Previous 21 - 30 Next
The American public is just as naive as Obama. They think that they can have order without police action. They think they can have privacy of communications without terrorists using that to their advantage. They think they can be "compassionate" to everyone without incenting them to stop working. They think they can have "immigration reform" without secure borders. They think they can have all sorts of entitlement payments provided by The Rich. And so one. And so on. The public wants lots of benefits without bearing the associated costs. It's an adolescent mentality, but "adolescents" vote and politicians do follow the polls.
RE: Susan Rice. None of Bergdahl's fellow soldiers said they would be willing to serve onher.
In response to:

The Troubling Plight of the Modern University

SD3 Wrote: Jun 05, 2014 9:44 AM
I don't think this is odd at all. Take any organization, insulate it from competitive forces, subsidize its customers, remove all accountability and you'll get a similar result. I could tell you some similarly spooky stories about what AT&T was like in the pre-deregulation days.
Back when the USSR promised to "bury us", I kind of hated them, too.
In response to:

The Ambassador and the Post Office

SD3 Wrote: Jun 03, 2014 10:03 AM
The USPS doesn't release mail theft data (gee, I wonder why), but they did arrest 6000 people last year for mail theft, so that probably means there were at least 100,000 they didn't catch.
In response to:

The Ambassador and the Post Office

SD3 Wrote: Jun 03, 2014 9:55 AM
Monopolies cannot exist without government enforcement. That's how AT&T did it for many, many years. That's how cable franchises did it for awhile. Government could have erected a monopoly wall around package delivery for UPS. Fortunately they did not. Mainly because they had their own monopoly they were trying to protect.
It's actually a label that was created by the media so that people who have no official position or power might seem important enough for you to pay attention to them.
Except that only about 20% of households could get a big tax reduction. That's the 20% that pays 94% of the income taxes. In order to give them more money you'd have to start taxing the other 80% again. My guess is that they wouldn't go for that.
In response to:

The Ambassador and the Post Office

SD3 Wrote: Jun 03, 2014 9:30 AM
If UPS had a monopoly wall around it so that it didn't have to compete with anyone, UPS probably wouldn't do very well either. The same government that wails about the deleterious effects of "monopoly' in the private sector, works diligently to eliminate competition from it's own operations..
In response to:

The Ambassador and the Post Office

SD3 Wrote: Jun 03, 2014 9:25 AM
By shielding the Post Office from the effects of competition, government has actually prevented it from making changes to its business that might allow it to survive. It's rather like having an alcoholic in the family and, instead of getting him in an AA program, you enable him to keep drinking until he dies. Becasue you care so much about him, of course.
In response to:

White Privilege

SD3 Wrote: May 28, 2014 9:02 AM
If your 8 year old meant that the AVERAGE WHITE PERSON can get a job more easily than the AVERAGE BLACK PERSON, he's absolutely right. But did the teacher explain that the average person with a high school diploma can get a job more easily than the average person without one? Which factor do you think is making it harder to get that job?
Previous 21 - 30 Next