Yeah, the only reason you can label it a "partisan issue" is due to the Republicans taking the stance (as said above) of, "We are for the rich, if you try to raise taxes on them we'll fuck you in the ass!", so yes it's a partisan issue ONLY because the Republicans have by default made it their unified decision on the matter.

This is again why the Republicans are very quickly becoming a force of extreme evil, and I really do mean that. They already bankrupted a perfectly functioning institution that has been the LONGEST running branch of the U.S. Government without issues: the Post Office, and now it is DEAD. It will be dead sooner or later (they are already closing down main facilities if you haven't paid attention, wake up and smell the burning cinder, it's already here) and the Republicans passed the bill that they FULL WELL knew would destroy them.

They are trying to do it elsewhere, anything they can get the mitts ALL the way on, either to make this president look so bad that he can't be elected or to watch it burn so they can put up whatever corporation plutocracy bullshit they want. THEY are gone. They have left the reservation.

And, I mean that in the most kindest and sincere way possible, just as they would say it to me...

7 years ago, Bush was in the White House, and Republicans had the majority in the Senate and the House.

True, but not relevant to the Student loan thing. Sigh. I must - once again - step in and provide the actual facts for this issue.

The year is 2007. The Democrats control both the House of Representatives, and the Senate. This Democrat congress passed a law which implemented a phased decrease in student loan rates. Every year the percentage dropped from its ORIGINAL rate of 6.8%. So in reality, the 3.4% current rate has not even been "the rate" for a year. The law that the Democrat congress passed was written so that the rates would return to normal in 2012. For the record, Barak Obama was a Senator at the time of the vote, but did not attend the session to actually cast his vote because he was campaigning. The law as it is written was designed and passed by Democrats. Not the GOP. Also for the record, the CURRENT congress (GOP) passed a resolution to keep the 3.4% rate but the Democrats are threatening to veto it. Guess the 3.4% rate isn't THAT important to them...

As far as Obama on Fallon goes? Cool? Thrb. Only if you're a trained seal that has no intellectual capacity except to clap for your kippers. I watched the bit and the whole thing was awkward, stilted, and made all the participants look desperate rather than 'cool'. 'Cool' doesn't go out and try that hard to be cool. Cool is cool without having to slow jam. And Obama isn't cool. He's cold. If he wants to put on a clown nose, go on Fallon and do stupid human tricks in a desperate attempt to shore up his plummeting poll numbers in the youth vote then go ahead. He'd have done better to be less of a disaster for 3.5 years so he wouldn't have to play damage control today.

Parenthetically, this "College Bubble" has been coming for a long time. The value of a 4-year degree has been plummeting, while college costs have been going through the roof. Rather than redesign thier business model, colleges have - like the Post Office - desperately been trying to peddle student loans as a means of maintaining the status quo. Like the Housing Bubble, the Education Bubble cannot be sustained and is on the verge of popping. Let it blow now. Let the loan rates go back to where they were in the first place. Students should not be taking about loans to go to school anyway. I worked my way through undergrad school on part time jobs and living on Hamburger Helper for 5 years. I biked everywhere I went, and my only possessions were thrift store junk I picked up when I could afford it. When it wwas all over I graduated, got a job, and slowly worked my way up with hard work, diligence, and frugal living. That's how you get an education - and not just a 'college' education but a LIFE education. Who ever established the STUPID practice of telling students to borrow thier way through college? Yup. Democrats and Liberals.

Hrm, interesting since I am drunk... But you said, "Also too," which makes all that you wrote moot! Ha, also can mean "too!" I win!

All jokes aside...the constitution, as I said, is understood backwards by Paul. If it isn't wrote, the government has the ability to do (At least the State.)

Universal healthcare is legal, not because of the commerce clause...but because it is.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

I meant that the constitution limits the government, not the people. That is not to say that it doesn't spell out a few rules it should enforce. And besides, "limits" is not saying that it cannot punish at all. I specify that in the bill of rights because it favors my context well...

When I say "If it is not prohibited, it is allowed," I mean that in a very broad sense. Making laws for one...unless otherwise noted...

>> ^heropsycho:

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.
The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:
Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.
However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:
1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.
The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?
It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

For the record, I'm not a strict constructionist. However, I do recognize the danger of looser interpretations, even though I'm politically moderate person. I don't have a good answer for example about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that law was sorely needed, but it sure does open Pandora's box about what the gov't can and can't regulate. Regulation of interstate commerce allowed for things like environmental regulation, the formation of the EPA, etc. But it sure can cause the gov't to regulate things it shouldn't, too.

The formation of an Air Force though is an easier argument constitutionally, and it's a useful thing to review because it illustrates the thought process of the Supreme Court. When something isn't outright said in Article I, Section 8, those powers in combination with interpretting other sections such as the Preamble ("provide for the common defense..."), or sometimes other documents the forefathers wrote such as the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, etc., provide ideas about their intent. It's clearly implied that since they could form an Army and Navy for defense, once flight was possible, it's implied we need an Air Force.

As to the things below you're saying should be put to a vote, they are, but not directly by the people. That's how the Amendment process works. Should it be a direct vote by the people? In my opinion, that would be a horrible idea. The people simply for the most part do not understand the ramifications of amending the Constitution.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.

Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.

According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.

Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.

IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.

For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.

There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?

There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.

Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?

Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.

Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.

The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:

Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.

However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:

1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.

The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?

It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

You should be glad the focus is on this card, and not Obama's record.

1,000 DAYS OF OBAMA

DEBT: Total Public Debt Outstanding has increased by $4.2 trillion [source: Treasury Dept]

MORE DEBT: America accumulated as much debt over the past 1,000 days as it had in the country’s first 79,135 days (July 4, 1776 through March 3, 1993) [source: Treasury Dept]

DEBT PER DAY: America’s debt has increased by about an average of $4.2 billion per day [source: Treasury Dept]

INTEREST ON U.S. DEBT: $1.2 trillion has been spent servicing U.S. debt—that by itself would be the world’s 15th largest economy
[source: Treasury Dept]

JOBS: 2.22 million jobs lost [source: BLS]

POVERTY: Nearly 3 million more Americans in poverty—poverty rate has gone from 13.2% to 15.1% [source: Census]
FOOD STAMPS: 12 million more Americans living off of food stamps [source: Dept of Agriculture // Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]
GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Spent more than $9.6 trillion – 60% more than the federal government has taken in [source: OMB and CBO]

MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Under Obama, the govt has spent an average of $6.6 million every minute and $111,111 every second [source: OMB and CBO]

CHINA: Owns $1.17 trillion of our debt (as of July) – a 58% increase from January 2009 [source: Treasury Dept]
GOVERNMENT JOBS: Excluding the U.S. Post Office, Federal Government has added 140,000 jobs [source: BLS]

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: Has averaged 9.4% under Obama [source: BLS]

MORE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: Has been at or above 9% for 840 of the 1000 days [source: BLS]
UNDEREMPLOYED: Nearly 5 million more Americans are underemployed [source: BLS]

REGULATIONS – NEW RULES: 7,076 new final regulatory rules issued [source: Federal Register]

REGULATIONS – FEDERAL REGISTER: 45,696 pages of new regulatory rules were added to the Federal Register
[source: National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, various years]

AVERAGE WEEKS UNEMPLOYED: Unemployed out of work for an average of 40.5 weeks – that’s more than double since Jan 2009 [source: BLS]

JOB APPROVAL RATING: Dropped nearly 30 percentage points [source: Gallup Tracking]

SPEECHES AND PUBLIC REMARKS: Roughly 806 speeches/public remarks made – once every 1.24 days.

SPEECHES — JOBS: Has said the word “jobs” 4,718 times in 591 speeches

SPEECHES — ECONOMY: Has said the word “economy” 4,541 times in 605 speeches

CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE: Has decreased by 168,000 [source: BLS]

MANUFACTURING: 818,000 manufacturing jobs lost — a -6.5% drop since Jan. 2009 [source: BLS]

BANK FAILURES: 371 Banks have failed [source: FDIC]

STATES: 37 States have higher unemployment rates [source: BLS]

GOLF: 82 rounds of golf — average of one round every 12 days [source: Mark Knoller, CBS –Fox News Tracking]

REPOSSESSIONS: More than 2.4 million homes have been repossessed for failure to pay their mortgage [source: RealtyTrac]

BANKRUPTCIES: Some 4 million total (business and non-business) bankruptcies [source: American Bankruptcy Institute]

GAS PRICES: Up more than 80% and has been over $3/gallon every day in 2011 [source: AAA/OPIS]

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: Almost $380 billion spent by federal government on unemployment benefits [source: Treasury Dept and CBO]

ECONOMIC TEAM: 7 key members of Obama’s Economic team have resigned [Summers, Romer, Bernstein, Orszag, Goolsbee Volker and Rouse] [source: News Reports/Tracking]

HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS: Health insurance premiums (family coverage) up 9% this year and 12.7% from 2009
[source: Kaiser Family Foundation]

MEDIAN INCOME: Real median household income in the U.S. in 2010 was $49,445, a -2.3% decline from 2009 [source: Census Dept]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: Spent more than $26 billion on the EPA – FY2011’s spending will be about 40% more than FY2009 [source: Treasury and OMB]

I know alot of high paid people who hate their jobs. I don't play violins for them, but I do empathize.

On the FE/PO relationship: from wikipedia: FedEx SmartPost specializes in the consolidation and delivery of high volumes of low-weight, less time-sensitive business-to-consumer packages, using the US Postal Service[2] for final delivery to residences.

Agree agree agree on your last point.
>> ^shagen454:

Not that it even matters to me, but first class mail will be replaced by FedEx and UPS priority deliveries as first class mail will become a two day service.
The guy probably does not hate his job's payout because even a SCM makes over 130K including bonuses so I'm sure this guy is rolling in it. Never ever heard about USPS handling FedEx duties.... I still stand by my statement FedEx fucking sucks a corrupt company; but I guess that doesn't make them much different than most corporations in the America? And people seem to be fine with that.
>> ^longde:
@shagen454 Of course within your post you directly addressed the teleprompter guy: "the way this guy speaks, completely disingenuous, stale, planned is exactly the way that company is all the way to the top." ; that's why I responded acerbically. I really don't know what you expect that guy to do. I'm sure he hates his job too. No need to dump on him in an empty way if your target is really FedEx.
People didn't "fall for" it; I would guess the 3 upvoters (wow, how many power points will that get me?) were simply rubbed the same way I was with your post.
I am a little familiar with the operations of FedEx, UPS and the Post Office. I wouldn't want to be a grunt in any of those places either; having my times constantly checked. Does that mean I would chuck a monitor over a fence? At least they didn't can that guy.
Since Fed Ex is actually contracted by the Postal Service for some mid- and long-haul routes, shutting down the Postal Service would actually hurt some parts of FedEx. Also, I don't think that UPS or FedEx will offer a replacement for 1st class mail.

Not that it even matters to me, but first class mail will be replaced by FedEx and UPS priority deliveries as first class mail will become a two day service.

The guy probably does not hate his job's payout because even a SCM makes over 130K including bonuses so I'm sure this guy is rolling in it. Never ever heard about USPS handling FedEx duties.... I still stand by my statement FedEx fucking sucks a corrupt company; but I guess that doesn't make them much different than most corporations in the America? And people seem to be fine with that.

>> ^longde:

@shagen454 Of course within your post you directly addressed the teleprompter guy: "the way this guy speaks, completely disingenuous, stale, planned is exactly the way that company is all the way to the top." ; that's why I responded acerbically. I really don't know what you expect that guy to do. I'm sure he hates his job too. No need to dump on him in an empty way if your target is really FedEx.
People didn't "fall for" it; I would guess the 3 upvoters (wow, how many power points will that get me?) were simply rubbed the same way I was with your post.
I am a little familiar with the operations of FedEx, UPS and the Post Office. I wouldn't want to be a grunt in any of those places either; having my times constantly checked. Does that mean I would chuck a monitor over a fence? At least they didn't can that guy.
Since Fed Ex is actually contracted by the Postal Service for some mid- and long-haul routes, shutting down the Postal Service would actually hurt some parts of FedEx. Also, I don't think that UPS or FedEx will offer a replacement for 1st class mail.

@shagen454 Of course within your post you directly addressed the teleprompter guy: "the way this guy speaks, completely disingenuous, stale, planned is exactly the way that company is all the way to the top." ; that's why I responded acerbically. I really don't know what you expect that guy to do. I'm sure he hates his job too. No need to dump on him in an empty way if your target is really FedEx.

People didn't "fall for" it; I would guess the 3 upvoters (wow, how many power points will that get me?) were simply rubbed the same way I was with your post.

I am a little familiar with the operations of FedEx, UPS and the Post Office. I wouldn't want to be a grunt in any of those places either; having my times constantly checked. Does that mean I would chuck a monitor over a fence? At least they didn't can that guy.

Since Fed Ex is actually contracted by the Postal Service for some mid- and long-haul routes, shutting down the Postal Service would actually hurt some parts of FedEx. Also, I don't think that UPS or FedEx will offer a replacement for 1st class mail.

Its funny that your comment is meant to be upvoted. Yay, for witty cynicism. It's phrased for upvotes and people fall for it. Which message should i vote for, oh the dick joke one... retards. I fucking know FedEx inside and out and all I'm saying is that this guy gets under my fucking skin because I know how to read it. "Make every FedEx experience oustanding"... shut the fuck up corporate pig get back to eating your fucking hotdog and checking your email.

My message wasn't specifically addressed to this guy reading the TelePrompter anyway; my message was about fucking FEDEX. It's a horrible company to work for; but the service is actually pretty good besides chumps throwing your package or printing you presentation head to toe.

What you don't have anything else to say about the government screwing over the post office, or about FedEx specifically? Or did you just cum on this thread to tell a dick joke?

I don't know what you want this guy to do; suck your dick? He got on the innertubes, apologized and said they were taking measures to discipline the guy. Is every company man supposed to be a crack orator?

If I had an important urgent message to send, I would read it off carefully, too. Wouldn't you? >> ^shagen454:

Fuck FedEx. They treat their employees like shit and it's in my belief that that our government helped fuck the post office in order to help private companies like FedEx and UPS. FedEx is like a corporate Scientology, the way this guy speaks, completely disingenuous, stale, planned is exactly the way that company is all the way to the top.

Fuck FedEx. They treat their employees like shit and it's in my belief that that our government helped fuck the post office in order to help private companies like FedEx and UPS. FedEx is like a corporate Scientology, the way this guy speaks, completely disingenuous, stale, planned is exactly the way that company is all the way to the top.