Perchoutofwater Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 I'd suggest many - but let's say the elderly. As far as computers go - I have never owned a $3,000 computer. I have never seen a $3,000 computer. And the best I can tell, I don't think I have every known everybody who has owned a $3,000 computer. Replace $3,000 with $1,000 and the statements hold true. What a silly thought - that any percent of the poor worth complaining about has a $3,000 computer - but it sure does make them look like they are taking advantage of things. I for one am worried about relying too much on the internet and email and stuff because we have pathetic protection from e-terrorism and if you want to attack America - you don't use a dirty bomb - you go after our computers. It doesn't take a lab, the growing of cells, spent plutonium rods or even a good education. It just takes one guy who is good with computers. I know several people with $3,000 computers. I'd be willing to bet that there are a good number of people that regular this board that have $3,000 computers. Hell, when you consider my docking station, monitor, and laptop I'm over $3,000 and I don't have a high end gaming system. The same holds true for about 1/2 of my office. Most any gaming geek is going to have a computer a lot closer to the $3,000 I mentioned than the $1,000 you are talking about. With regards to your concerns over our reliance on internet and email, we are already there. If internet and email goes down for any significant period of time, not getting a bill or being able to pay a bill for a few days is going to seem insignificant. Having snail mail isn't going to help a whole lot as most invoices are computer generated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 Perch, I am with you on a lot of things, but Congress is mandated in it's powers to establish a post office and post roads. It was never intended to be a profitable endeavor. It was established early as a part of government that would cost tax dollars. Maybe it should be reorganized somewhat, but I am not sure what else you are driving at. I'm just saying it is out dated. It served it's purpose but now there are more reliable (yes I said it) and cost effective ways to communicate over long distances. We no longer need the USPS, and it is just a drain on our tax dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 I'm just saying it is out dated. It served it's purpose but now there are more reliable (yes I said it) and cost effective ways ..... sounds like that whole 'well armed militia' concept to me. and as a pretty much irrelovent aside - when I was gaming on a computer... I don't believe I ever owned one over $600. $800 with video card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) sounds like that whole 'well armed militia' concept to me. Apparently some lawmakers in Oklahoma disagree. The second amendment was as much about people being able to gather together to protect themselves from an overbearing government as it is to protect from the common thief. With the possible exception of the terrible abuses of power under Lincoln and FDR, when has our government been more overbearing? Seriously your trying to compare the right to bare arms to mail delivery? When was the last time a first class letter saved you from someone breaking and entering? and as a pretty much irrelovent aside - when I was gaming on a computer... I don't believe I ever owned one over $600. $800 with video card. Gaming computers google search. Edited April 13, 2010 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 At least this post is honest for once... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 sounds like that whole 'well armed militia' concept to me. and as a pretty much irrelovent aside - when I was gaming on a computer... I don't believe I ever owned one over $600. $800 with video card. You're smarter than this. How about: "A well educated electorate being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed". Is any one of you REALLY going to try and argue that the previous statement means only the well-educated should be allowed to read? For you bozos who REALLY, OBVIOUSLY don't get this - for us to remain free there are 3 things we MUST keep - Guns, Privacy and Private property. Without those, you are owned, lock stock and barrel by the gov't. Line up in the chutes to get your ears tagged, baaaaaaah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 I know several people with $3,000 computers. I'd be willing to bet that there are a good number of people that regular this board that have $3,000 computers. Hell, when you consider my docking station, monitor, and laptop I'm over $3,000 and I don't have a high end gaming system. The same holds true for about 1/2 of my office. Most any gaming geek is going to have a computer a lot closer to the $3,000 I mentioned than the $1,000 you are talking about I think you are getting further out of your water than normal here. I built my own gaming computer for less than half of that and they get cheaper (more bang for your buck at least) every day. Here is a link to the Alienware series via Dell. There is only one (and it is listed as the most powerful ever) that is above 3k. Here is a link to most of their product line and again only one is over 3k and the next closest starts at 1299 (tower only). You are talking about the Henry Muto's of the gaming world if you think people are normally using 3k+ computers (or you are either paying for expensive ACAD/photoshop type software or buying them from someone who is hosing you). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Gaming computers google search. 95% of that first page is the same computer in different colors. Go to the second page and most of them are gaming laptops. Just admit you should have said 2k or something. It is, you know.. ok to not be right 100% of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 I think you are getting further out of your water than normal here. I built my own gaming computer for less than half of that and they get cheaper (more bang for your buck at least) every day. Here is a link to the Alienware series via Dell. There is only one (and it is listed as the most powerful ever) that is above 3k. Here is a link to most of their product line and again only one is over 3k and the next closest starts at 1299 (tower only). You are talking about the Henry Muto's of the gaming world if you think people are normally using 3k+ computers (or you are either paying for expensive ACAD/photoshop type software or buying them from someone who is hosing you). I'm no gaming geek, and we are getting way off the subject, but I've listed several in the previous post that go for over $3,000. I know my set up with laptop, docking station and monitor goes over $3,000 and I know that my spoiled brat of a nephew wants a $3,000 gaming system. Still that really isn't the real argument at hand. Try to stay focused. Tangents are a nice way to get away from the main point, if you don't have a logical argument for your stance, but they are really a waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 95% of that first page is the same computer in different colors. Go to the second page and most of them are gaming laptops. Just admit you should have said 2k or something. It is, you know.. ok to not be right 100% of the time. See post 59, but if it makes you feel better,and will get us off this tangent, I'll amend my previous statement to $2,000 in lieu of $3,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 I'm no gaming geek, and we are getting way off the subject, but I've listed several in the previous post that go for over $3,000. I know my set up with laptop, docking station and monitor goes over $3,000 and I know that my spoiled brat of a nephew wants a $3,000 gaming system. Still that really isn't the real argument at hand. Try to stay focused. Tangents are a nice way to get away from the main point, if you don't have a logical argument for your stance, but they are really a waste of time. Perch . . do you REALLY think that most poor people are buying those computers? As this is central to your theory of "screw the mail, let them have e-mail and internet" your thoughts on the large percentage of poor people that have $3000 computer setups is pretty important . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) Perch . . do you REALLY think that most poor people are buying those computers? As this is central to your theory of "screw the mail, let them have e-mail and internet" your thoughts on the large percentage of poor people that have $3000 computer setups is pretty important . . . Good gosh what is with you libs and tangents today. No I don't think most poor people are buying $3,000 computers, having said that If someone is getting government assistance and they buy a $3,000 computer government assistance should end. If they buy a $1,000 computer, have cable internet, and flat screen, government assistance should end. Now do you care to get back to the subject at hand? I'm not going to waste anymore time on this computer tangent. ETA: Could my conservative friends remind me not to use hyperbole again, apparently liberals don't get it unless it comes from Olbermann, Madcow, or something like that. Edited April 13, 2010 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) Perch . . do you REALLY think that most poor people are buying those computers? As this is central to your theory of "screw the mail, let them have e-mail and internet" your thoughts on the large percentage of poor people that have $3000 computer setups is pretty important . . . He did say that he'd be cool with the computer and dial up for people - and all in all it isn't very relevant to the topic, just as Perch said. I just wanted to point out what seemed like a inconsistancy in Perch's views on the poor regarding what they are allowed to have and what they are not allowed to have and he clairified. The only relevance I can see to my highjacking at this point is that Perch has no idea about lower income people or their lives and seems to base his opinions off of cartoon like extremes because it helps him paint them as lazy and greedy. I am not saying that there aren't irresponsible people other there or people who try to take advantage of the system but that these extremes that he hears about should not be applied to poor across the board. Edited April 13, 2010 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 I applaud Obama for finally tackling this ticking time bomb, but not in love with some of the components (including paying for illegal's heathcare) Specifically excluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) For you bozos who REALLY, OBVIOUSLY don't get this - for us to remain free there are 3 things we MUST keep - Guns, Privacy and Private property. Without those, you are owned, lock stock and barrel by the gov't. Line up in the chutes to get your ears tagged, baaaaaaah Edited April 13, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 The only relevance I can see to my highjacking at this point is that Perch has no idea about lower income people or their lives and seems to base his opinions off of cartoon like extremes because it helps him paint them as lazy and greedy. I am not saying that there aren't irresponsible people other there or people who try to take advantage of the system but that these extremes that he hears about should not be applied to poor across the board. My wife and I lived the first 18 months of our marriage on her $19,500 1st year teacher's salary. The only debt we had was a modest car note on a used car and my student loan. We lived in a 450 sf one bed room apartment. There was a guy on house arrest across the breezeway from us, and the DEA raided the apartment directly below us about 5:00 am one morning, as I was getting ready to commute to school. We allowed ourselves to eat out twice a month, all other meals were prepared at home. We had one TV that had basic cable and a used VCR we bought at a garage sale. We almost all of our shopping at the Walmart. Our one splurge was that we paid $35 a month to be members of a small 9 hole golf course. We played together at least 4 times a week during the afternoons or on weekend. So, each round of golf cost us about $1.10. We purposefully put of having kids until we could afford them. I've had to live on very little before, and honestly it was some of our happiest times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 How many people in the US do not have access to a computer, either at home, school, work, or a library? 3,052. What do I win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Keg - this is one of the most lucid pro-USPS arguments I've heard, but the point still remains that all those folks could/should/would find other employment. If a business model is unsustainable, then why the hell would you want gov't to keep propping it up for some printer's job? The auto ruined the whole buggy, buggy whip, etc. industries just the way electronic services are ruining the PO. The difference is that fedgov didn't keep them afloat. They found other productive employment. Just like postal workers, printers, ink manufacturers, etc. should do. I wasn't defending the USPS...I was commenting regarding this statement that perch made which was just well, stupid Those circulars that were successful would pay to be sent out via FedEx or UPS. The reason I then went on about the unintended consequences is because as soon as government(obama) were to get rid of the USPS perch would be here complaining about the rate of unemployment and pointing to how it is obama's fault because he squashed the USPS.... I guess I need to start reading all the posts in a thread before I start to comment. That is just scary. about as scary as thinking you had a problem with the USPS back when we had a republican president for 8yrs....again as pointed out above my very sarcastic reply (inlcuding the unintended consequences) was because of your bashing of basically everything that has to do with this government(and no I didnt vote for Obama)....I guess I am just tired of the us versus them mentality and until we can get past that well it sure looks like things will unfortunately remain the same Oh and by the way if you think that those people would so easily find a job I say you stop living in your dream world...there are jobs yes but it is real that there are many that are jobless and have very little hope....and many are from companies that have been forced to shutter in "small towns" there are thousands that are out of work in the smithfield area due to Smithfield foods closing a plant...same goes for a paper plant in the west point area of virginia....yeah some business models are old and outdated and the market will see fit that they wont survive but dont just be smug and say they will find jobs in the new technology because the truth is that many of them wont and that is a sad reality for those people and their families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 My wife and I lived the first 18 months of our marriage on her $19,500 1st year teacher's salary. The only debt we had was a modest car note on a used car and my student loan. We lived in a 450 sf one bed room apartment. There was a guy on house arrest across the breezeway from us, and the DEA raided the apartment directly below us about 5:00 am one morning, as I was getting ready to commute to school. We allowed ourselves to eat out twice a month, all other meals were prepared at home. We had one TV that had basic cable and a used VCR we bought at a garage sale. We almost all of our shopping at the Walmart. Our one splurge was that we paid $35 a month to be members of a small 9 hole golf course. We played together at least 4 times a week during the afternoons or on weekend. So, each round of golf cost us about $1.10. We purposefully put of having kids until we could afford them. I've had to live on very little before, and honestly it was some of our happiest times. you lived within your means now tell me what happens when you have worked for say Verizon for 40 years and are making a good salary and living within your means but that of course is well above what you wrote above because of course you have children and were making a much better salary but now find yourself unemployed....not everyone that finds they are in dire straights is there because they were living beyond their means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Perch, I am with you on a lot of things, but Congress is mandated in it's powers to establish a post office and post roads. It was never intended to be a profitable endeavor. It was established early as a part of government that would cost tax dollars. Maybe it should be reorganized somewhat, but I am not sure what else you are driving at. that he hates Obama and the Democrats and anyone else not Republican Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 about as scary as thinking you had a problem with the USPS back when we had a republican president for 8yrs....again as pointed out above my very sarcastic reply (inlcuding the unintended consequences) was because of your bashing of basically everything that has to do with this government(and no I didnt vote for Obama)....I guess I am just tired of the us versus them mentality and until we can get past that well it sure looks like things will unfortunately remain the same Oh and by the way if you think that those people would so easily find a job I say you stop living in your dream world...there are jobs yes but it is real that there are many that are jobless and have very little hope....and many are from companies that have been forced to shutter in "small towns" there are thousands that are out of work in the smithfield area due to Smithfield foods closing a plant...same goes for a paper plant in the west point area of virginia....yeah some business models are old and outdated and the market will see fit that they wont survive but dont just be smug and say they will find jobs in the new technology because the truth is that many of them wont and that is a sad reality for those people and their families. that he hates Obama and the Democrats and anyone else not Republican Really, I've been pretty consistent with my thoughts on the USPS. It has nothing to do with Obama as much as you might like to dismiss it as such. We use FedEx more than anthing else, as we have to overnight submittals and large documents on a regular basis. We generally use UPS for sending on plans as they are cheaper. My question is, do we still need the USPS? Why do our tax dollars go to funding them, when they spend almost as much on advertising as they bring in in postage? They continually loose money. To me it seems just like another form of welfare. Well maybe not welfare, but workfare. Isn't it time that all postal service be private? I won't hold my breath waiting for you apology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) you lived within your means now tell me what happens when you have worked for say Verizon for 40 years and are making a good salary and living within your means but that of course is well above what you wrote above because of course you have children and were making a much better salary but now find yourself unemployed....not everyone that finds they are in dire straights is there because they were living beyond their means. I would hope that people would try to save a little bit, but I realize unexpected events happen, which is why you've never heard me complaining about short-term unemployment insurance. I do have a problem with 2 years of unemployment insurance that recently passed, but not short term. ETA: I'd rather have the federal government get out of unemployment benefits, and leave it strictly to the states. Edited April 14, 2010 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Really, I've been pretty consistent with my thoughts on the USPS. It has nothing to do with Obama as much as you might like to dismiss it as such. I won't hold my breath waiting for you apology well I apologize, you actually had a problem with the USPS back in 2005....does this mean that you will now at least answer my PM/Trade offer at MFL about Jamal Charles oh and fwiw there was a post below the one you linked to by kid cid that made me do a google search and I found this: http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/postalfacts.htm 0 — tax dollars received for operating the Postal Service there is also this: http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/Approp...s2009_Final.pdf which shows they got appropriations but I found that in a thread (in linkdin the author is listed as Division Leader at Primerica Financial Services...if that means anything) in my google search and this is a cut and paste that someone said with regards to the appropriations: The answer is yes and no. The second citation you give does show that the post office received tax money for a program for providing free mail for the blind and for overseas voters. So that is a government appropriation for a specific program, but private companies also get government grants for administering free programs to the needy, so I don't think that really contradicts the assertion that it "uses no tax money to operate". Those funds are not used for operating expenses. The first citation specifically states "Congress does not provide funds for either general operations or capital investments." So again that doesn't really contradict the main statement. What you may find confusing are the statements about getting funding for previously underfunded years, etc. But again, those have to do with funds for "free and reduced-rate mail for the blind and overseas voters." As for the post office being forced to compete with private industry, let's remember that the post office is required to provide mail service everywhere in the country for one fixed price. Imagine the howls of protest if it charged more money to send a letter to Hawaii or rural Montana than it did to send the same letter to New York City. That's why there are no private companies delivering 1st class mail, only express mail and packages where they can price their service based on their cost of delivery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 As for the post office being forced to compete with private industry, let's remember that the post office is required to provide mail service everywhere in the country for one fixed price. Imagine the howls of protest if it charged more money to send a letter to Hawaii or rural Montana than it did to send the same letter to New York City. That's why there are no private companies delivering 1st class mail, only express mail and packages where they can price their service based on their cost of delivery. This. I use USPS for parcels all the time. I like the staff in my local Post Office and the parcels get there when they say they will, if not earlier. In comparison, FedEx and UPS are a pair of robber barons employing total incompetents who struggle to speak English or weigh a shipment. There's a crapload more paperwork with the two private companies too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 14, 2010 Author Share Posted April 14, 2010 well I apologize, you actually had a problem with the USPS back in 2005....does this mean that you will now at least answer my PM/Trade offer at MFL about Jamal Charles oh and fwiw there was a post below the one you linked to by kid cid that made me do a google search and I found this: http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/postalfacts.htm 0 — tax dollars received for operating the Postal Service there is also this: http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/Approp...s2009_Final.pdf which shows they got appropriations but I found that in a thread (in linkdin the author is listed as Division Leader at Primerica Financial Services...if that means anything) in my google search and this is a cut and paste that someone said with regards to the appropriations: The answer is yes and no. The second citation you give does show that the post office received tax money for a program for providing free mail for the blind and for overseas voters. So that is a government appropriation for a specific program, but private companies also get government grants for administering free programs to the needy, so I don't think that really contradicts the assertion that it "uses no tax money to operate". Those funds are not used for operating expenses. The first citation specifically states "Congress does not provide funds for either general operations or capital investments." So again that doesn't really contradict the main statement. What you may find confusing are the statements about getting funding for previously underfunded years, etc. But again, those have to do with funds for "free and reduced-rate mail for the blind and overseas voters." As for the post office being forced to compete with private industry, let's remember that the post office is required to provide mail service everywhere in the country for one fixed price. Imagine the howls of protest if it charged more money to send a letter to Hawaii or rural Montana than it did to send the same letter to New York City. That's why there are no private companies delivering 1st class mail, only express mail and packages where they can price their service based on their cost of delivery. The USPS hasn't been directly funded by tax dollars since 1980. What sucks is they have a legal monopoly, but due to utter incompetency and unions we (or at least those of us that pay taxes) are probably going to get to bail it out. My biggest problem with all of this is that the government is supplanting the free market. Call me crazy but I think it should cost me more to mail a letter to Hawaii than it does to mail a letter 30 miles away. FWIW I'm still contemplating the trade offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.