Monday, November 16, 2009

The Most Annoying Ad on TV

Why is USPS advertising?
Am I the only one that sees this as grossly wrong?

A GOVERNMENT program, that has countless issues, is losing loads of money is using tax payer dollars to advertise itself.

Here's a thought- if no one is using a government service- why not get rid of it?

The USPS gets subsidized by our taxes, FedEx and UPS don't.
GM got subsidized by our taxes, Ford didn't. (Did you SEE last months earnings?)

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a pattern here. The government should never enter the free market with services subsidized with the taxes of their competitors.

The USPS commercials really aren't that bad- but knowing that my taxes help payed for it annoys the hell out of me.

12 comments:

Sherpa said...

The best part of this post?

The Post Service hasn't received taxpayer dollars since the early 1980s.

Steve said...

Yeah, this is like a Drudge Report headline! Wrong on so many levels, haha. The USPS has been a stand alone entity and hasn't cost the Americans anything since most of us readers have been licking stamps!

Emmy said...

Yep and soon health care will be government subsidized/run before we know it.

So we all know how well that will work.

Salt H2O said...

Sherpa & Steve- Granted, the USPS isn't receiving the semi-annual subsidies it use to receive but according to the 2005 annual report- "GOVERNMENT APPROPREATIONS RECEIVED"-- in the amount of $503 MILLION.

In addition as a government entity it is not subject to the same taxes that corporations are- regardless of what uppermagement or what their profits may be. Are any profits from USPS being given back and put in the federal reserve?

The postmaster has been asking for more money from the government in addition to buying multi-million dollar mansions for relo packages- no wonder government employees are so quick to defend their brothers and sisters in the government workforce!

The USPS received in the neighborhood of 3 BILLION dollars in start up capital. If it is as self-suffiencent and wonderful as it claims to be- although those claims now appear to be mixed, how about paying back that 3 Billion dollars?

Sherpa said...

500 million? Where is that number from. When I glanced at the report, it said 3 million in FY '05.

Steve said...

Right, b/c Lehman Brothers, GM, Bank of America, and Citi Bank have shown that the private sector is SOOOOOO much better with money! haha. Not to mention all the people involved with causing the financial woes we are in.

Salt H2O said...

Steve- I AGREE! (I know a shock)

None any of the afore mentioned companies should have received any taxpayer dollars.

As a capitialist I believe either you succeed, or you fail. There is no third option of having taypayers keep you in business.

Despite what Michael Moore may believe, capitalism isn't about the survival of big business, or personal greed- it's about healthy competition, specialization, survival of the smartest, leanest, most efficent and most productive. Giving taxpayer dollars to any entity in the marketplace thwarts captialism.

Steve said...

Salty - I too agree with you on Capitalism, but Moore is also right. The two both must be right. Capitalism spurs competition, eliminating those that fail or do not adapt quickly enough. Eventually, you end up with an oligopoly of a few producers for an given industry (cereal, auto makers, financial instruments, banks, cell phone companies, etc.). In fact, the past 20 years has seen a MAJOR increase in consolidation of industries. This leads to more and more influence and control by a few powerful, if not wealthy, individuals/entities with very strong sway over Congress and the public as a whole. If left unchecked, ala pre-Taft Act, these few become ONE and you have a monopoly, which is VERY capitalist in nature, but anti-American, as most would agree since Teddy Roosevelt. Although, there has been a TON a revivial, starting with the Republican Congress in 2000 changing securities laws that led to, in a big push by and as a result of the actions of, capitalist businesses. And this is where we are today. Had those businesses failed that did receive tax-payer money, we would be a world-wide Depression much like the 30's, only much larger in dollar value. The only way the world was able to pull itself out, as has been the general history of capitalism, was with the total destruction of almost EVERY modern industrial base (England, Germany, France, Japan, etc.) say for one, the US. THAT is how the world turned around from the 30's and HOW the US got to be #1, by attrition and geography, ie not getting flattened like Europe. In otherwords, had the economy not been propped up, a Depression would have come along, and only something like WW2 levels of destruction would turn us all around. Destruction and rebirth is the heart of capitalism. The idea of bringing government in is to avoid such violent results on a populace.

Steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve said...

And just to clarify before Davers jumps in here and screams "Commie!", rightly or wrongly, there DOES exist a solution besides choosing Ayn Rand or Karl Marx. There are many, many facets in between that have been successfully employed to create economic growth and societal growth from here in the US to China. As has been proven throughout modern history, neither Rand's nor Marx's extremism work in the long run. To invoke either into modern economic discussion is choosing to stymie the conversation, not move it forward.

Salt H2O said...

For Sherpa and Steve: Post Office Owes 10.2 BILLION to the government and is doomed for failure

Ash Harper said...

I have to say.... the reason I even found this post was because i googled "my tax dollars paid for usps commercials" .... Rrrrr... What a waste of MY money.... RRRrrrr....

Atari007