Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Ok, let me say, I found this to be an odd choice of words for him and the whole thing quite humorous. This is not a bash on Obama, just shows how off track this legislation has gotten. Though, I'm not sure comparing the proposed health insurance "public option" to the USPS is the direction to go.
This an article on it from the Washington Post, I saw the video this morning on MSNBC.

President Obama made what his advisers believe were his first public comments on the U.S. Postal Service on Tuesday, basically knocking its performance during his health-care-themed town hall in New Hampshire.

He said an audience member raised a "legitimate concern" about how a government-run health-care program might affect private insurers.

"My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time."

Then he invoked the Postal Service:

"I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federa ... s-col-blog

ASUMountaineer wrote:Ok, let me say, I found this to be an odd choice of words for him and the whole thing quite humorous. This is not a bash on Obama, just shows how off track this legislation has gotten. Though, I'm not sure comparing the proposed health insurance "public option" to the USPS is the direction to go.
This an article on it from the Washington Post, I saw the video this morning on MSNBC.

President Obama made what his advisers believe were his first public comments on the U.S. Postal Service on Tuesday, basically knocking its performance during his health-care-themed town hall in New Hampshire.

He said an audience member raised a "legitimate concern" about how a government-run health-care program might affect private insurers.

"My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time."

Then he invoked the Postal Service:

"I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federa ... s-col-blog

Huh? What?

So, Capitalism is working whereas the Gov't Service isn't? Did he just say that?

He's a moron. Must not have been on a teleprompter at the time.

What a dumbass.

....that sound you hear is all the sheeple on this board madly scrambling to login to moveon.org and dailykos to get their talking points for this latest gaffe.

AZGrizFan wrote:....that sound you hear is all the sheeple on this board madly scrambling to login to moveon.org and dailykos to get their talking points for this latest gaffe.

Yep...either he's lamenting the inefficiency of the USPS or using a model of inefficiency (USPS) to justify his Government-run Healthcare. Perhaps a more appropriate phrase would have been:

"If our government can create and implement an Armed Forces capable of scaling the cliffs of Normandy, surely this government can figure out healthcare"

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:....that sound you hear is all the sheeple on this board madly scrambling to login to moveon.org and dailykos to get their talking points for this latest gaffe.

Yep...either he's lamenting the inefficiency of the USPS or using a model of inefficiency (USPS) to justify his Government-run Healthcare. Perhaps a more appropriate phrase would have been:

"If our government can create and implement an Armed Forces capable of scaling the cliffs of Normandy, surely this government can figure out healthcare"

Well, he WOULD have, but he didn't have a teleprompter.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
Yep...either he's lamenting the inefficiency of the USPS or using a model of inefficiency (USPS) to justify his Government-run Healthcare. Perhaps a more appropriate phrase would have been:

"If our government can create and implement an Armed Forces capable of scaling the cliffs of Normandy, surely this government can figure out healthcare"

Well, he WOULD have, but he didn't have a teleprompter.

Obama's USPS reference =

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, he WOULD have, but he didn't have a teleprompter.

Everyone of these guys reads off a teleprompter I find it amusing that this is one of Obama's biggest criticisms. If Bush Jr. could have read the English language, perhaps he wouldn't have had so many Gaffs either.

On the other hand, quite the poor choice of an analogy. "Well see, the private sector has got it right... It's like uh... uh....uhhh... uh well oiled machine while the public sector. Well they uh, they couldn't find their glasses if they were right in front of them."

JMU DJ wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, he WOULD have, but he didn't have a teleprompter.

Everyone of these guys reads off a teleprompter I find it amusing that this is one of Obama's biggest criticisms. If Bush Jr. could have read the English language, perhaps he wouldn't have had so many Gaffs either.

On the other hand, quite the poor choice of an analogy. "Well see, the private sector has got it right... It's like uh... uh....uhhh... uh well oiled machine while the public sector. Well they uh, they couldn't find their glasses if they were right in front of them."

I find it amusing that he's constantly passed off as a great SPEAKER. He's a great READER. As soon as he has to think for himself, he's FUCKED. There are countless examples of this from the runup to the election and beyond. His handlers have got to be collectively holding their fucking breath EVERY time he has to go "off the grid" and answer a question without having it written down and rehearsed. But we do agree that it (again) was a VERY poor choice of an analogy, and AGAIN undermined his own cause. The guy can't even get out of his own way....first the "Cambridge Incident" he felt he MUST comment on at a healthcare news conference, and now this.

He'll have nobody to blame but himself when this thing goes down in flames.

No doubt, many people can be great orators when they have the time to prepare, others can answer a question on the spot and talk for hours without prep time... Mr. POTUS seems like the latter... I like the guy, but am liking him less almost every day. I still don't believe he's answered the question of whether or not citizens would be denied health care under the Health Care Reform, including those with preexisting conditions.

MarkCCU wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:Ok, let me say, I found this to be an odd choice of words for him and the whole thing quite humorous. This is not a bash on Obama, just shows how off track this legislation has gotten. Though, I'm not sure comparing the proposed health insurance "public option" to the USPS is the direction to go.
This an article on it from the Washington Post, I saw the video this morning on MSNBC.



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federa ... s-col-blog

Huh? What?

So, Capitalism is working whereas the Gov't Service isn't? Did he just say that?

He did.

the logical fallacy that you are falling in to is the notion that USPS is supposed to make money - it isn't. the mistake, is the expectation that somehow usps will draw a profit.

usps is a surprisingly successful venture - contrary to conk protestations. usps and fedex/ups serve two VERY different sets of needs. the private sector, doing what is profitable, has essentially taken the profitable portions of usps business, and left the rest to the postal service.

the postal service has a set of defined goals that include providing mail service to every address in the entire country - something that, quite frankly cannot be profitable, but has a public benefit (i think you could argue that that benefit has been on the decline as electronic communications have emerged and prospered, but thats another issue). however, for 234 years, it has provided immense benefits to both commercial and private needs. providing service to places no private courier would because it wasn't profitable - however, like health care, there is a DISCERNIBLE PUBLIC GOOD that can be derived from the government stepping in and providing a level of service that the private sector refuses to provide. No, it won't be profitable, but that's why the private sector, motivated by profit, and nothing else, hasn't done it.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the logical fallacy that you are falling in to is the notion that USPS is supposed to make money - it isn't. the mistake, is the expectation that somehow usps will draw a profit.

usps is a surprisingly successful venture - contrary to conk protestations. usps and fedex/ups serve two VERY different sets of needs. the private sector, doing what is profitable, has essentially taken the profitable portions of usps business, and left the rest to the postal service.

the postal service has a set of defined goals that include providing mail service to every address in the entire country - something that, quite frankly cannot be profitable, but has a public benefit (i think you could argue that that benefit has been on the decline as electronic communications have emerged and prospered, but thats another issue). however, for 234 years, it has provided immense benefits to both commercial and private needs. providing service to places no private courier would because it wasn't profitable - however, like health care, there is a DISCERNIBLE PUBLIC GOOD that can be derived from the government stepping in and providing a level of service that the private sector refuses to provide. No, it won't be profitable, but that's why the private sector, motivated by profit, and nothing else, hasn't done it.

Right, so what you are saying, is a publicly funded entity will never turn a profit and thus rack up debt resulting in the ultimate failure of the aforementioned system, or the increase in taxes to the rich. Got it

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the logical fallacy that you are falling in to is the notion that USPS is supposed to make money - it isn't. the mistake, is the expectation that somehow usps will draw a profit.

usps is a surprisingly successful venture - contrary to conk protestations. usps and fedex/ups serve two VERY different sets of needs. the private sector, doing what is profitable, has essentially taken the profitable portions of usps business, and left the rest to the postal service.

the postal service has a set of defined goals that include providing mail service to every address in the entire country - something that, quite frankly cannot be profitable, but has a public benefit (i think you could argue that that benefit has been on the decline as electronic communications have emerged and prospered, but thats another issue). however, for 234 years, it has provided immense benefits to both commercial and private needs. providing service to places no private courier would because it wasn't profitable - however, like health care, there is a DISCERNIBLE PUBLIC GOOD that can be derived from the government stepping in and providing a level of service that the private sector refuses to provide. No, it won't be profitable, but that's why the private sector, motivated by profit, and nothing else, hasn't done it.

So it's now considered successful when you lose billions of dollars a year? We're not even talking about breaking even, we're talking a loss of billions every year.

BeauFoster wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the logical fallacy that you are falling in to is the notion that USPS is supposed to make money - it isn't. the mistake, is the expectation that somehow usps will draw a profit.

usps is a surprisingly successful venture - contrary to conk protestations. usps and fedex/ups serve two VERY different sets of needs. the private sector, doing what is profitable, has essentially taken the profitable portions of usps business, and left the rest to the postal service.

the postal service has a set of defined goals that include providing mail service to every address in the entire country - something that, quite frankly cannot be profitable, but has a public benefit (i think you could argue that that benefit has been on the decline as electronic communications have emerged and prospered, but thats another issue). however, for 234 years, it has provided immense benefits to both commercial and private needs. providing service to places no private courier would because it wasn't profitable - however, like health care, there is a DISCERNIBLE PUBLIC GOOD that can be derived from the government stepping in and providing a level of service that the private sector refuses to provide. No, it won't be profitable, but that's why the private sector, motivated by profit, and nothing else, hasn't done it.

So it's now considered successful when you lose billions of dollars a year? We're not even talking about breaking even, we're talking a loss of billions every year.

the private sector mentality and approach to running a government agency is nonsense. by it's nature, the agency exists because the private sector cannot turn a profit doing it. so to expect a government agency to turn a profit, where no company has, and has completely abandoned the sector is absurd.

the whole notion of "running government like a business" is a fools errand. by it's nature, business cannot do the things we ask government to do, because it cannot do them and make a profit, so it just doesn't do it. in some cases, the private sector can do a portion of what we want, and is in the public interest, but it cannot do all of it. when that happens, and there is sufficient public good to be gained, government steps in to achieve the results the private sector cannot, or more likely will not achieve.

So because some jackoff in DC thinks that Billy Bob in Podunk, Texas needs to get his mail 6 days a week the notion of a balanced budget should just be thrown out the window? I don't care if it's run like a business or not. I frankly could care less if there is a surplus at the end of the year. But stop spending billions and billions of dollars that we don't have and have yet to figure out a way to recoup.

The USPS and this health care bill are one in the same - fucking 85-90% of the people to "help" the other 10-15%.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the logical fallacy that you are falling in to is the notion that USPS is supposed to make money - it isn't. the mistake, is the expectation that somehow usps will draw a profit.

usps is a surprisingly successful venture - contrary to conk protestations. usps and fedex/ups serve two VERY different sets of needs. the private sector, doing what is profitable, has essentially taken the profitable portions of usps business, and left the rest to the postal service.

the postal service has a set of defined goals that include providing mail service to every address in the entire country - something that, quite frankly cannot be profitable, but has a public benefit (i think you could argue that that benefit has been on the decline as electronic communications have emerged and prospered, but thats another issue). however, for 234 years, it has provided immense benefits to both commercial and private needs. providing service to places no private courier would because it wasn't profitable - however, like health care, there is a DISCERNIBLE PUBLIC GOOD that can be derived from the government stepping in and providing a level of service that the private sector refuses to provide. No, it won't be profitable, but that's why the private sector, motivated by profit, and nothing else, hasn't done it.

Go back and read your response, TT. The private sector has TAKEN the profitable portions of the USPS business, and left the rest to the postal service. Why, pray tell, are they able to do that? Perhaps it's because as a bloated, beauraucratic government agency it isn't able to COMPETE against private enterprise? Therefore, it's left with the unprofitable scraps of an industry that nobody else wants to deal with? If the USPS was such a wonderfully run government entity, THEY would be taking the profitabl parts from the PRIVATE sector. Now, apply that analogy to healthcare.

It ain't a pretty picture.

AZGrizFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the logical fallacy that you are falling in to is the notion that USPS is supposed to make money - it isn't. the mistake, is the expectation that somehow usps will draw a profit.

usps is a surprisingly successful venture - contrary to conk protestations. usps and fedex/ups serve two VERY different sets of needs. the private sector, doing what is profitable, has essentially taken the profitable portions of usps business, and left the rest to the postal service.

the postal service has a set of defined goals that include providing mail service to every address in the entire country - something that, quite frankly cannot be profitable, but has a public benefit (i think you could argue that that benefit has been on the decline as electronic communications have emerged and prospered, but thats another issue). however, for 234 years, it has provided immense benefits to both commercial and private needs. providing service to places no private courier would because it wasn't profitable - however, like health care, there is a DISCERNIBLE PUBLIC GOOD that can be derived from the government stepping in and providing a level of service that the private sector refuses to provide. No, it won't be profitable, but that's why the private sector, motivated by profit, and nothing else, hasn't done it.

Go back and read your response, TT. The private sector has TAKEN the profitable portions of the USPS business, and left the rest to the postal service. Why, pray tell, are they able to do that? Perhaps it's because as a bloated, beauraucratic government agency it isn't able to COMPETE against private enterprise? Therefore, it's left with the unprofitable scraps of an industry that nobody else wants to deal with? If the USPS was such a wonderfully run government entity, THEY would be taking the profitabl parts from the PRIVATE sector. Now, apply that analogy to healthcare.

It ain't a pretty picture.

no - that's nonsense. the government doesn't exist to make a damned profit. that's not the point. it steps in when there is a public need to be served, and the private sector can't or won't. and in the case of health care, and the mail... that's the case.

the misnomer is that the USPS job is to compete with ups and fedex... and it isn't. same with a public option health plan... the job won't be to compete with private insurance, it will be to do the job private industry won't do and cover the Americans they won't cover. this is not designed to be profitable, but rather to achieve a public good.

Well, at least he isn't "misunderestimating" his own health care reform.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Go back and read your response, TT. The private sector has TAKEN the profitable portions of the USPS business, and left the rest to the postal service. Why, pray tell, are they able to do that? Perhaps it's because as a bloated, beauraucratic government agency it isn't able to COMPETE against private enterprise? Therefore, it's left with the unprofitable scraps of an industry that nobody else wants to deal with? If the USPS was such a wonderfully run government entity, THEY would be taking the profitabl parts from the PRIVATE sector. Now, apply that analogy to healthcare.

It ain't a pretty picture.

no - that's nonsense. the government doesn't exist to make a damned profit. that's not the point. it steps in when there is a public need to be served, and the private sector can't or won't. and in the case of health care, and the mail... that's the case.

the misnomer is that the USPS job is to compete with ups and fedex... and it isn't. same with a public option health plan... the job won't be to compete with private insurance, it will be to do the job private industry won't do and cover the Americans they won't cover. this is not designed to be profitable, but rather to achieve a public good.

THAT'S nonsense. Why can't the government turn a profit? Why can UPS do (WITH A PROFIT) what the USPS couldn't? It's because of the BLOAT, TT. Plain and simple. The bureacuracy. The red tape. The government overregulation. With government healthcare, we'll end up with another bloated government department doing for $100 billion what could have been done for $50 billion. THAT is not my idea of "public good".

AZGrizFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
no - that's nonsense. the government doesn't exist to make a damned profit. that's not the point. it steps in when there is a public need to be served, and the private sector can't or won't. and in the case of health care, and the mail... that's the case.

the misnomer is that the USPS job is to compete with ups and fedex... and it isn't. same with a public option health plan... the job won't be to compete with private insurance, it will be to do the job private industry won't do and cover the Americans they won't cover. this is not designed to be profitable, but rather to achieve a public good.

THAT'S nonsense. Why can't the government turn a profit? Why can UPS do (WITH A PROFIT) what the USPS couldn't? It's because of the BLOAT, TT. Plain and simple. The bureacuracy. The red tape. The government overregulation. With government healthcare, we'll end up with another bloated government department doing for $100 billion what could have been done for $50 billion. THAT is not my idea of "public good".

no, you ignoramus.. because it's doing a job that private companies won't do because they are amoral, and driven only by their own profit motive. the government steps in and provides the public with a service that the private sector WON'T DO. it does this because there is a tangible benefit to doing something the right way, serving the whole public, not just the segments that are profitable. this is why things like usps don't turn a profit, because they can't by design. and if they could, private industry would be doing it... but it turns out the providing the daily mail to every address in America isn't something UPS or FedEx is interested in doing.

BeauFoster wrote:So because some jackoff in DC thinks that Billy Bob in Podunk, Texas needs to get his mail 6 days a week the notion of a balanced budget should just be thrown out the window? I don't care if it's run like a business or not. I frankly could care less if there is a surplus at the end of the year. But stop spending billions and billions of dollars that we don't have and have yet to figure out a way to recoup.

The USPS and this health care bill are one in the same - **** 85-90% of the people to "help" the other 10-15%.

Yes...similar to NC government plan to insure structures in hurricane-prone areas.....

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
THAT'S nonsense. Why can't the government turn a profit? Why can UPS do (WITH A PROFIT) what the USPS couldn't? It's because of the BLOAT, TT. Plain and simple. The bureacuracy. The red tape. The government overregulation. With government healthcare, we'll end up with another bloated government department doing for $100 billion what could have been done for $50 billion. THAT is not my idea of "public good".

no, you ignoramus.. because it's doing a job that private companies won't do because they are amoral, and driven only by their own profit motive. the government steps in and provides the public with a service that the private sector WON'T DO. it does this because there is a tangible benefit to doing something the right way, serving the whole public, not just the segments that are profitable. this is why things like usps don't turn a profit, because they can't by design. and if they could, private industry would be doing it... but it turns out the providing the daily mail to every address in America isn't something UPS or FedEx is interested in doing.

There's no need for name-calling. You're missing my point. Answer me this one simple question: Why can't the USPS perform the segments that are profitable? Why is it apparently IMPOSSIBLE for the U.S. Government to do something using a similar business model to private enterprise and actually COMPETE for the profitable segments of the business? Why must they be left with the scraps and lose $2-$3 BILLION a year? Why can't they do some of the profitable pieces and offset some/all of that loss?

AZGrizFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
no, you ignoramus.. because it's doing a job that private companies won't do because they are amoral, and driven only by their own profit motive. the government steps in and provides the public with a service that the private sector WON'T DO. it does this because there is a tangible benefit to doing something the right way, serving the whole public, not just the segments that are profitable. this is why things like usps don't turn a profit, because they can't by design. and if they could, private industry would be doing it... but it turns out the providing the daily mail to every address in America isn't something UPS or FedEx is interested in doing.

There's no need for name-calling. You're missing my point. Answer me this one simple question: Why can't the USPS perform the segments that are profitable? Why is it apparently IMPOSSIBLE for the U.S. Government to do something using a similar business model to private enterprise and actually COMPETE for the profitable segments of the business? Why must they be left with the scraps and lose $2-$3 BILLION a year? Why can't they do some of the profitable pieces and offset some/all of that loss?

Because its illegal for one. The US Gov't has the inherent ability to unfairly compete if it wanted to. Imagine a business that can write its own federal governing regulations.......without having to pay off Ted Stevens to do it.