Will Republicans Hold The Senate And House?
Poll
 | 7 votes (43.75%) | ||
| | 7 votes (43.75%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 2 votes (12.5%) |
16 members have voted
Quote: WatchMeWinIt is going to be interesting.
Got a 100.00 riding on this with Wellwellwell regarding the House
I can still lose
but
I like me chances :-)
Quote: terapinedGot a 100.00 riding on this with Wellwellwell regarding the House
I can still lose
but
I like me chances :-)
As long as the Dems keep talking and pulling their stunts, you have a great chance!
Dems are motivated. Republicans were not until the circus the Dems made of the Kavanaugh hearings. Now both are about equal.
What we do not have is this "I wish I had not voted for Trump" thing the media is pushing. Trump rallies are still over-packed.
It will be about turnout. If the GOP holds the liberals will go even crazier.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe media has reported there will be a "Blue Wave" from Feb 2017. Same people who predicted a Hillary win are predicting the Dems capture almost by the same amounts.
Yes, but there's no electoral college in play with these elections. The media/pollsters predicted a Hillary win; they were "right" in that she "won" the popular vote within the margin of error that was predicted.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe media has reported there will be a "Blue Wave" from Feb 2017. Same people who predicted a Hillary win are predicting the Dems capture almost by the same amounts.
Dems are motivated. Republicans were not until the circus the Dems made of the Kavanaugh hearings. Now both are about equal.
What we do not have is this "I wish I had not voted for Trump" thing the media is pushing. Trump rallies are still over-packed.
It will be about turnout. If the GOP holds the liberals will go even crazier.
This is just a lot of words without actually making a prediction.
Quote: TigerWuYes, but there's no electoral college in play with these elections. The media/pollsters predicted a Hillary win; they were "right" in that she "won" the popular vote within the margin of error that was predicted.
Nice spin! I think they actually predicted that she win the election, which required winning the electoral vote.
Quote: RonCNice spin! I think they actually predicted to win the election, which required winning the electoral vote.
???
I wasn't spinning anything. I was stating facts. Fivethirtyeight gave Hillary a 71% chance of winning overall by 67 electoral votes, and you're right, she obviously didn't get the electoral votes (and I never said she did). But the popular vote was predicted in Hillary's favor by 3.6%, and she actually "won" that by 2.1%. So that specific prediction was correct, but didn't give her the win, which is why I put "right" in quotation marks when referring to the accuracy of the prediction.
There are no electoral votes in play for the midterms. Just popular votes. That's all I'm saying.
Quote: TigerWu???
I wasn't spinning anything. I was stating facts. Fivethirtyeight gave Hillary a 71% chance of winning overall by 67 electoral votes, and you're right, she obviously didn't get the electoral votes (and I never said she did). But the popular vote was predicted in Hillary's favor by 3.6%, and she actually "won" that by 2.1%. So that specific prediction was correct, but didn't give her the win, which is why I put "right" in quotation marks when referring to the accuracy of the prediction.
There are no electoral votes in play for the midterms. Just popular votes. That's all I'm saying.
The popular vote total overall is not even considered for the Presidency. Candidates run to win the electoral college. Yet we still talk about it as if it was important to the Presidential election. The other candidate lost the only election that counted.
Correct--this is popular vote in each area, but I am not sure how much I trust polls at all after Mission's article!
Quote: TigerWuYes, but there's no electoral college in play with these elections. The media/pollsters predicted a Hillary win; they were "right" in that she "won" the popular vote within the margin of error that was predicted.
Which is why just taking a generic poll is not the way to do it. Recently it has been "prefer Democrat +6%" or so. But that is skewed by heavy Democrat Party strongholds that might be +40. Dick Morris pointed this out and stated a Democrat advantage in the generic of up to around 5% is really a dead heat.
The talking heads tend to live in heavy Democrat areas that are inside their bubble. They think that there are masses who are "sorry they voted for Trump." The crowds at Trump rallies show otherwise. His approval rating shows otherwise. Seriously, the "Blue Wave" story was started weeks after Trump took office. If we get said wave, it is because of turnout, not because Trump voters flipped.
Quote: RonCThe popular vote total overall is not even considered for the Presidency. Candidates run to win the electoral college. Yet we still talk about it as if it was important to the Presidential election. The other candidate lost the only election that counted.
Correct--this is popular vote in each area, but I am not sure how much I trust polls at all after Mission's article!
I missed that article... but polls are never going to be 100% accurate anyway, so no one should be surprised if they get it wrong every once in a while. I don't think any poll anywhere gave Hillary a 100% iron clad chance of winning, despite what a lot of people think.
Fivethirtyeight gave Hillary a 71% chance of winning... right now they have an 84% chance of Dems taking the House. So we'll see how accurate they are this time around.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf we get said wave, it is because of turnout, not because Trump voters flipped.
Yes, I agree that voter turnout is what is going to factor in here, not people flipping sides one way or another. Same for 2020.
Quote: TigerWuYes, but there's no electoral college in play with these elections. The media/pollsters predicted a Hillary win; they were "right" in that she "won" the popular vote within the margin of error that was predicted.
Quote: TigerWu???
I wasn't spinning anything. I was stating facts. Fivethirtyeight gave Hillary a 71% chance of winning overall by 67 electoral votes, and you're right, she obviously didn't get the electoral votes (and I never said she did). But the popular vote was predicted in Hillary's favor by 3.6%, and she actually "won" that by 2.1%. So that specific prediction was correct, but didn't give her the win, which is why I put "right" in quotation marks when referring to the accuracy of the prediction.
There are no electoral votes in play for the midterms. Just popular votes. That's all I'm saying.
Unless the statisticians are legitimately retarded and didn't graduate with any degree whatsoever, there's absolutely no way in hell they were basing Hillary winning the election based on what they expected the popular vote turnout to be.
A real world equivalency would be if a statistician thought someone was an expert sports bettor because they have a 90% winrate, even though they're only laying -2,000 odds or longer. There is no way a legitimate statistician would do that.
I don't see how the electoral college matters when determining how likely/unlikely someone is to win the presidency vs the house/senate taking or keeping control. The only discrepancy I can see would be in the case of faithless electors in the EC. Even though there were faithless electors this previous election, they didn't swing the outcome.
I don't think the problem came from faulty statistician logic (like you're saying, they just looked at popular vote or something???), but due to poor polling and the instant out-rage and immediate calling someone a racist, rapist supporter, nazi, etc. etc. when someone would say (or still says, today) they support Trump. I would expect or at least hope that now the statisticians have taken that into account.
Quote: TigerWuI missed that article... but polls are never going to be 100% accurate anyway, so no one should be surprised if they get it wrong every once in a while. I don't think any poll anywhere gave Hillary a 100% iron clad chance of winning, despite what a lot of people think.
Fivethirtyeight gave Hillary a 71% chance of winning... right now they have an 84% chance of Dems taking the House. So we'll see how accurate they are this time around.
Yes, I agree that voter turnout is what is going to factor in here, not people flipping sides one way or another. Same for 2020.
And lets not forget that technically pollsters are never wrong
An 84% chance of winning means a 16% chance of losing
If the Dems lose the pollster predicted there was a 16% chance of loss
Who on here believes 84% chance of winning means a guaranteed win?
Hold the Senate
Lose the House
I hope I am wrong on the latter...
Quote: RonCI am on the record with:
Hold the Senate
Lose the House
I agree
Quote: darkozAnd lets not forget that technically pollsters are never wrong
An 84% chance of winning means a 16% chance of losing
If the Dems lose the pollster predicted there was a 16% chance of loss
Who on here believes 84% chance of winning means a guaranteed win?
This is weatherman logic. Predict rain or sun, one happens.
Look at it another way. If an analyst and predict an 85% chance IBM meets my profit goal and they do not? Once maybe they will get a pass. If it keeps up they are not going to be an analyst for long.
BTW here's PaddyPower's lines:
Quote: djatcThere is a lot of people who don't say who or which party they voted for, even if asked in a poll. It's usually because they don't want to admit to voting for Trump aka Orange Man Bad. They probably voted Trump because they didn't want Hilary to win, not because they really like the guy.
Sounds like the Bradley Effect - based on the exit polls in the 1982 California governor's election, a number of groups, including the San Francisco Chronicle, projected Tom Bradley as the winner; apparently, it was because "just enough" people who voted for George Deukmejian told the pollsters that they voted for Bradley because they didn't want to seem racist.
Quote: ThatDonGuySounds like the Bradley Effect - based on the exit polls in the 1982 California governor's election, a number of groups, including the San Francisco Chronicle, projected Tom Bradley as the winner; apparently, it was because "just enough" people who voted for George Deukmejian told the pollsters that they voted for Bradley because they didn't want to seem racist.
That is an effect. I can say from experience that I have met people who support Trump quietly. They do not mention it unless you are alone with them and know it is "safe to talk." They know the TDS rage and what it causes. One TDS guy got himself suspended from the local poker game for his behavior towards me and others. So to many the choice of keeping it quiet is good choice.
Quote: RonCI am on the record with:
Hold the Senate
Lose the House
I hope I am wrong on the latter...
I agree with your guess, but I do not hope you are wrong. I think that it is beneficial to NOT have a 3-0 Senate, House, Presidency. It forces finding some form of common ground. It prevents the extreme left and extreme right from forcing through some of the more radical ideologies. It would have prevented the trillions Obamacare is costing us, and it would have prevented the hundreds of billions the Trump tax cuts are costing. It is possible that the way the Dems despise anything and everything associated with Trump that the Dem House might never send him a bill he would sign. We shall (might) see.
Quote: SOOPOOand it would have prevented the hundreds of billions the Trump tax cuts are costing.
Tax cuts do not "cost" anything unless you think it is all the government's money in the first place.
If we end up with a Den house they will not send anything he will sign, I predict they will not even send a budget and cause a shutdown assuming Trump will be blamed for it.
Quote: SOOPOOI agree with your guess, but I do not hope you are wrong. I think that it is beneficial to NOT have a 3-0 Senate, House, Presidency. It forces finding some form of common ground. It prevents the extreme left and extreme right from forcing through some of the more radical ideologies. It would have prevented the trillions Obamacare is costing us, and it would have prevented the hundreds of billions the Trump tax cuts are costing. It is possible that the way the Dems despise anything and everything associated with Trump that the Dem House might never send him a bill he would sign. We shall (might) see.
I'm very cynical about the current group of politicians from both sides. We have way more politicians than statesman. Presidents change every 4 to 8 years; people get in the House and Senate seem to stay for ever, gaining power all the time. Not many are willing to take a position that puts them out of line with their group and most are unwilling to do something that may cause them to lose the election. Being there is more important than doing the work of the people they represent. Each side claims that the other side fits this description and points out their list of "whys"...but reality is that they are more similar than different.
Obviously, somewhere along the line in the past 15 years we should have been able to find a solution to the immigration issue that satisfies most of the citizens. None of the Presidents elected in that time frame are exempt from blame for that, but you also have dynamic of both parties having reasons for unfettered immigration among their financial and most vocal supporters that are far from what the people actually want.
...and that is just one of the issues.
Quote: SOOPOOI agree with your guess, but I do not hope you are wrong. I think that it is beneficial to NOT have a 3-0 Senate, House, Presidency. It forces finding some form of common ground.
I agree with this. I don't think any one party should control Congress and the White House. And now it looks like the SC as well. That gives too much unchecked power.
Quote: AZDuffman
If we end up with a Den house they will not send anything he will sign, I predict they will not even send a budget and cause a shutdown assuming Trump will be blamed for it.
This I disagree with. Remember, Trump HAS to "win" at everything. Or at least be perceived as a winner. If the Dems take the House and try to stonewall him, he's not going to let that stand for the next two years and be seen as a losing administration that can't get anything done. He's going to fold, fast, and at least meet them halfway on almost everything, and may even completely give in to their "demands" if he sees it will somehow benefit him personally, especially for 2020, all the while making it look like it was a good idea that he personally came up with. This will be at the expense of what his base wants and even the Senate, but he won't care.
That's my prediction, anyway, especially if the Dems threaten impeachment for something.
Quote: AZDuffmanTax cuts do not "cost" anything unless you think it is all the government's money in the first place.
If we end up with a Den house they will not send anything he will sign, I predict they will not even send a budget and cause a shutdown assuming Trump will be blamed for it.
Tax cuts cost much more than the dollar amount, when not funding essential services, as these affected the country . Cost of infrastructure maintenance only goes up. We're letting bridges crumble, runways go overbooked, highways degrade, pipelines rust, because we're not taking care of it now.
Many billionaires and businesses depend heavily on infrastructure. Them having a larger balance sheet does nothing towards building a better America. With great wealth comes great responsibility. A free country doesn't come for free. We all pay for it.
Quote: beachbumbabsTax cuts cost much more than the dollar amount, when not funding essential services, as these affected the country . Cost of infrastructure maintenance only goes up. We're letting bridges crumble, runways go overbooked, highways degrade, pipelines rust, because we're not taking care of it now.
Many billionaires and businesses depend heavily on infrastructure. Them having a larger balance sheet does nothing towards building a better America. With great wealth comes great responsibility. A free country doesn't come for free. We all pay for it.
*MEGA-SIGH*
I have heard about "crumbling infrastructure" since I was a kid. Over 40 years now I have heard about it. And the more tax revenue they get, the more they complain. It is never, ever "enough." The USA is "free" to the bottom 45% or so who pay nothing in income taxes. Can we get them to kick in anything?
Here is the thing. Services are funded. Even with tax cuts, revenue keeps going up. What we have is a spending problem. It has always been the spending side that is the issue.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe USA is "free" to the bottom 45% or so who pay nothing in income taxes. Can we get them to kick in anything?
You mean like sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, Social Security, and Medicare?
EDIT: Almost everyone in the U.S. who has money to spend is paying taxes of some sort:
Only 14% of people pay no taxes of any kind, and the vast majority of those are senior citizens. Source
“The large percentage of people who don’t owe federal income tax is a feature, not a bug, of the revenue code,” according to the Tax Policy Center. “By design, the federal income tax always has excluded a significant fraction of households through a combination of personal exemptions, the standard deduction, zero bracket amounts, and more recently, tax credits.”
“Many low- and below-average-income families pay more in payroll taxes every year than they pay in federal income taxes,”
“About 60% of those who pay no income tax will work and owe payroll taxes,” according to Roberton Williams, an associate at the Tax Policy Center. “Most of the other 40% are retirees whose income is too low to owe income tax ...Refundable credits make it possible for some low-income households with workers to avoid paying income and payroll taxes. Even so, nearly three-quarters of Americans will end up paying at least one of those taxes this year.”
Source
More info about taxes
The more granular we get, the less personal income tax "matters" as a source of generating revenue. At the local level, everyone is paying tax. The U.S. is only "free" if you're a child with no job or income, and even then, your parents are paying taxes for the resources you use.
Quote: AZDuffman*MEGA-SIGH*
I have heard about "crumbling infrastructure" since I was a kid. Over 40 years now I have heard about it. And the more tax revenue they get, the more they complain. It is never, ever "enough." The USA is "free" to the bottom 45% or so who pay nothing in income taxes. Can we get them to kick in anything?
Here is the thing. Services are funded. Even with tax cuts, revenue keeps going up. What we have is a spending problem. It has always been the spending side that is the issue.
"*MEGA-SIGH*" Mourning your ignorance on this topic, I guess, since I'm sure you're not patronizing me. /sarcasm
Services are not funded. Not only are the funds not available, the Congress has routinely raided and redirected funds from those few running a contemporary surplus.
- Aviation trust fund, intended to build airports and infrastructure and provide services, borrowed against/raided into an overall lack of budget access.
- USPS, never unprofitable in itself, forced into severe deficits due to unreal pension-funding demands.
- Amtrak left to dwindle and crumble, especially the physical rails. Routes continuing to be cancelled and underserved.
- Road, gas, excise taxes raided for other projects/ deficit offset.
- Infrastructure budget lines stripped to pay for 2 wars and debt service/deficit offset.
- Federal positions outsourced wherever possible through creative accounting justifying downsizing federal employees, MUCH more expensive to the government per service, but very lucrative to lobbyists and contractors. Many more just holding on against bills authorizing or forcing privatization.
These all have revenue streams. Many, on paper, are in surplus, but the money is frozen for offsets, which means that it's actually being used somewhere else, not as intended, and the budgets for those entities are under-funded, forcing emergency appropriations year after year (furthering deficit spending), government shutdowns, delay of critical projects, maintenance and moderization, many other problems.
But all that real info undercuts your faux justification to whine about non-taxpayers, so I doubt you've even made it this far. Perhaps you managed to read the excellent post above, that details the many ways the majority of your "bottom 45" DO pay taxes. But I doubt you read that either. So my post is mostly to provide some perspective for those who care about what's really going on.
Quote: TigerWuYou mean like sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, Social Security, and Medicare?
No, read it again, I mean and said INCOME taxes.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, read it again, I mean and said INCOME taxes.
How 'bout you read your own words again?
Quote: AZDuffmanThe USA is "free" to the bottom 45% or so who pay nothing in income taxes. Can we get them to kick in anything?
The US is not "free" to the bottom 45%. The bottom 45% pay taxes for infrastructure and resources. The bottom 45% DOES "kick in" money to pay for things that everyone uses. INCOME tax is not the only source of government revenue.
Do you truly not understand how taxes work or are you intentionally being obtuse? Did you even read the links I posted? I found them to be fairly educational.
Quote: beachbumbabs"*MEGA-SIGH*" Mourning your ignorance on this topic, I guess, since I'm sure you're not patronizing me. /sarcasm
Services are not funded. Not only are the funds not available, the Congress has routinely raided and redirected funds from those few running a contemporary surplus.
- Aviation trust fund, intended to build airports and infrastructure and provide services, borrowed against/raided into an overall lack of budget access.
- USPS, never unprofitable in itself, forced into severe deficits due to unreal pension-funding demands.
- Amtrak left to dwindle and crumble, especially the physical rails. Routes continuing to be cancelled and underserved.
- Road, gas, excise taxes raided for other projects/ deficit offset.
The "trust funds" are imaginary. An accounting gimmick. The USPS is set up to receive ZERO in subsidy from the general fund. They have signs saying it you see when you mail a letter across the counter. Amtrak needs to be killed. Sell off the northeast corridor, the only place a profit is remotely possible, and kill the rest. The government should not be running passenger rail. For that matter, make the FAA independent like the USPS is. Chartered to run as a break-even thing, Landing and other fees can cover it.
Quote:- Infrastructure budget lines stripped to pay for 2 wars and debt service/deficit offset.
- Federal positions outsourced wherever possible through creative accounting justifying downsizing federal employees, MUCH more expensive to the government per service, but very lucrative to lobbyists and contractors. Many more just holding on against bills authorizing or forcing privatization.
Oh, please. Show me something that had a budget actually CUT to "pay for two wars." Funding goes up year after year, just not as much as might be desired. As to outsourcing federal positions, GOOD! Saving tax dollars stolen from the citizens at the point of a gun should be an objective. And yes, if you refuse to pay taxes, men with guns will come and get the money from you. The fewer direct hires the feds have the better as it lowers costs at every level.
Quote:These all have revenue streams. Many, on paper, are in surplus, but the money is frozen for offsets, which means that it's actually being used somewhere else, not as intended, and the budgets for those entities are under-funded, forcing emergency appropriations year after year (furthering deficit spending), government shutdowns, delay of critical projects, maintenance and moderization, many other problems.
But all that real info undercuts your faux justification to whine about non-taxpayers, so I doubt you've even made it this far. Perhaps you managed to read the excellent post above, that details the many ways the majority of your "bottom 45" DO pay taxes. But I doubt you read that either. So my post is mostly to provide some perspective for those who care about what's really going on.
More accounting gimmicks. But I am still correct in that the bottom 45% statistically pay ZERO in federal income taxes. So the next time a Democrat says someone "is not paying their fair share" I would suggest they look at the people riding in the cart vs helping pull it.
My plan would be a 10% flat tax with no deductions for anything. My preference would be it all be excise taxes, so you pay on consumption. Then you would not have people screaming for "free health care" and "free college" as they would feel the hit. Until that happens, no real spending cuts will happen.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe "trust funds" are imaginary. An accounting gimmick. The USPS is set up to receive ZERO in subsidy from the general fund. They have signs saying it you see when you mail a letter across the counter. Amtrak needs to be killed. Sell off the northeast corridor, the only place a profit is remotely possible, and kill the rest. The government should not be running passenger rail. For that matter, make the FAA independent like the USPS is. Chartered to run as a break-even thing, Landing and other fees can cover it.
I never said the USPS gets money from the General Fund. They're solvent, even profitable, if regular accounting were used.
The FAA is blocked from using the funds they're supposed to use. Your not believing in the ATF doesn't mean it doesn't collect 16 billion or so a year and run a surplus. Those are the fees they've been collecting and using for 20 years now. But Congress stepped in and stole their funds to offset the deficit and spend their money other places.
Quote:
Oh, please. Show me something that had a budget actually CUT to "pay for two wars." Funding goes up year after year, just not as much as might be desired. As to outsourcing federal positions, GOOD! Saving tax dollars stolen from the citizens at the point of a gun should be an objective. And yes, if you refuse to pay taxes, men with guns will come and get the money from you. The fewer direct hires the feds have the better as it lowers costs at every level.
More accounting gimmicks. But I am still correct in that the bottom 45% statistically pay ZERO in federal income taxes. So the next time a Democrat says someone "is not paying their fair share" I would suggest they look at the people riding in the cart vs helping pull it.
My plan would be a 10% flat tax with no deductions for anything. My preference would be it all be excise taxes, so you pay on consumption. Then you would not have people screaming for "free health care" and "free college" as they would feel the hit. Until that happens, no real spending cuts will happen.
Bah. The point is that EVERYTHING got cut or defunded to pay for 2 wars that were unfunded. They just took all the domestic funds and dumped them into the war machine, then printed a bunch of money out of thin air to pay the contractors and manufacturers.
EDIT: I was maybe operating a motor vehicle and couldn't expand on my thoughts here:
Every person I've known that ordered something online from Amazon always has to go through a bottleneck: the post office. These guys never knock on your door to deliver your stuff, and when you order something 2 day shipping, it better be there in your place if you were home all day and was waiting for the mailman aka mailperson so we don't offend snowflakes. Then they carry your stuff the entire day and a half so you can't intercept it at the post office pickup spot, which is open till like 5pm or something, which is just the time for breakfast so you'll miss it.
Some, not all, the people working there make it known they have a federal job and can't be fired in their attitude. I can't see how this place would make money in the private sector.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat we have is a spending problem. It has always been the spending side that is the issue.
Trump’s boy Ben Carson trying to spend $35k in taxpayer dollars on silverware really helps.
Quote: gamerfreakTrump’s boy Ben Carson trying to spend $35k in taxpayer dollars on silverware really helps.
Government waste is rampant. Millions dumped here; thousands there. Funds set aside to quietly pay of claims against members of Congress. You can find examples of it throughout the political and bureaucratic class. The US is not run enough like a business.
I'm glad you pointed this one out...but, honestly, it already had a lot more publicity and attention than many, many others. Makes a nice political point, but we do that at the risk of missing the whole point...WE need to reign in government.
Quote: beachbumbabsI never said the USPS gets money from the General Fund. They're solvent, even profitable, if regular accounting were used.
You said, "- USPS, never unprofitable in itself, forced into severe deficits due to unreal pension-funding demands. " So I have no idea what you are meaning there. It was thrown in with other items that you state were underfunded.
As to the pension accounting, the same accounting hit all traditional pensions. Place where I worked killed their pension plan a few months after I was hired. We did not make the grandfather date. I would have left anyways as it was call center hell, but pointing out that the accounting rules hit many places, and the USPS worker should be very happy their pension plan survived at all.
Quote:The FAA is blocked from using the funds they're supposed to use. Your not believing in the ATF doesn't mean it doesn't collect 16 billion or so a year and run a surplus. Those are the fees they've been collecting and using for 20 years now. But Congress stepped in and stole their funds to offset the deficit and spend their money other places.
So, are you saying Congress took their money at the point of a gun, same as taxes? Are you saying we spend too much and should make spending cuts somewhere else? I'd be happy if we cut some spending somewhere else. I am not all that happy about a federal agency running at a profit like that, as it should be break-even.
Quote:Bah. The point is that EVERYTHING got cut or defunded to pay for 2 wars that were unfunded. They just took all the domestic funds and dumped them into the war machine, then printed a bunch of money out of thin air to pay the contractors and manufacturers.
Please show some budgets where something was funded "X" in 2001 and "<X" years later if you want me to believe and take you seriously here. It NEVER happens. Oh, some department somewhere might get less once in awhile. But the overall budget automatically goes up every year. It is called "baseline budgeting" and was put in place so Congress could avoid doing a budget yearly. Has been this way since the early 1970s. The same time deficits became a big thing. Notice the correlation.
I have to ask, are you as upset about the Obama stimulus taking away funds as you are about "paying for 2 wars?" Because the same thing happened there. Just it was a Democrat doing the spending.
Quote: RonC
I'm glad you pointed this one out...but, honestly, it already had a lot more publicity and attention than many, many others. Makes a nice political point, but we do that at the risk of missing the whole point...WE need to reign in government.
This will never happen until the USD is no longer the reserve currency. As long as it is, Congress can act like the GF of some rich guy who gives her an AMEX Black Card for her own use. When the credit does get cut off, oh boy oh boy. 20% of the population will not be able to run their lives, maybe 40%.
Quote: djatcPost office is literal trash
EDIT: I was maybe operating a motor vehicle and couldn't expand on my thoughts here:
Every person I've known that ordered something online from Amazon always has to go through a bottleneck: the post office. These guys never knock on your door to deliver your stuff, and when you order something 2 day shipping, it better be there in your place if you were home all day and was waiting for the mailman aka mailperson so we don't offend snowflakes. Then they carry your stuff the entire day and a half so you can't intercept it at the post office pickup spot, which is open till like 5pm or something, which is just the time for breakfast so you'll miss it.
Some, not all, the people working there make it known they have a federal job and can't be fired in their attitude. I can't see how this place would make money in the private sector.
If they were a private company they’d most likely tell amazon to deliver their own crap. And then tell the same to the UPS and FedEx guys dropping off all their packages that aren’t profitable enough to deliver. And then downsize a lot more than they are already once they aren’t doing the jobs that are unprofitable for any of those four companies. So yeah, never gonna happen, the people’s demand to get garbage shipped and at a reasonable rate to uninhabitable regions.
Quote: mcallister3200If they were a private company they’d most likely tell amazon to deliver their own crap. And then tell the same to the UPS and FedEx guys dropping off all their packages that aren’t profitable enough to deliver. And then downsize a lot more than they are already once they aren’t doing the jobs that are unprofitable for any of those four companies. So yeah, never gonna happen, the people’s demand to get garbage shipped to uninhabitable regions.
In most parts AMZN is delivering their own stuff now. USPS contracted out most parcel post to UPS long ago (or was it Fedex?)
It would be next to impossible to run USPS profitable under the rules it must work by. If not for junk mail a stamp might cost $2.
One of them is when your budget amount X is changed to X - 10%
Another way to express budget cuts, a method that had been used for decades to claim that a party is "cutting the budget" is to reduce an already budgeted spending increase. X budgeted for this year, X + 10 budgeted for next year changed to X + 5 for example. I remember that happening in the 90's, a party claiming great budget cuts via reducing planned spending, but without actually reducing the amount spent from one year to the next. Another example was "sequestration"
One recent example is Trump cancelling the bugeted wage increases for federal employees.
Quote: Dalex64
One recent example is Trump cancelling the bugeted wage increases for federal employees.
And that gets misrepresented. When I worked with the military it was all a step-chart. Grade on one axis, years of service on the other. So they got a raise every year for their service. If they were promoted, they got a second raise.
So you heard "they did not get a raise this year!" All that meant was that an E-4 with three years got paid the same this year as last. But each person got a raise for their service. In reality, a person in a normal year gets two bumps. One for the new rate, one for the new years.
I only worked with the military but I imaging it is this way in most government, federal at the least.
I've recently been selling some military miniatures on eBay. They mostly sell for under $20 and cost about $6-8 to ship.
After I sold a bit, I was contacted by representatives of Chinese companies, offering to dropship for me. Due to some archaic postal treaty, it is cheaper for me to ship an item from China to an American eBay buyer than to ship it domestically. Most packages from China would run less than $3. It also means no shipping to me and no storing merchandise.
The crazy thing is in the case the business explodes, most jobs created will be in China. Instead of a warehouse and employees in Nevada, everything ships from China.
All because the U.S. Post Office undercuts itself.
I read Trump is threatening to end this treaty. It certainly needs to be looked into.
Quote: billryanI read Trump is threatening to end this treaty. It certainly needs to be looked into.
I don't necessarily agree with the willy nilly cancellation of treaties in the manner President Trump tends to use but, just like any business would do, it is about time we start looking at all of the agreements we have and end/adjust ones that are not AT LEAST mutually beneficial to us and the other side, if not favorable to us.
***************
USPS--Mail delivery six days a week is unnecessary. If I need something very quickly, there are express services and couriers available. Out of all the mail I get in a week, about two pieces are necessary, three to five pieces are worthwhile (informational stuff or magazines), and the rest is junk. Many of the things would be better delivered by email. I often skip getting the mail more than one day a week anyway.
Quote: billryan
I read Trump is threatening to end this treaty. It certainly needs to be looked into.
There are lots of this kind of thing. Trump is the first one saying to look at old treaties to fix before just making new ones. We signed lots of this stuff when the rest of the world was mostly poor. We have been taken advantage of for years.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd that gets misrepresented. When I worked with the military it was all a step-chart. Grade on one axis, years of service on the other. So they got a raise every year for their service. If they were promoted, they got a second raise.
So you heard "they did not get a raise this year!" All that meant was that an E-4 with three years got paid the same this year as last. But each person got a raise for their service. In reality, a person in a normal year gets two bumps. One for the new rate, one for the new years.
I only worked with the military but I imaging it is this way in most government, federal at the least.
Uhm, right. How is that misrepresented? They had budgeted, scheduled raises that were cancelled.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/08/30/trump-cancels-pay-raises-federal-workers-804574
This particular pay freeze isn't on enlisted military personnel on that pay chart, either, it is on federal civilian employees.
Anyway I am only arguing the facts that I am aware of, not your imagination.
Quote:Under Trump’s policy, roughly 1.8 million people wouldn’t get an automatic pay boost next year, including Border Patrol and ICE agents.
Quote: AZDuffman
It would be next to impossible to run USPS profitable under the rules it must work by. If not for junk mail a stamp might cost $2.
Flyover country willingly helped bankrupt the postal system for decade after decade by accepting letter mail at flat rates instead of actual cost. Then many accuse city folk of being "takers" and are too ignorant to know better, apparently.
Quote: Dalex64Uhm, right. How is that misrepresented? They had budgeted, scheduled raises that were cancelled.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/08/30/trump-cancels-pay-raises-federal-workers-804574
This particular pay freeze isn't on enlisted military personnel on that pay chart, either, it is on federal civilian employees.
Anyway I am only arguing the facts that I am aware of, not your imagination.
Did you read what I wrote? The individuals will get their yearly raise, just that a person with "X" years experience in grade gets the same as the person with "X" years did the year before. But that person the year before now has "Y" years, and a raise.
Don't believe each worker is making the same they did the previous year.
Quote: AZDuffmanDid you read what I wrote? The individuals will get their yearly raise, just that a person with "X" years experience in grade gets the same as the person with "X" years did the year before. But that person the year before now has "Y" years, and a raise.
Don't believe each worker is making the same they did the previous year.
Did you read what the article said? The employees had 2.1% raises scheduled that they will not receive.
