Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!
-
"To repeat, Private companies are much more efficient and generally can do things better, but part of that is because they can "leave out" part of the population."
Wow.. That's a new one on me.... for profit companies are more efficient and can do things better than the government because... they can leave out customers......
Hahahahaaa
@Larry said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
Wow.. That's a new one on me.... for profit companies are more efficient and can do things better than the government because... they can leave out customers......
I think you misunderstand me. For example, iPhone. Apple looks to sell as many iPhone as possible at a certain price. They dont have to worry about selling to 100% of the population. They only worry about selling to the % of population that can afford it.
If government X said that iPhone is a critical infrastructure and EVERYBODY is required to have one; three things would happen:
Apple would have to lower their price so that the poorest could afford (this is not likely) or,
The government would make iPhone themselves (each one at a loss) so that everyone could have one or,
the government would give a subsidy to people who need it so that 100% of the population could afford it.
That is what I mean by a company being able to "leave out customers". in other words, Apple does not worry about the Indian bricklayer (or the Thai rice farmer) making USD $1.25.day. That is not their "base".
Hope I am more clearer on what I meant.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
I kind of agree with Ax. From my read, the US Post Office has a lot of restrictions that a private company do not have to deal with.
I agree that the US Post Office can do with some changes, but it is not as simple as saying - "see what these private companies can do."
So... the inefficiencies of the postal service are due to them being restricted... By what exactly? Rules? Who put the rules in place? The government? So a government agency can't compete because of restrictions put on it by government? What is it exactly that a private company can do that the post office can't do? Since its a government agency, couldnt the government remove these restrictions so the post office can compete?
And if our healthcare system was turned into another government agency, wouldn't it stand to reason that the same poor leadership that restricted the post office to the point that it loses money because it can't compete with for profit companies also restrict the agency in charge of health care to the point that it couldnt provide healthcare as efficiently as for profit healthcare?
I pretty well know how you'll answer, so I'll go ahead and give you the correct answers. If there are restrictions on the postal service that causes it to be unable to compete with private, for profit companies, it's the government to put them there, and you've just proven that the best, most efficient way to run things is through private, for profit business. You have given us the very reason that government cannot run a cat fight, much less a postal service, or more importantly, healthcare.
-
A couple of things...
-
The Post Office loves junk mail. It's what pays the bills. Even at a reduced bulk mail charge, it is a money maker. Since the USPS just deliver everywhere, there's already somebody on that route, walking or driving. Might as well make a little money off of something.
-
First Class Mail costs USPS, in most cases. The price should at least reflect the cost.
-
Should USPS be required to deliver everywhere? UPS and FedEx do not. The problem with dismantling the USPS, is that the private sector will lowball the bid to get the business and then Jack the prices on the next contract, knowing there are no alternatives but the private sector. I've seen it done, more than once.
-
The USPS retirement system is structured differently than many other government or quasi-government entities. They must have much more money out back to be considered fully funded.
-
-
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy says the USPS is suspending operational changes until after the November election.
Ideally, I'd like for the USPS to not reduce operational capacity until after the pandemic is under control.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/21/us/postal-service-mail-rural.html
— — — —
...
Now, with delays raising fears that the United States Postal Service is being hobbled by a combination of financial problems, politicization and pandemic, farmers and other rural residents say they are particularly vulnerable to the crisis roiling the postal system. And while President Trump’s own words have raised alarms that the problems are part of an effort to keep Democrats from voting by mail, many of those being hurt the most live in rural areas that overwhelmingly support the president.“This is an attack on a tried-and-true service that rural America depends on,” said Chris Gibbs, a farmer in western Ohio who voted for Mr. Trump in 2016, but this year started an advocacy group arguing that the president has failed rural America. “It pulls one more piece of stability, predictability and reliability from rural America. People don’t like that.”
Across the country, rural residents already have been affected in several ways.
...
— — — — -
Serious question @jolly @Larry I know both of you are involved in farming or know lots of people who are.
From ONLY a farming standpoint, how is the US farmer better off now than when President Trump was elected?
I have talked to farmers in the US (mainly in midwest) and most of them are not really any better off - in fact, because of the trade problems with China, most are worse off - corn and soybeans are worse than they were 4 years ago (either directly or adjusted for inflation). However, the vast majority still strongly support President Trump.
Again, ONLY from a farming standpoint, how is the US farmer better off now than when President Trump was elected?
-
Serious question @jolly @Larry I know both of you are involved in farming or know lots of people who are.
From ONLY a farming standpoint, how is the US farmer better off now than when President Trump was elected?
I have talked to farmers in the US (mainly in midwest) and most of them are not really any better off - in fact, because of the trade problems with China, most are worse off - corn and soybeans are worse than they were 4 years ago (either directly or adjusted for inflation). However, the vast majority still strongly support President Trump.
Again, ONLY from a farming standpoint, how is the US farmer better off now than when President Trump was elected?
@taiwan_girl said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
Serious question @jolly @Larry I know both of you are involved in farming or know lots of people who are.
From ONLY a farming standpoint, how is the US farmer better off now than when President Trump was elected?
I have talked to farmers in the US (mainly in midwest) and most of them are not really any better off - in fact, because of the trade problems with China, most are worse off - corn and soybeans are worse than they were 4 years ago (either directly or adjusted for inflation). However, the vast majority still strongly support President Trump.
Again, ONLY from a farming standpoint, how is the US farmer better off now than when President Trump was elected?
I'm not a farmer, Larry is. But I think you will find, farmer or not, rural America votes conservative. Ask yourself why?
-
Taiwan Girl,
Just a hunch on my part, but maybe farmers vote based on a whole variety of issues and concerns, not just on how they will benefit financially based upon who is president.@Rainman said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
Taiwan Girl,
Just a hunch on my part, but maybe farmers vote based on a whole variety of issues and concerns, not just on how they will benefit financially based upon who is president.Rainman, I understand that.
I was reading a non-fiction book, not important exactly which campaign it was talking about, but for example, use 1992, or 2000, 2008, or 2016
So, the candidate for the party in power is talking to people who have had a tough time over the past 8 years. And he tells them that once he is in power, things will get better.
**And nobody, repeat NOBODY, asks - hey, your party has been power and nothing has been done in the past 4 (or 8 years). In fact, I am worst off now than when you came to power. Why is that? Why should I vote for you?
In reality, they say -"I know you have been in power and I am worst off, but I am going to vote for your party again!!!!!"**
I think 60-70% of the population will vote for a party regardless of who is running and regardless of how their life has been impacted by that party, even if they have been highly negatively impacted.
I know the below is a "generality", but true for the US:
Big city minorities people --> highly Democrat
Rural white people --> highly RepublicIf I am a rural white farmer for example, and I am worst off now than at the beginning of President Trumps term, why would i continue to vote Republic?
If I am big city minority and I was worst off at the end of President Obamas term than at the beginning , why would I vote Democrat in 2016?
(the above are kind of rhetorical question, as I saw it with my parents and grandparents. They would vote DPP in every election, regardless)So, my question I would like feedback on is
Who is that 30-40% of the population that (to me) is the key to the election??
-
You create false conclusions and then build your opinion on top of it. What makes you think far ers are worse off? I've got more corn and soybeans in the field right now than I've ever had. I had a bumper wheat crop. Every field of every farmer anywhere near me has bumper crops , with more acres planted than ever. And not a single farmer that I know of is the slightest bit concerned about having a good market to sell in. In fact, given that China is facing massive famine very shortly I expect prices will set records this fall.
-
You create false conclusions and then build your opinion on top of it. What makes you think far ers are worse off? I've got more corn and soybeans in the field right now than I've ever had. I had a bumper wheat crop. Every field of every farmer anywhere near me has bumper crops , with more acres planted than ever. And not a single farmer that I know of is the slightest bit concerned about having a good market to sell in. In fact, given that China is facing massive famine very shortly I expect prices will set records this fall.
@Larry said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
You create false conclusions and then build your opinion on top of it. What makes you think far ers are worse off? I've got more corn and soybeans in the field right now than I've ever had. I had a bumper wheat crop. Every field of every farmer anywhere near me has bumper crops , with more acres planted than ever. And not a single farmer that I know of is the slightest bit concerned about having a good market to sell in. In fact, given that China is facing massive famine very shortly I expect prices will set records this fall.
Yeah, good point about China, they are experiencing massive flooding. Hope it will bring down the CCP. The bastards deserve to get overthrown, especially for what they did to Hong Kong, and Taiwan is in their sights as it always has been. Anyway. . .
There is something about being out in a rural area, the boonies, away from city life, seeing the stars, experiencing nature.
That's somewhat of a memory for me, we live in the suburbs but my wife's family and extended family all are farmers in the country. And, I grew up with lots of camping and backpacking, lots of time in nature.I was thinking how beneficial it would be, for the protesters and rioters in Portland to just get the heck out of town, and learn to experience what life has to offer, where everything is not oppression and violence and so on. Going out into nature can be healing and get priorities in order.
So, because of Orange Man Bad, the cost of importing from China has skyrocketed for me. I don't like it (tariffs), but I certainly am not basing my vote on just my bank account. Like a farmer, I'll be forced to deal with costs and determine profit potential and cash flow, and like a farmer, I could get screwed by the floods in China, just like a farmer can have a crop destroyed. That's life.
The tariffs were supposed to ruin the soybean farmers and wheat farmers in eastern Oregon. The dems assured a calamity. Didn't happen. And Larry is certainly right that a famine is or will hit mainland China, where the evil Americans will be left out of the loop in political discourse, but in actuality will be supplying food products even if behind the scenes.
-
You create false conclusions and then build your opinion on top of it. What makes you think far ers are worse off? I've got more corn and soybeans in the field right now than I've ever had. I had a bumper wheat crop. Every field of every farmer anywhere near me has bumper crops , with more acres planted than ever. And not a single farmer that I know of is the slightest bit concerned about having a good market to sell in. In fact, given that China is facing massive famine very shortly I expect prices will set records this fall.
@Larry said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
What makes you think far ers are worse off?
Larry, I respectively disagree. You know more about farming than i do, but I have had a fair amount of discussions and research on farming in the US Midwest, so I am not completely ignorant on the subject
In general, the number of US farms is decreasing, and the decrease is mostly not voluntary. Even in Tennessee, the number of farms has decreased by over 20% in the last 20 years. Yes, in some cases, someone may "age" out of farming and may not have anyone to take it over, but in many cases, the economics just do not work out.
Farmers now receive (on average) 40% of their income from the government in the form of government aid tied to trade, disaster assistance, support programs in federal farm legislation and insurance payments.
Every farmer and farm family I have spoke with hates this. They love what they are doing and hate to receive aid, but very few I have spoke with are optimistic towards the future.
I was reading a recent report from an "agricultural economist" at Iowa State University, which said
"The percentage of financially vulnerable farmers climbed from 31% in 2014 to 44% in 2019, according to the report that examines growers' ability to cover short-term liabilities such as seed, fertilizer and herbicides with easily accessible assets such as cash, stored grain and market-ready livestock."
PS I truly am glad that you are doing well.
