What does this day and age have to do with it? Things still need to get from one place to another. It is still a laudable goal to have the cost of that process be socialized; that aspect has not changed. Yes, many things have gone digital, but that does not change the underlying nature of the mail, nor does it invalidate the way we should be thinking about it as a society.
Because you're getting subsidized as well. When there are natural disasters in larger areas, money from poorer areas is used to help clean up. The cost of the roads to and from your more populated area is split/shared with road costs in less populated areas. And so on...
Sure, if you want to talk about single line items. But if you look at the total rural people are heavily subsided by the rest of us. It's not just mail. It's mail. It's roads. It's electricity. It's airports. Hospitals. Internet service...
Since when do you not get subsidized? Are you in the billionaires club and have you're own private roads, planes, police, etc? Even if you do, I think I'm still subsidizing you unless you live as a hermit.
Honestly, "chosen lifestyle," how quaint of you. You act as if people that live in rural areas are living some posh lifestyle of choice. That's just completely ridiculous.
>Since when do you not get subsidized? Are you in the billionaires club and have you're own private roads, planes, police, etc? Even if you do, I think I'm still subsidizing you unless you live as a hermit.
Bullshit. I pay more money out than I receive in services because sparsely populated areas receive more services than they pay for. Your argument is just pure sophistry.
>Honestly, "chosen lifestyle," how quaint of you. You act as if people that live in rural areas are living some posh lifestyle of choice. That's just completely ridiculous.
That's what I'm arguing, yeah, though you're doing your best to warp the point. "Posh" is misdirection. There are lots of advantages to living in rural areas. The air is cleaner. Housing is cheaper. Less stress. There's not much traffic. Hell, a lot of the disadvantages have disappeared recently, since the internet brings entertainment and shopping choices that people used to have to go to the city for.
But this isn't China where you have to get a permit to move to the city. Living in a rural area is a choice, and I just don't see why people who make that choice shouldn't pay their own way.
I mean you can say "bullshit" all you want but the fact is you do get subsidized. I don't know if you are a billionaire or not but those nice highways you get to drive on were not paid by you and probably could not be paid for by you, if I assume you're not some kind of trillionaire. Honestly, that's just one of a myriad of things; I couldn't name them all.
My argument sophistry. It is recognition of reality. Whatever pays your bills is probably partly possible because of subsidies. It's just reality. And if not you, specifically, since you aren't a special snowflake and the world exists for reasons beyond your existence, it is certainly the case that many people are wealthy because subsidies.
Many people are not living in rural areas because of that sort of choice; many people live their because they feel like they don't have good options.
Honestly, you're whole point is a bit silly to me anyway. The issue with the USPS is this ridiculous pension requirement that is being thrusted upon them by the same political party that brought us the Iraq war, how was that for corporate subsidies?
>I mean you can say "bullshit" all you want but the fact is you do get subsidized.
How can this make sense to you. If I pay a dollar in taxes and get $0.80 in services, does that sound like a subsidy to you? On my planet that's not a subsidy.
>Many people are not living in rural areas because of that sort of choice; many people live their because they feel like they don't have good options.
I'm not really interested in their feelings.
>The issue with the USPS is this ridiculous pension requirement that is being thrusted upon them by the same political party that brought us the Iraq war, how was that for corporate subsidies?
You may have noticed the Democrats ran Congress from 2006 to 2010.
> How can this make sense to you. If I pay a dollar in taxes and get $0.80 in services, does that sound like a subsidy to you? On my planet that's not a subsidy.
I claim you are getting more subsidies than you believe.
> You may have noticed the Democrats ran Congress from 2006 to 2010.
You may have noticed that there is something called a requirement for a super majority such that and you might also recall that the other parties stated agenda, see Mitch McConnell, was to block all legislation. So, I don't see how this is the case.
>I claim you are getting more subsidies than you believe.
That's an interesting claim. Completely without merit, but interesting.
>You may have noticed that there is something called a requirement for a super majority such that and you might also recall that the other parties stated agenda, see Mitch McConnell, was to block all legislation.
There's no supermajority for the budget. And no, the Republicans do not have a state agenda to block all legislation. I imagine whatever comment you're referring to was taken out of context, but even if it wasn't Mitch McConnell doesn't have the power to make that stick.
