More BS on USPS Sponsorship



Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jrodgers

Guest
This group obviously does not know **** from shinola about racing, or care:
<http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_07082003c>

USPS Races Downhill and Loses Money Postal Officials Continue To Waste Millions on Sports
Sponsorships

(Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today criticized the United
States Postal Service (USPS) for its abysmal track record of botched marketing initiatives
and mismanaged sports sponsorship expenditures. The USPS has sponsored the U.S. Cycling team
since 1996, and Lance Armstrong, who came on board in 1998, is the odds-on favorite to win
his fifth consecutive Tour De France. While Armstrong has a well-earned reputation for
athletic excellence, a February 25, 2003 uncensored, draft report by the USPS Office of
Inspector General (IG) and obtained by CAGW, shows that USPS has bungled its sports
sponsorship programs.

"Lance Armstrong is a champion and hero to millions of Americans. Each year, he delivers a
stirring performance at the Tour De France," said CAGW Director of Special Projects Leslie K.
Paige. "Unfortunately, Armstrong's top sponsor, the USPS, is going downhill fast financially
and managing to lose millions on its sports sponsorships. Despite a corporate loss of $676
million in 2002, the most recent sponsorship contract with the cycling team reportedly cost
the USPS more than $40 million. This does not include the costs associated with sending postal
executives and their spouses on junkets to the Tour De France as they have done in the past."

The IG report reviewed expenditures of $48 million for 11 USPS sports sponsorship programs
active between the years 1996 and 2002. Besides the U.S. Cycling Team, USPS sponsorships
included the New York Yankees ($3.7 million), the New York Giants ($1.9 million), the Chicago
Bears ($632,500), and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays ($630,500). The IG found that the USPS was
unable to verify revenue claimed as a result of the sponsorships, lacked goals and objectives
for 10 of the 11 reviewed, and did not track or properly use events tickets and invitations in
2001. Since 1998, according to the report, the USPS has eliminated 200 sponsorships, leaving
only 5 as of October 2002.

"Postal officials routinely pedal the line that sponsorship of the cycling team raises 'brand
awareness' in Europe and results in $19 million in revenue annually. Yet, they present no
verifiable evidence of this and, according to the IG report, fail to quantify any impact to
the bottom line with any of its sports sponsorships. International sales account for only
2.6 percent of the USPS' total revenue and anecdotal evidence suggests that the USPS' performance in
the international arena is substandard. Congress, the Presidential Reform Commission, and the USPS
Board of Governors ought to put the brakes on these wasteful expenditures," Paige said.

"The USPS is a government-owned monopoly and does not need to spend money on 'brand'
advertising. In its current fiscal crisis, it cannot rationalize sponsorships of any kind.
Postal officials simply recycle the feel-good mantra that these sponsorships boost the
agency's image and make postal employees feel good. If postal officials want to retread their
image, they should bow out of the sports sponsorships, redirect those revenues to improving
mail delivery, reduce costly overhead, and furnish better customer service. Lance Armstrong
will continue to deliver without USPS sponsorship," Paige concluded.

Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to
eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government.
 
which part is bs?

i am assuming you have links or other proof refuting any or all of this, right?

chris

>Subject: More BS on USPS Sponsorship From: "jrodgers" [email protected] Date: 7/10/03 8:09 AM
>Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
> This group obviously does not know **** from shinola about racing, or care:
> <http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_07082003c>
>
> USPS Races Downhill and Loses Money Postal Officials Continue To Waste Millions on Sports
> Sponsorships
>
>
>
>
> (Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today criticized the United
> States Postal Service (USPS) for its abysmal track record of botched marketing initiatives
> and mismanaged sports sponsorship expenditures. The USPS has sponsored the U.S. Cycling team
> since 1996, and Lance Armstrong, who came on board in 1998, is the odds-on favorite to win
> his fifth consecutive Tour De France. While Armstrong has a well-earned reputation for
> athletic excellence, a February 25, 2003 uncensored, draft report by the USPS Office of
> Inspector General (IG) and obtained by CAGW, shows that USPS has bungled its sports
> sponsorship programs.
>
> "Lance Armstrong is a champion and hero to millions of Americans. Each year, he delivers a
> stirring performance at the Tour De France," said CAGW Director of Special Projects Leslie K.
> Paige. "Unfortunately, Armstrong's top sponsor, the USPS, is going downhill fast financially
> and managing to lose millions on its sports sponsorships. Despite a corporate loss of $676
> million in 2002, the most recent sponsorship contract with the cycling team reportedly cost
> the USPS more than $40 million. This does not include the costs associated with sending
> postal executives and their spouses on junkets to the Tour De France as they have done in the
> past."
>
> The IG report reviewed expenditures of $48 million for 11 USPS sports sponsorship programs
> active between the years 1996 and 2002. Besides the U.S. Cycling Team, USPS sponsorships
> included the New York Yankees ($3.7 million), the New York Giants ($1.9 million), the Chicago
> Bears ($632,500), and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays ($630,500). The IG found that the USPS was
> unable to verify revenue claimed as a result of the sponsorships, lacked goals and objectives
> for 10 of the 11 reviewed, and did not track or properly use events tickets and invitations
> in 2001. Since 1998, according to the report, the USPS has eliminated 200 sponsorships,
> leaving only 5 as of October 2002.
>
> "Postal officials routinely pedal the line that sponsorship of the cycling team raises 'brand
> awareness' in Europe and results in $19 million in revenue annually. Yet, they present no
> verifiable evidence of this and, according to the IG report, fail to quantify any impact to
> the bottom line with any of its sports sponsorships. International sales account for only
>2.6 percent of the USPS' total revenue and anecdotal evidence suggests that the USPS' performance
> in the international arena is substandard. Congress, the Presidential Reform Commission, and the
> USPS Board of Governors ought to put the brakes on these wasteful expenditures," Paige said.
>
> "The USPS is a government-owned monopoly and does not need to spend money on 'brand'
> advertising. In its current fiscal crisis, it cannot rationalize sponsorships of any kind.
> Postal officials simply recycle the feel-good mantra that these sponsorships boost the
> agency's image and make postal employees feel good. If postal officials want to retread their
> image, they should bow out of the sports sponsorships, redirect those revenues to improving
> mail delivery, reduce costly overhead, and furnish better customer service. Lance Armstrong
> will continue to deliver without USPS sponsorship," Paige concluded.
>
> Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to
> eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government.
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
isn't USPS a private company?

John Bickmore www.BicycleCam.com www.Feed-Zone.com

"Jamce1" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> which part is bs?
>
> i am assuming you have links or other proof refuting any or all of this,
right?
>
> chris
>
> >Subject: More BS on USPS Sponsorship From: "jrodgers" [email protected] Date: 7/10/03 8:09 AM
> >Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> > This group obviously does not know **** from shinola about racing, or
care:
> ><http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_07082003c>
> >
> > USPS Races Downhill and Loses Money Postal Officials Continue To Waste Millions on Sports
> > Sponsorships
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today criticized the United
> > States Postal Service (USPS) for its abysmal track record of botched marketing initiatives
> > and mismanaged sports sponsorship expenditures. The USPS has sponsored the U.S. Cycling
> > team since 1996,
and
> >Lance Armstrong, who came on board in 1998, is the odds-on favorite to
win
> >his fifth consecutive Tour De France. While Armstrong has a well-earned reputation for athletic
> >excellence, a February 25, 2003 uncensored, draft report by the USPS Office of Inspector General
> >(IG) and obtained by CAGW, shows that USPS has bungled its sports sponsorship programs.
> >
> > "Lance Armstrong is a champion and hero to millions of Americans. Each year, he delivers a
> > stirring performance at the Tour De France,"
said
> >CAGW Director of Special Projects Leslie K. Paige. "Unfortunately, Armstrong's top sponsor, the
> >USPS, is going downhill fast financially and managing to lose millions on its sports
> >sponsorships. Despite a
corporate
> >loss of $676 million in 2002, the most recent sponsorship contract with
the
> >cycling team reportedly cost the USPS more than $40 million. This does
not
> >include the costs associated with sending postal executives and their spouses on junkets to the
> >Tour De France as they have done in the past."
> >
> > The IG report reviewed expenditures of $48 million for 11 USPS
sports
> >sponsorship programs active between the years 1996 and 2002. Besides the U.S. Cycling Team, USPS
> >sponsorships included the New York Yankees ($3.7 million), the New York Giants ($1.9 million),
> >the Chicago Bears
($632,500),
> >and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays ($630,500). The IG found that the USPS was unable to verify revenue
> >claimed as a result of the sponsorships, lacked goals and objectives for 10 of the 11 reviewed,
> >and did not track or properly use events tickets and invitations in 2001. Since 1998,
according
> >to the report, the USPS has eliminated 200 sponsorships, leaving only 5
as
> >of October 2002.
> >
> > "Postal officials routinely pedal the line that sponsorship of the cycling team raises
> > 'brand awareness' in Europe and results in $19
million
> >in revenue annually. Yet, they present no verifiable evidence of this
and,
> >according to the IG report, fail to quantify any impact to the bottom
line
> >with any of its sports sponsorships. International sales account for
only
> >2.6 percent of the USPS' total revenue and anecdotal evidence suggests
that
> >the USPS' performance in the international arena is substandard.
Congress,
> >the Presidential Reform Commission, and the USPS Board of Governors ought
to
> >put the brakes on these wasteful expenditures," Paige said.
> >
> > "The USPS is a government-owned monopoly and does not need to spend money on 'brand'
> > advertising. In its current fiscal crisis, it cannot rationalize sponsorships of any kind.
> > Postal officials simply recycle
the
> >feel-good mantra that these sponsorships boost the agency's image and
make
> >postal employees feel good. If postal officials want to retread their image, they should bow out
> >of the sports sponsorships, redirect those revenues to improving mail delivery, reduce costly
> >overhead, and furnish better customer service. Lance Armstrong will continue to deliver
without
> >USPS sponsorship," Paige concluded.
> >
> > Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
> > organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and
abuse
> >in government.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
 
It is quasi-government. Set up as a monopoly.

I'll admit that I am skeptical of the appropriateness or effectiveness of USPS sponsorship.

"xzzy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:JKlPa.29607$N7.3500@sccrnsc03...
> isn't USPS a private company?
>
> John Bickmore www.BicycleCam.com www.Feed-Zone.com
>
> "Jamce1" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > which part is bs?
> >
> > i am assuming you have links or other proof refuting any or all of this,
> right?
> >
> > chris
> >
> > >Subject: More BS on USPS Sponsorship From: "jrodgers" [email protected] Date: 7/10/03 8:09 AM
> > >Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > This group obviously does not know **** from shinola about racing, or
> care:
> >
><http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_07082003c>
> > >
> > > USPS Races Downhill and Loses Money Postal Officials Continue To Waste Millions on Sports
Sponsorships
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
today
> > >criticized the United States Postal Service (USPS) for its abysmal
track
> > >record of botched marketing initiatives and mismanaged sports
sponsorship
> > >expenditures. The USPS has sponsored the U.S. Cycling team since 1996,
> and
> > >Lance Armstrong, who came on board in 1998, is the odds-on favorite to
> win
> > >his fifth consecutive Tour De France. While Armstrong has a
well-earned
> > >reputation for athletic excellence, a February 25, 2003 uncensored,
draft
> > >report by the USPS Office of Inspector General (IG) and obtained by
CAGW,
> > >shows that USPS has bungled its sports sponsorship programs.
> > >
> > > "Lance Armstrong is a champion and hero to millions of Americans. Each year, he delivers
> > > a stirring performance at the Tour De France,"
> said
> > >CAGW Director of Special Projects Leslie K. Paige. "Unfortunately, Armstrong's top sponsor, the
> > >USPS, is going downhill fast financially
and
> > >managing to lose millions on its sports sponsorships. Despite a
> corporate
> > >loss of $676 million in 2002, the most recent sponsorship contract with
> the
> > >cycling team reportedly cost the USPS more than $40 million. This does
> not
> > >include the costs associated with sending postal executives and their spouses on junkets to the
> > >Tour De France as they have done in the
past."
> > >
> > > The IG report reviewed expenditures of $48 million for 11 USPS
> sports
> > >sponsorship programs active between the years 1996 and 2002. Besides
the
> > >U.S. Cycling Team, USPS sponsorships included the New York Yankees
($3.7
> > >million), the New York Giants ($1.9 million), the Chicago Bears
> ($632,500),
> > >and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays ($630,500). The IG found that the USPS
was
> > >unable to verify revenue claimed as a result of the sponsorships,
lacked
> > >goals and objectives for 10 of the 11 reviewed, and did not track or properly use events
> > >tickets and invitations in 2001. Since 1998,
> according
> > >to the report, the USPS has eliminated 200 sponsorships, leaving only 5
> as
> > >of October 2002.
> > >
> > > "Postal officials routinely pedal the line that sponsorship of
the
> > >cycling team raises 'brand awareness' in Europe and results in $19
> million
> > >in revenue annually. Yet, they present no verifiable evidence of this
> and,
> > >according to the IG report, fail to quantify any impact to the bottom
> line
> > >with any of its sports sponsorships. International sales account for
> only
> > >2.6 percent of the USPS' total revenue and anecdotal evidence suggests
> that
> > >the USPS' performance in the international arena is substandard.
> Congress,
> > >the Presidential Reform Commission, and the USPS Board of Governors
ought
> to
> > >put the brakes on these wasteful expenditures," Paige said.
> > >
> > > "The USPS is a government-owned monopoly and does not need to
spend
> > >money on 'brand' advertising. In its current fiscal crisis, it cannot rationalize sponsorships
> > >of any kind. Postal officials simply recycle
> the
> > >feel-good mantra that these sponsorships boost the agency's image and
> make
> > >postal employees feel good. If postal officials want to retread their image, they should bow
> > >out of the sports sponsorships, redirect those revenues to improving mail delivery, reduce
> > >costly overhead, and
furnish
> > >better customer service. Lance Armstrong will continue to deliver
> without
> > >USPS sponsorship," Paige concluded.
> > >
> > > Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
> > > organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and
> abuse
> > >in government.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
 
"Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> It is quasi-government. Set up as a monopoly.
>
> I'll admit that I am skeptical of the appropriateness or effectiveness of USPS sponsorship.
>

Presumably you feel the same way about the US military sponsoring various motor racing teams.
 
"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > It is quasi-government. Set up as a monopoly.
> >
> > I'll admit that I am skeptical of the appropriateness or effectiveness
of
> > USPS sponsorship.
> >
>
> Presumably you feel the same way about the US military sponsoring various motor racing teams.
>
Maybe, if it can be shown that it increases recruiting then I could be swayed. The military is not
the monopoly the USPS is (at one time--and may still be the case--sending a letter via FedEx or
another service was illegal unless it could be shown it was essential that the letter be there
overnight). Does anyone have any evidence that the money spent has improved USPS European
operation? If nothing else, it would not be considered a good investment. Heck, I mail so few
things (personally) that I have almost no use for the Postal Service---and most of the stuff in my
mailbox is junk. Although with a new kid, we are getting lots of free samples of baby things!

I am also against taxpayer funded stadia and about 85% of what Congress

(recent NIH grant).
 
> I am also against taxpayer funded stadia and about 85% of what Congress

> (recent NIH grant).

Dude, again you need to pay more attention to actual facts. 13% of the current budget goes to paying
off INTREST on the national debt. Not much left - 2% for all of W.'s programs.

Dan
 
Sam wrote:
>
> The military is not the monopoly the USPS is

Hmmm. My own nukes :)
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > It is quasi-government. Set up as a monopoly.
> > >
> > > I'll admit that I am skeptical of the appropriateness or effectiveness
> of
> > > USPS sponsorship.
> > >
> >
> > Presumably you feel the same way about the US military sponsoring various motor racing teams.
> >
> Maybe, if it can be shown that it increases recruiting then I could be swayed. The military is
> not the monopoly the USPS is (at one time--and may still be the case--sending a letter via FedEx
> or another service was illegal unless it could be shown it was essential that the letter be
> there overnight). Does anyone have any evidence that the money spent has improved USPS European
> operation? If nothing else, it would not be considered a good investment. Heck, I mail so few
> things (personally) that I have almost no use for the Postal Service---and most of the stuff in
> my mailbox is junk. Although with a new kid, we are getting lots of free samples of baby things!

Well, I have no use for the products of Berry Floor, Fassa Bartolo, CSC, or fdjeux, either. I think
Shimano, Campy, and most of the gear and bike suppliers are getting good value from me.

Disregarding your personal beef with USPS, they are expected to run as a break-even operation. The
bike team is a very high-profile sponsorship, and in general sport team sponsorship offers a better
return in terms of exposure/dollar than most other forms of advertising.

Like it or not, USPS is in competition with the courier companies, and while it does have a monopoly
on certain forms of postal service, it also has a special obligation to provide to-the-door postal
service to almost every address in the US. That's why it's established as a monopoly.

I'm not a US citizen or even resident, but as long as USPS' books balance, I don't think you should
fret too much about their marketing plan.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
"Daniel S. Lieb" <spamfree@!!!.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I am also against taxpayer funded stadia and about 85% of what Congress

> > (recent NIH grant).
>
> Dude, again you need to pay more attention to actual facts. 13% of the
current
> budget goes to paying off INTREST on the national debt. Not much left -
2% for
> all of W.'s programs.
>
> Dan
>

Dan, have you ever thought that if Congress only appropriated money for its Constitutional duties
that we would have no debt and each person's tax burden would be less and there would be more
freedom in this country to spend money as individuals see fit.

I am not a big W fan. He has expanded the federal government's role in education (the lame "Leave No
Child Behind") and the prescription drug plan (talk about killing a fly with an ICBM).

Republicans are not that different from Democrats in spending the money confiscated from its
citizens. They might spend it in slightly different ways, but they are spending it in ways not
outlined in theConstitution.
 
"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > It is quasi-government. Set up as a monopoly.
> > > >
> > > > I'll admit that I am skeptical of the appropriateness or
effectiveness
> > of
> > > > USPS sponsorship.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Presumably you feel the same way about the US military sponsoring
various
> > > motor racing teams.
> > >
> > Maybe, if it can be shown that it increases recruiting then I could be
> > swayed. The military is not the monopoly the USPS is (at one time--and
may
> > still be the case--sending a letter via FedEx or another service was
illegal
> > unless it could be shown it was essential that the letter be there overnight). Does anyone have
> > any evidence that the money spent has
improved
> > USPS European operation? If nothing else, it would not be considered a
good
> > investment. Heck, I mail so few things (personally) that I have almost
no
> > use for the Postal Service---and most of the stuff in my mailbox is
junk.
> > Although with a new kid, we are getting lots of free samples of baby
things!
>
> Well, I have no use for the products of Berry Floor, Fassa Bartolo, CSC, or fdjeux, either. I
> think Shimano, Campy, and most of the gear and bike suppliers are getting good value from me.
>
Private companies. Different issues. I am not sure what sponsoring a bike team does for
their bottom lines and since I do not own stock in any of those companies, it is not my
business. I am glad they are doing it. My guess is that most of these companies sponsor
teams because the CEO or someone high end likes bike racing.

> Disregarding your personal beef with USPS, they are expected to run as a break-even operation. The
> bike team is a very high-profile sponsorship, and in general sport team sponsorship offers a
> better return in terms of exposure/dollar than most other forms of advertising.

Prove it. If USPS shows that it has increased their share of the overnight delivery
service to Europe, I have no problem with it.

>
> Like it or not, USPS is in competition with the courier companies, and while it does have a
> monopoly on certain forms of postal service, it also has a special obligation to provide
> to-the-door postal service to almost every address in the US. That's why it's established as a
> monopoly.
>
> I'm not a US citizen or even resident, but as long as USPS' books balance, I don't think you
> should fret too much about their marketing plan.

Read the article! The books are not balanced! USPS has no business in the overnight
delivery service. Government entities (or quasi in this case--they pay no taxes and no
property taxes for its building unlike UPS and FedEx) should not compete with private
industry. Sorry, this is a foreign concept to those living in countries where the
government takes care of you from cradle to grave.

>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
Sam, Spare me your dreams of a libertarian utopia. Won't ever work in this country.

Daniel

Sam wrote:

> "Daniel S. Lieb" <spamfree@!!!.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > I am also against taxpayer funded stadia and about 85% of what Congress

> > > (recent NIH grant).
> >
> > Dude, again you need to pay more attention to actual facts. 13% of the
> current
> > budget goes to paying off INTREST on the national debt. Not much left -
> 2% for
> > all of W.'s programs.
> >
> > Dan
> >
>
> Dan, have you ever thought that if Congress only appropriated money for its Constitutional duties
> that we would have no debt and each person's tax burden would be less and there would be more
> freedom in this country to spend money as individuals see fit.
>
> I am not a big W fan. He has expanded the federal government's role in education (the lame "Leave
> No Child Behind") and the prescription drug plan (talk about killing a fly with an ICBM).
>
> Republicans are not that different from Democrats in spending the money confiscated from its
> citizens. They might spend it in slightly different ways, but they are spending it in ways not
> outlined in theConstitution.
 
Come on, if I cannot dream, then what is the use.

I guess you quell everyone's thoughts that disagree with your own.

I see a revolution brewing in a few decades. I can be patient.

news:[email protected]...
> Sam, Spare me your dreams of a libertarian utopia. Won't ever work in this
country.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> Sam wrote:
>
> > "Daniel S. Lieb" <spamfree@!!!.com> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > I am also against taxpayer funded stadia and about 85% of what
Congress

arousal
> > > > (recent NIH grant).
> > >
> > > Dude, again you need to pay more attention to actual facts. 13% of
the
> > current
> > > budget goes to paying off INTREST on the national debt. Not much
left -
> > 2% for
> > > all of W.'s programs.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> >
> > Dan, have you ever thought that if Congress only appropriated money for
its
> > Constitutional duties that we would have no debt and each person's tax burden would be less and
> > there would be more freedom in this country to spend money as individuals see fit.
> >
> > I am not a big W fan. He has expanded the federal government's role in education (the lame
> > "Leave No Child Behind") and the prescription drug
plan
> > (talk about killing a fly with an ICBM).
> >
> > Republicans are not that different from Democrats in spending the money confiscated from its
> > citizens. They might spend it in slightly
different
> > ways, but they are spending it in ways not outlined in theConstitution.
 
Sam wrote:

> Come on, if I cannot dream, then what is the use.

No Sam, it is just not worth it. It's not worth trying to explain economic policy to
libertarians, IMHO.

> I guess you quell everyone's thoughts that disagree with your own.

you must be brand new to r.b.r.! I thought that's how it is done here! *jab*

> I see a revolution brewing in a few decades. I can be patient.

I'm doing my Ph.D. work in Behavioral Game Theory, so I feel pretty qualified to argue against your
'vision.' Let's agree to disagree and put this to rest!

Daniel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.