Reply With Quote
All MSNBC hosts should just wear kneepads and hopenchange bibs.
And then cuts him off.
All MSNBC hosts should just wear kneepads and hopenchange bibs.
"A logical style debate?"
Contessa is a funny little girl.
Didn't she do something stupid like this with that idiot who was defending Palin?
WTF? These actually exist?
http://www.obamabib.com/
I love how she used the US postal service to butress her argument -- the same goofy thing Obama did only days ago.
Fail.
She sounded almost resentful that she was being forced to engage in a "logical style debate." I laughed my ass off when she said that.
that must explain their rockin' ratings.
He should have asked her if they could continue this debate over dinner
Huuuuzah
Never mind that Contessa has no clue about the differences in how the U. S Postal Service and Commercial package delivery services work.
I'm more interested in the statement made at about 1:35 into the interview. Since when is it a news organization's job to have a "logical style debate" on behalf of the administration and in opposition to a guest on its show?
Why does MSNBC feel compelled to take the president's side in this debate?
Now, back to the nature of the two businesses. In the one area where UPS and FedEx legally prohibited from competing, delivery of first class mail to post office receptacles, The United States Postal Services is failing miserably and bleeding money like crazy. In the area where they are allowed to compete, it's only compe ive because the USPS is run on a private enterprise model.
Unlike the insufficient postage they charge to provide a service over which they have no compe ion, they've allowed the package delivery side of the business to be "free market" compe ive.
That doesn't change the fact -- indeed, it only highlights it -- that the government has no business providing a service that can best be offered in the private sector. In fact, because the USPS operates a profitable package delivery model alongside a failing government model (first class mail delivery), there could be an artificial inflation of the cost across all compe ors. If the government charges more for package delivery, it gives the compe ors an incentive to raise their prices -- to just below the USPS prices, steal customers, and turn a hefty profit.
If the USPS got out of the package delivery business, FedEx and UPS would have to compete with one another for business without the benefit of a government side of the business to prop them up.
I think it would result in lower, not higher, package delivery prices for you and me.
Not saying I disagree, but NO business?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause
I mean, if there's ANY business that's Cons utionally acceptable, by definition, it would be the Postal Service.
I agree with you on the basic point; however, you'd have to get around the Postal Clause.
It's no longer necessary, amend the Cons ution.
It is just mindboggeling that msnbc is around I mean who watches this tripe, it's like the Oprah winfrey show with white makeup.
"can I ask you a question"
"nope I am the interviewer"
What a ing loser!
You're a ing loser as well.
Is she your spank vid for the night? Did I hurt ur little feelings? I'm sorry.
OMG she is so dumb
She is so re ed
That's why my mom doesn't want me to date hot girls
You are a dumbass of an inferior race.
That woman was a . I bet she gets all of her news from The NY Times and The View. I hate it when news anchors and commentators are rude and disrespectful to regular people. They act all arrogant, superior, and y because they're on TV and regular people aren't.
Is there anyone on MSNBC that doesn't suck Obama's ?
I'm ok with that.
Although, I can also see having a clause that would allow government the right to maintain some form of communication, like the government NIPRNet, in case of dire emergencies. I'm fine with taking out the Postal Service though.
You guys have to remember something. The Post Office is not a for profit service. They don't have a 5% to 10% profit margin to use up before going into losses. The normally operate bringing in revenue to congress. This economy is hurting everyone.
I've seen this data on one of the OMB tables before. Looking for it now.
lol...yes...this is real...
www.chiaobama.com
OK, here is the last 10 years of reconciled data from the OMB:
Funny how the postal service usually has a positive income, and over $8 billion between 1998 to 2007. Maybe I should go back and see what even older data shows for positive income that congress eats up. People cry when in bad times. There was a reported $2.8 billion loss for 2008 and a $7 billion loss projected for 2009. These are not OMB reconciled numbers yet. Projected numbers don't mean much and are often far off. Estimates for 2007 was a loss of $4,944 million, but had a gain of $1,185, from the 2008 report. The 2009 report corrected a huge error in the 2007 estimation. 2008 estimates were a loss of $2,141 million, but there was a $2,800 loss reported, yet not reconciled yet.Code:Year Revenue Expenses gain/(loss) ulative 1998 60,116 59,566 550 550 1999 62,755 62,392 363 913 2000 64,581 64,780 (199) 714 2001 65,869 67,549 (1,680) (966) 2002 66,688 67,364 (676) (1,642) 2003 68,764 64,878 3,886 2,244 2004 69,029 65,964 3,065 5,309 2005 69,993 68,548 1,445 6,754 2006 72,817 71,917 900 7,654 2007 81,538 80,353 1,185 8,839 note: numbers are in millions of dollars.
Data sources:
[09 Budget Appendix] POSTAL SERVICE
[08 Budget Appendix] POSTAL SERVICE
[07 Budget Appendix] POSTAL SERVICE
[06 Budget Appendix] POSTAL SERVICE
[05 Budget Appendix] POSTAL SERVICE
[04 Budget Appendix] POSTAL SERVICE
[03 Budget Appendix] POSTAL SERVICE
[02 Budget Appendix] POSTAL SERVICE
[01 Budget Appendix] POSTAL SERVICE
These are real too. I've seen them at Wal Mart.
I found data as far back as 1994. With the 2008 and 2009 losses, the post office is still $2.727 billion ahead with the 2009 $7 billion projected loss. 1994 was a $913 million loss year also.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
