — number of career employees
108,000** — number of military veteran career employees
31,272 — number of Postal Service-managed retail offices
212,530 — number of vehicles — one of the largest civilian fleets in the world
1.3 billion — number of miles driven each year by letter carriers and truck drivers
39.7 million — number of address changes processed
39 — percent of retail revenue from alternative access channels
423 million — total number of visits to usps.com
67.5 million — number of inquiries handled by the Postal Service Contact Center
246 million — dollar amount of online stamp and retail sales at usps.com
44.1 million — number of Click-N-Ship labels printed
483 million — total revenue, in dollars, from Click-N-Ship label purchases
83.8 million — number of packages picked up using Free Package Pickup
5.7 million — number of passport applications accepted
109 million — number of money orders issued
497 million — amount in revenue from 2,500 Self-Service Kiosks
70,000 — number of stores, banks and Self-Service Kiosks that sell stamps
654,560 — number of new delivery points added to the network
0 — tax dollars received for operating the Postal Service

* all information based on 2012 data, unless otherwise noted
** as of January 16, 2013

https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm#H1
 
Last edited:
No, they could make their money back by producing said planes. People don't just build jets in their backyards. People could also choose to fly on planes that are trusted, a la brand loyalty, rather than cheaper knockoffs.
But anyone could produce the planes, not just Boeing. Boeing spends five billion dollars designing a plane (and that's a conservative estimate). Airbus takes the design and starts making planes - and selling them cheaper than Boeing because they don't have $5,000,000,000 in R&D to recover. Assuming 1000 planes are sold to the community and it's split equally between them, Aribus can sell their planes for ~$10M cheaper than Boeing and make the same profit. What airline in their right mind would spend $10M more per plane when they don't have to??? This is simple economics, here, nothing complicated about it.



I encourage consumers to be well informed.
Then your brand loyalty comment was just crap or you're spewing crap here - take your choice.
 
Last edited:
Still dodging the question I see.

The question of "Show me how and where the government subsidizes the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE?"

Whats next, asking for evidence that **** doesn't smell like strawberries?

Because you don't want to answer the question. Show me your facts - and good luck with that. If the government subsidized USPS then it will be in the federal budget and should be easy to find.

I don't know how a rational debate can occur with you. If the government created a monopoly called "US Cell Phones" and forced everyone to use their service for phone calls, but allowed other companies to offer texting services, you would argue that the government is not subsidizing US Cell Phones.
 
The question of "Show me how and where the government subsidizes the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE?"

Whats next, asking for evidence that **** doesn't smell like strawberries?

I don't know how a rational debate can occur with you. If the government created a monopoly called "US Cell Phones" and forced everyone to use their service for phone calls, but allowed other companies to offer texting services, you would argue that the government is not subsidizing US Cell Phones.
Since you posted this at virtually the same time I edited my post I'll repost my edit ...

Here, let me help you out ...

By the Numbers *

65 billion — 2012 revenue, in dollars
160 billion — number of mailpieces processed
40 — percent of the world’s mail volume handled by the Postal Service
1.8 billion — dollar amount paid every two weeks in salaries and benefits
522,144** — number of career employees
108,000** — number of military veteran career employees
31,272 — number of Postal Service-managed retail offices
212,530 — number of vehicles — one of the largest civilian fleets in the world
1.3 billion — number of miles driven each year by letter carriers and truck drivers
39.7 million — number of address changes processed
39 — percent of retail revenue from alternative access channels
423 million — total number of visits to usps.com
67.5 million — number of inquiries handled by the Postal Service Contact Center
246 million — dollar amount of online stamp and retail sales at usps.com
44.1 million — number of Click-N-Ship labels printed
483 million — total revenue, in dollars, from Click-N-Ship label purchases
83.8 million — number of packages picked up using Free Package Pickup
5.7 million — number of passport applications accepted
109 million — number of money orders issued
497 million — amount in revenue from 2,500 Self-Service Kiosks
70,000 — number of stores, banks and Self-Service Kiosks that sell stamps
654,560 — number of new delivery points added to the network
0 — tax dollars received for operating the Postal Service

* all information based on 2012 data, unless otherwise noted
** as of January 16, 2013

https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm#H1
 
Since you posted this at virtually the same time I edited my post I'll repost my edit ...

Again, how can a rational debate be possible with you? US Cell Phones.

But anyone could produce the planes, not just Boeing. Boeing spends five billion dollars designing a plane (and that's a conservative estimate). Airbus takes the design and starts making planes - and selling them cheaper than Boeing because they don't have $5,000,000,000 in R&D to recover. Assuming 1000 planes are sold to the community and it's split equally between them, Aribus can sell their planes for ~$10M cheaper than Boeing and make the same profit. What airline in their right mind would spend $10M more per plane when they don't have to??? This is simple economics, here, nothing complicated about it.

I don't agree that it costs 5 billion to design a plane, I think much of that money is needlessly wasted. And so what is your idea about how it would work out, somebody just builds a plane building factory and waits around for others to do the research before production can begin? Ok, so nobody does research, now what? I guess no planes ever get built and we don't have planes anymore? Is this how you imagine things? LOL!

Then your brand loyalty comment was just crap or you're spewing crap here - take your choice.

They are not mutually exclusive. One could be well informed and still have brand loyalty.
 
Again, how can a rational debate be possible with you? US Cell Phones.
No tax money, no subsidy. That's simple enough. :shrug:

Most utilities are monopolies, too. It's only when things get cheap to distribute, like cell phone service that requires minimal installations, are monopolies ditched in lieu of market competition.


I don't agree that it costs 5 billion to design a plane, I think much of that money is needlessly wasted.
I was wrong, it was $10 billion for one plane. You can think anything you want of their methods but unless you can prove it, which I understand is a foreign concept to you, your opinion is less than worthless.

Boeing 777


And so what is your idea about how it would work out, somebody just builds a plane building factory and waits around for others to do the research before production can begin? Ok, so nobody does research, now what? I guess no planes ever get built and we don't have planes anymore? Is this how you imagine things? LOL!
Since there aren't any patents it would make since to just take an existing design that's popular and start reproducing it - much like generic drug companies do once a drug patent is opened up. ((Drug companies do get their patent to use for a given number of years before it's opened to the market.)) Why would anyone spend billions to make something new or better when they get no extra profit from it?
 
Last edited:
I think this fundamental, philosophical difference in thinking distinguishes the statist from the libertarian. On any given issue, I see a common thread with statists and it's basically the belief that "something should be done" rather than "I should do something." It characterizes their entire worldview.

I'll take the tornadoes in Oklahoma as a good example of this. People immediately look to what the government should do rather than what they should do to help the victims. They say "something should be done to help the victims" rather than "I should do something to help the victims."

What kind of person are you? Do you believe that something should be done or that you should do something? What causes a person to think in these different ways?

That's nonsense, the difference is one thinks things should be run by the market, i.e. plutocratically.

And others have other opinions, no one is a "statist," you have socialists, conservatives, anarchists, social-democrats, nationalists and so on, and they all haev different opinions.

I think it shoudl be run democratically, one person one vote, not one dollar one vote. BTW, leftists are the ones saying "I should do something," that's why they are the ones doing civil disobedience, strikes and so on.
 
Not that there's any such thing really as a "statist", but I'll assume the OP means socialists. I'm a socialist. I just went through law school and am currently studying for the New York bar because I should do something. Attempts by the anti-government crowd to paint themselves as morally superior are really just sad. People who see the world in such black and white terms tend to cause a lot more trouble than they solve, and when you spend all your time denigrating your opposition, you make it impossible to find common ground.
 
Not that there's any such thing really as a "statist", but I'll assume the OP means socialists. I'm a socialist. I just went through law school and am currently studying for the New York bar because I should do something. Attempts by the anti-government crowd to paint themselves as morally superior are really just sad. People who see the world in such black and white terms tend to cause a lot more trouble than they solve, and when you spend all your time denigrating your opposition, you make it impossible to find common ground.

One thing that annoys me is when socialists look out for the unemployed, people assume "oh YOU just want a handout, get a job" they are incabable of even concieving that some people have empathy for others.
 
lol, I think people are getting confused. Doing something, when that something is catering to people who simply demand "something should be done", isn't really qualifying as "I should do something". You've essentially found the glitch in the system and you're exploiting it (literally?).

If a socialist wanted to do something, in a more proper context, it would be something like this. Start, buy, or fund a business through voluntary like minded individuals and enshrine in the business by-laws the requirement for that business to operate in your socialist dream model. I mean, that's what we're really talking about. You're free to do this already, you don't need to lobby or go to law school, or get your candidate elected, you already have this freedom. Make it so the company can only be owned by employees, that employee salaries are capped at the high end and low end, if you leave you sell back to the company, profits are distributed, etc. If this is your dream, that's what do something means.

Of course, it's really just a fad in a way, it won't help more people, it won't revolutionize anything, it would provide more jobs or be more humanitarian, it's just a different model that will find it very hard to compete in many industries and markets, likely won't scale well, etc. But hey, I could be wrong, that's your dream to prove out, not mine. So what are you waiting for? (Someone else to pay for it probably?)
 
I think this fundamental, philosophical difference in thinking distinguishes the statist from the libertarian. On any given issue, I see a common thread with statists and it's basically the belief that "something should be done" rather than "I should do something." It characterizes their entire worldview.

I'll take the tornadoes in Oklahoma as a good example of this. People immediately look to what the government should do rather than what they should do to help the victims. They say "something should be done to help the victims" rather than "I should do something to help the victims."

What kind of person are you? Do you believe that something should be done or that you should do something? What causes a person to think in these different ways?

the government represents the public ,not itself

so public should help the public
 
Excellent thread. I think this also touches on the issue with welfare system.
 
A! lets bust the emperor for indecent exposure!
 
Back
Top Bottom