bloomberg.com— The U.S. Postal Service said it lost $3.3 billion in the quarter ended Dec. 31 -- typically its strongest -- and that it expects to run out of cash in October unless Congress agrees to cuts in facilities and employees.
Feb 9, 2012View in Crawl 4
I was able to catch my mailman at the mailboxes, and I gave him a heads up of what I intended to do to him, in regards to unwanted junk mail. He tells me, unfortunately there isn't much I can do about getting it stopped, because most of the mail is presorted, and the junk mail is what makes the local post office its revenue. Plus, they can't block specific mail. So he basically gives me some insight as to how the local post office works. The levels of computerized sorting systems, that just don't have the ability to pull prepaid mailings. If its paid for, then its required to be delivered to its destination.
So I asked him what would he do if the mailbox he delivers to never removes the junk mail, but does remove its regular mail. He looked a bit angered by that question as in, 'someone' has done it before.
A week later my mailbox was full of 'unsolicited junk mail', I contacted the post office to make a attempt to have the mail stopped. All my important bills are automatically paid online, and I receive emails for the VIPapers. Otherwise everything in my box delivered is just junk, with the exception once in while a expected letter or package.
Three weeks later, I go to check my mail. The box is empty except for one letter and a note. "Please check your mail more often, the fliers and other mail filled up your box. SO I threw away all the expired mailers. -Thank You "
But as long as you want to get rid of junk, how about this:
1. Give everyone who might send you real mail an alias (false name).
2. Forward mail addressed to your house and your name to somewhere else (e.g. to the post office).
3. If/when the alias starts getting too much junk mail, repeat steps 1 and 2 changing from the alias to a new alias.
Is it really his job to prevent people from sending him spam, by having to spend hours coming up with a system to avoid it?
The mail carrier should offer this option, but they don't since they make money from it.
It's not being petty at all to refuse to take ownership of spam that is delivered to you. The mailbox is the governments property, leave it there and they still own it.
"The mail carrier should offer this option, but they don't since they make money from it."
Gmail currently provides me the service of filtering my Email, and sometimes they f**k up, sending a legitimate email into the spam folder. Luckily, when they do, I can just check my spam folder for the lost mail.
Do you really want to give the post office the power to choose which mail does and does not get through to you?
"It's not being petty at all to refuse to take ownership of spam that is delivered to you."
I think it is. I used to use a PO Box; I'd fetch my mail once a week, spend a few minutes going through what mail was 'real' and what was junk - I'd much rather receive all the junk than take a risk of missing some of the good stuff.
@jftitan Are you kidding? Do you really think njdoo is going to like the idea of having a second mailbox just for junk mail? He's a f**king moron. He is stressing out because the government delivers mail he doesn't want to receive, as if they are supposed to be able to read his mind.
Now, I'm not saying your idea(s) are dumb, but when put into practice, its just pushing the labor to the end user.
Like the example you put about Google, and Gmail. Yes I use gmail as well, and I love its SPAM filtering capabilities. But you need to understand Real Mail versus Electronic Mail are two different worlds.
My current solution to junk mail already resolves all the issues. I already receive my important mail by email. So when it comes to debts, bills, invoices, etc, it is all done electronically. For traditional Snail Mail, I already know every once in awhile I have something I'm waiting for, it will be delivered to my door, or if its a letter, it will be in the full mailbox until I actually get to it.
Again, my system is flawless. (sure if I miss the typical holiday card, or some sort of importance, I will check my mail box accordingly. Otherwise, whatever is in the mailbox isn't important or classifies are important in my 'mailing' needs.
I gave the Post Office heads up. I even asked them, since they are the ones putting the junk mail into my mail. The Post Office is required by law to deliver what mail is already paid for, otherwise, those junk mailers would be pretty upset if the Post Office started throwing away the junk OR stop delivering what the advertiser paid them to deliver.
So technically, we need to take a further step back. We need to inform the advertiser to stop sending the junk mail. However in my area, I can't just goto a HEB (grocery) or WalMart, or any of the other locations in which the district management has a third party system whereas they pay a flat rate for zip codes. If the Post Office, Told the advertisers "For zip 78xxx" we had 400 people opt-out of the fliers, Your rate drops by $30 bucks" Then I would be f**k off happy about it, then the Advertiser doesn't get charged for mail that the Post Office wouldn't deliver the 'junk mail' to.
Is it my job to opt out of something I never opted into? Thats what CAN-SPAM was all about this issue when it came to spam emails. If the Spammer sent you a email, they are required by law to make a 'unsubscribe' option available in the spam email.
Where is that option in real mail? There isn't one. Again, I informed my Post Office to stop/filter the junk mail out. They informed me they couldn't. I resorted to, changing all my important mail to electronic mail. And only taking the necessary mail when I'm expecting mail. Otherwise, the junk mail remains in the mail box.
I know I resolved my delima better than your solution. Why the f**k should i change MY name, and then inform all my friends and contacts I have a new name for them to mail me at. Did you not read the Patriot Act, or any of these new laws our Representatives have passed to make it illegal for people to have alternate Identities. Why should I change my s**t to avoid junk mail?
Would you like me to wash your car windows while you are stuck at a red light? No, well I'm gonna wash your windows with a dirty rag, and s**tty rain water. You couldn't stop me huh? You happy that 'I' inconvenienced you and your clean car, and you didn't even get a chance to opt out of my free window washing service.
"Would you like me to wash your car windows while you are stuck at a red light? No, well I'm gonna wash your windows with a dirty rag, and s**tty rain water. You couldn't stop me huh? You happy that 'I' inconvenienced you and your clean car, and you didn't even get a chance to opt out of my free window washing service."
Yes, it's fine to work toward reforming institutions that co-exist in our world, but since you and I have no ability to change the system unilaterally, it is useful to find things that WE CAN do ourselves to address the problems we are facing.
Yes, if the doctor responds to your complaint that it hurts when you do THIS by saying "then don't do that..." you're going to be annoyed - you expect him to address the underlying cause of the problem. But in the meanwhile, it's good advice - don't do the thing that's hurting you.
Thank you conservatives for deliberately sabotaging the US Postal Service by:
1. forcing a mandate that requires the USPS to fund decades of retirement in just a few years
2. partially privatizing it, giving all of the profitable services to private corporations (like FedEx), while keeping the unprofitable parts in the public sector (to "prove" nothing government can work)
3. wiping your butts with the constitution once again, since the Postal Clause *requires* a public postal service in America.
Hardly! Why pay more than cost for the services provided by BOTH services.
Full privatization of U.S. infrastructure is moronic because it RAISES costs for the nation and everyone who lives in it. It NEVER lowers costs for the same level of service provided.
High profit margins and effective monopolies drive prices up. It's less expensive to send a letter via USPS than either of your dominant private corporations.
lol, because it's subsidized by us... the tax payers. (That's the whole point of the story here.)
The USPS is an outdated model that if it was a private business would have Chaptered out a few years after the invention of faxes and email. And if effective monopolies drive prices up wouldn't that essentially make YOUR USPS the lead offender? They are the only ones that get annual endowments from the Fed and collect money for stamps. (Aside from UPS's bail out... that they didn't need, but that's another story.)
Their real competition is email and that is a monopoly owned by everyone. And since UPS and FedEx exist, and DHL tried but lost, there is no monopoly except the one that USPS supporters have on their altered reality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The USPS is NOT subsidized. Take away the Conservative legislative sabotage and it would NOT be bleeding red ink. It would be PROFITABLE.
Yes, email and fax communications have impacted it's business model, but it serves rural areas of the the country in ways the private sector refuses to do. That makes it FAR more valuable than either Fed Ex OR UPS.
As for privatizing USPS, make NO mistake. The moment USPS was privatized, it's investors would declare bankruptcy, dump it's pension obligations onto taxpayer backs (through the PBGC) and strip it clean for taxpayers to clean up later. So, you and your conservative ilk can roll your privatization idea into a tight little ball and cram it where the sun doesn't shine. Privatization is an extension of the SAME conservative greed and stupidity you've been hawking for years. It amounts to NOTHING but a scam against the country.
@eraptor. A big reason it's failing is because they are required to offer "reasonable, and uniform price and quality" to everyone. As a result, UPS, FedEx, DHL..,ALL use the USPS for a large part of their own logistics which drives each of their own costs down but just forces the USPS to just bleed and bleed...
Everyone knows that Privatizing reduces competition? You honestly think that a government monopoly produces more competition?
Show me an example, any example. I mean that is so goofy I am actually laughing out loud at my desk here. There is so much evidence against your statement that I came to the conclusion that if I presented it to you it would break your brain. It might make you realize that your world view is based on a complete lack of facts. I don't want to ruin your day so I will spare you. So why don't you ruin my day and show me an example of how Socializing a private industry increased competition...And how it would be ran more efficiently without subsidies from tax money. (As all industries ran by the US Government are...)
Perhaps we can look to our southern neighbor Chavez as an example. He just privatized all essential industries... but now they are failing and he has to subsidize them with... you guessed it TAX MONEY! I hope that's not a win in your book. I am excited to see your response.
And since I am here, I would love to see your logic on how would an industry that already has 4+ competitors be a monopoly? You act like email, Fed Ex, UPS and DHL would suddenly become one company if the USPS became privatized? Can you help my brain wrap itself around how that would work? Honestly I want to see how you jump that logic gap.
In fact these statements are so backward I am going to hit refresh until you reply because I have never heard any educated person take these positions before. I'm not trying to belittle you I just need to understand how you can ignore the entire field of economics and just make up things. Your argument is so counter intuitive that no one would ever try to defend that position... until now!
If you can't acces the full article, either Google the title (U.S. attacks China Inc.) or go to your local public library and pick up the Feb. 3rd issue of the Wall Street Journal, Section B. Sorry I couldn't locate a liberal source for you to ignore, so Rupert's conservative media rag will have to suffice.
As for your tragically laughable example of market "competition", oligopolies are NOT an example of healthy competition..."genius". Have you COMPARED rates between the only TWO competitors who would be left once USPS was gutted? Brush up on your macroeconomic ecconomic knowledge because it's SORELY lacking.
All things being equal (i.e., service and staffing), in what world is this economic equation NOT true?
"COST (USPS) < COST+PROFIT (PRIVATIZATION)"
"Cost" is ALWAYS cheaper/more efficient than "cost PLUS profit".
The private sector defines efficiency as fewer staff and radically degraded services. However, when equating BOTH staff and servicing between both sectors, the nonprofit model is ALWAYS superior to that of privatization.
"The private sector defines efficiency as fewer staff and radically degraded services." - Have you been to a post office in the last 10 years? I'd rather have my taint waxed than deal with that place.
Uncontrolled costs due to government bureaucracy > controlled costs + profit. If what you say is true, then why has sending an identical package at the post office almost always cost more than either of the other carriers? The daily mail is the only thing that kept it even remotely close since they were driving a full route regardless. As the quantity of postal mail has dropped, the cost overheads have become substantial.
That all said, has the post office taken procedures that hurt it, sure, but that doesn't mean that privatization automatically is more expensive. Public versus private is irrelevant. What is relevant is competition to drive costs down. Private industry has to compete to keep costs down and limits profit margins, thus the consumer wins. Public industry has no need to compete as it can get funding when it needs. There may be no goal of profit, but if costs aren't controlled, then it will still be more expensive and cost control has never been something the government is good at because they always have the magical "raise revenue" button.
If you don't want to go to the Post Office, then spend your time elsewhere. Your hairy taint is NO reason to privatize USPS.
@brainpile3000,
Your illogical reasoning makes me laugh. It also explains why you support so many morons in office.
bobcat7407,
NO!
Sheephumper,
I became financially independent (and helpd others do the same) by relying on the very economic principles you misunderstand and get wrong. At the very least, I understand how the private sector "works". It's a tragic shame you and your political ilk DON'T because this country would be in FAR better shape, economically and fiscally speaking, if you DID.
ajh16,
I've never suggested USPS is perfect, I simply oppose privatizing it because that is NOT the solution to its troubles OR our country's. If it weren't for conservative sabotage, USPS would be PROFITABLE. Of course, that would have interfered with the Conservative privatization agenda, so Republicans hamstrung the organization to "force" it's demise.
I almost dugg you up for your response to me cause it made me laugh a little. But I can't digg somebody up who uses name calling like you do.
"Of course, that would have interfered with the Conservative privatization agenda, so Republicans hamstrung the organization to "force" it's demise."
I also can't digg somebody up who posts things like this. Please provide a source for your partisanship, otherwise it is just like all the other pathetic partisanship on this site.
Legislative hamstringing = H.R.6407 - Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.
Welcome to the Digg "fight club". Success depends upon one's grasp of economic/political history, truth, objectivity, credibility and humor.
Note: I don't suffer ideologically-driven fools well or apologize for calling anyone out for lying, deception and/or cherry-picking facts to champion a flawed political/economic narrative and agenda. Remember, debate "street fights" aren't a cotillion, especially when this country's future is at stake.
European post offices were almost all privatized three decades ago. Now they are so profitable they are entering other businesses, ALLOW YOU TO OPT OUT OF JUNK MAIL, and sell services that will scan and email all of your outgoing and incoming mail. They have massively reduced costs by combining with convenience stores, rather than paying rent for their own buildings in the center of town.
The U.S. post office on the other hand, gets nearly all of it's revenue from junk mail.
Please challenge me on any of these points so I can provide you with sources.
Are you suggesting USPS can't adopt the SAME business and efficiency practices? I certainly hope not because that would blow your credibility out of the water. We don't have to privatize USPS to adopt those business/efficiency practices. I know that and YOU know that.
So, let's dispense with the "smoke and mirrors" and call this power play for what it is...a thinly-veiled effort to grab a lucrative national monopoly PURELY for financial gain AND at the nation's expense. U.S. taxpayers CREATED USPS after DECADES of investment and they deserve to benefit from it DIRECTLY.
Congressional saboteurs (i.e., Conservatives) and those angling to privatize USPS deserve to be thrown in jail for meddling with it.
I think that the USPS monopoly on sending paper mail should be ended.
I'm fairly sure that they would be unable to compete with UPS and Fed Ex on price or service, but if you think otherwise it would be interesting to see them try.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"So, let's dispense with the "smoke and mirrors" and call this power play for what it is...a thinly-veiled effort to grab a lucrative national monopoly PURELY for financial gain AND at the nation's expense." - Please show me said financial gain that is currently being amassed by the post office.
"U.S. taxpayers CREATED USPS after DECADES of investment and they deserve to benefit from it DIRECTLY." - Currently the post office is equivalent to a boat anchor on the taxpayer. You state that the profits have been stolen by "conservatives" but you cite no source.
"Congressional saboteurs (i.e., Conservatives) and those angling to privatize USPS deserve to be thrown in jail for meddling with it." - I hate to burst your liberal bubble, but no one in congress is a saint, and if you think they have your best interests at heart you were probably fed a mixture of paint chips and the film that collects around the rim of your garbage disposal as a child.
You want a source? Look no farther than your lame duck congress of 2006. They set up the USPS to fail. Without their intentional sabotage the USPS would be showing a profit right now today.
Yeah they would have been bankrupt by now and we would have to invent something that allowed us to communicate without ripping down trees... if only we had the interwebs...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
don't privatize it. Simply fire all the employees, sell the buildings equipment and vehicles. Let the market decide. It isn't my responsibility to make sure farmers get their mail!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"It isn't my responsibility to make sure farmers get their mail!"
That's the spirit that won the War in Iraq! If folks like you were in power in the 30's Hitler would have won the war and we'd be no better off than a banana republic.
That's quite a stretch. We "won" the war in Iraq be ause our opponents had the firepower and war fighting capabilities of your average state militia. I, through seizure of money, am forced to subsidize farmers mail service. If people are presented with real costs, they make changes to thei behavior to minimize costs. I make contracts with FedEx to deliver products from point a to point b. if UPS can do it cheaper or provide better service I go with UPS. Because we continue to bail out USPS wit its top heavy management and through regulation against delivering mail to mailboxes of anyone other than USPS they continue to underperform, and I continue to pay for their failure.
Hitler on the other hand was a political figure who destabilized Europe and rose to power as a result of the treaty of Versailles. Hitler would have failed even if the united states didn't enter the war.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
First of all...i hate buried comments. Secondly..the UPS has had a profit numerous times (over 200 million last year) and receives no taxpayer money: unlike airlines.
The meme of government is the cause of all your problems and can't do anything right has done so much damage to our future..yet the Rethugs keep winning with those lies (all while getting ruch i their own districts with that government pork they all hate so much. At least when a Dem spends money it for bridges and roads...while the Rethugs spend billions in Afghanistan and Iraq and leave the place worse off than it was before.
The key is the essentially dishonest manor the Right achieves its goals.
How has having two or three express mail (or utility, or cable) companies to choose from benefited your household? How does the oil company monopoly benefit our country?
Your point seems a little mixed up my friend. Cable competes with DSL and over Air High def and now Hulu and the other thousand TV sites....
And the logistics of having 3 power companies to compete against each other would be a huge waste of resources. (3 coal fired plants in the same area burning up the atmosphere? Anyone who supports that must hate our children...)
And since it's such a monopoly I have the choice to select BT, The Kwikee Mart and my local gas station, so while the source is the market produced lots of retail competition. The biggest expense is the Tax on fuel that the real monopoly the Federal Government places on fuel doubling the cost... Anti I am not really sure what your point is...
OK, it's good to share solid link assemblages like the library you have. I've added many of mine there too in case your curious to see the type of data I have saved: http://delicious.com/novenator
Absolutely. I don't mean any of my posts as a defense of Republicans or Democrats, I just find myself always trying to set the record straight against the partisan drivel that people post on this site.
I hear ya. It's just sad that people are willing to throw good ideas under the bus because someone wearing a blue or red tie said them. Partisanship is what brought us to the brink of hell, I doubt it's going to pull us back from the ledge...
1. I would actually love to see a study of what the USPS pension would hypothetically look like if it were on its own. Only then could we determine whether we are forcing the USPS to fund too fast. There are VERY specific rules for running a pension. Unfortunately, the USPS doesn't have its own. But where are the estimates of what it would be, what it would look like? Without that information, we cannot tell whether it is under or overfunded. I do have a sneaky feeling that the pension it is contributing to is underfunded... mostly because most pensions are... due to those specific rules. (See CalSTRS - it was estimating 7.5% returns but their own report says that's too high - that directly impacts how well funded the pension is)
2. How did the US government give the profitable services to private corporations? By allowing them to provide their own services and show that they can do it more efficiently? Even this is hard to figure out as UPS/FedEx use some of the USPS infrastructure at times.
3. Actually, the Constitution states "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads" but does not require we have a government entity to run the actual delivering of mail. It would be entirely Constitutional (and literal) to have the USPS mere be a gathering point for the mail, then hand it off to UPS/FedEx for delivery. Nothing in the Constitution requires the home delivery of mail. As for Post Roads, I think our current infrastructure system more than handles that.
I agree, that might very well be the case. But since the pension payments are usually claimed to be the reason for the cash loss, we need somewhat to determine whether those pension payments are actually required or not.
Basically, pretend that the USPS is an entirely seperate organization with its own pension. Getting the pension balance sheet might be a bit of accounting/actuarial wizardry, but we could get a few estimates. Then go through the entire process to determine how it would have to act under those circumstances.
Now, I don't know actual numbers, so let me just model. The Post Office was required a payment of $3.5 billion this year. If the study/estimates above showed that the real payments would have been in the $1 to $3 billion range, we know that the loss is due to the legislation mandating too high of payments. But if it were to come back saying that the payments should be in the $3 billion to $5 billion range, then we can conclude that the USPS would be screwed either way.
Ultimately, we don't know. We know that the USPS is being forced to prefund more than the rest of the government, but that might not be a bad thing is the rest of the government is prefunding too little to meet the future obligations.
We could also try and see if the rest of the government is funding enough, but that's a whole 'nother story. Pension accounting is a pain and there's a reason most are underfunded/dangerously underfunded.
Basically, the net balance of USPS pension and health liability of 0.4 billion (6.9 billion surplus, 7.3 billion shortfall - bullet point one)
The second bullet point also puts a strong point on it - these liabilities will grow each year (as pensions do). These balances are also based on PROJECTED returns of the funds assets. When those come in lower than projected (they almost always do now-a-days) that means the surpluses quickly disappear.
It does mention that there will be an update of this when the USPS releases its FY 2011 report... I tried but couldn't find it. Then again, its tax season here, so these are kind of short and to the point.
Except I can find nowhere in that GAO report where it states they have to fund 75 years worth. What it does state is that they must fully fund, on an actuarial basis, their liabilities.
I hate to be the voice of reason, but it should be that way for any organization with a pension. Pension accounting is one of the few areas where the accounting profession lost to business interests.
At best, it looks like the USPS is fairly close to being fully funded. I have no problem them taking the surplus from one and putting it in the other, but unless both funds show a surplus, there is nothing wrong what they are being forced to do.
Funny... we're regulating a business and forcing it to set aside the money its promised its employees... and people are complaining about it?
"Establishes in the Treasury the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, to be administered by OPM. Requires the Postal Service, beginning in 2007, to compute the net present value of the future payments required and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year, along with a schedule if annual installments which provides for the liquidation of any liability or surplus by 2056"
You say you don't know the actual numbers, so I will let Ralph Nader speak.
As consumer advocate Ralph Nader noted, if PAEA was never enacted, USPS would actually be facing a $1.5 billion surplus today:
By June 2011, the USPS saw a total net deficit of $19.5 billion, $12.7 billion of which was borrowed money from Treasury (leaving just $2.3 billion left until the USPS hits its statutory borrowing limit of $15 billion). This $19.5 billion deficit almost exactly matches the $20.95 billion the USPS made in prepayments to the fund for future retiree health care benefits by June 2011. If the prepayments required under PAEA were never enacted into law, the USPS would not have a net deficiency of nearly $20 billion, but instead be in the black by at least $1.5 billion.
Basically, the net balance of USPS pension and health liability of 0.4 billion (6.9 billion surplus, 7.3 billion shortfall - bullet point one)
The second bullet point also puts a strong point on it - these liabilities will grow each year (as pensions do). These balances are also based on PROJECTED returns of the funds assets. When those come in lower than projected (they almost always do now-a-days) that means the surpluses quickly disappear.
It does mention that there will be an update of this when the USPS releases its FY 2011 report... I tried but couldn't find it.
---
Basically, their plans still are not fully actuarial funded. And that is a HUGE difference between being truly fully funded (the former allows for you to assume 7% returns on investments even in the face of 1 or 2% actual returns)
No, the Internet and rural routes are killing it. Imagine FedEx or UPS driving 16 miles to deliver a post card to one address in the middle of nowhere.
That's why FedEx/UPS can be profitable because they don't have to to do it. The USPS is required to. But get this if you send a parcel/package to one of those remote locations via FedEx/UPS guess who might actually delivery it.... the USPS.
Actually, nothing in the Constitution requires the USPS to deliver mail. Its an act of Congress that requires it. Perhaps an answer is to allow the USPS to only deliver to rural routes every few days or twice a week... if those living out there want it more often, they can drive to the post office to retrieve their mail.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The USPS struggles because it can't compete with the reliability and efficiency of private mail services. A common problem among government services.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The UPS model doesn't hold a candle to that of the Postal Service. As several of my relatives can attest, their rural mail carrier delivers more than a few packages on behalf of UPS.
This isn't only a rural thing either. I live in a suburb of Phoenix and about half the stuff, small packages, that is delivered to me from Fedex/UPS comes is actually delivered by my regular mail man.
Wow you know some people that get rural mail from UPS through the USPS? That's a citation? Link? Way to have your Digg friends back you up, clearly your right because you have 4 other accounts you voted me down and you up with! Woot! Digg Majority Rule!
Not buyin' that, eraptor. How would the same shipping model make huge profits for private shippers and bankrupt the USPS?
I receive packages weekly to my home and daily to my office and I can't recall a single instance where it was delivered via USPS.
Internet forums are replete with tales of lost and delayed packages; and the process for recovering your package or receiving compensation is horrendous.
Methinks you or perhaps family might be affiliated with the Postal Service? I can't think of any other reason someone would so adamantly defend a blatantly broken system.
I vehemently disagree. Challenging misstatements with provable, verifiable information while at the same time adorning it with barbs, I find rewarding.
you see what happens when you try to reason with a some people kaelyiesta? This is why I don't even try to talk to these nuts anymore, they have nothing in them but bile and hate, and are incapable of a rational and respectful conversation.
Thank you liberals for once again proving government can't do anything within a budget. My mailman sits under a tree for 3 hours a day and takes a nap. I once questioned him about it and he told me if he finishes his route early he just get's a bigger route, but doesn't get anymore pay because that is based on seniority. No wonder they are losing moneyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Your lazy mailman does NOT justify privatizing USPS. Report his lazy ass to USPS supervisiors if that offends you so much.
As for "liberals proving that government can't do anything within a budget", this budgetary disaster was created by CONSERVATIVES, not Liberals. This situation proves CONSERVATIVES are incapable of fiscal/political leadership since it was by THEIR hand, NOT that of Liberals.
Not to worry, I will be contributing to Eric Cantor's "retirement" at the next opportunity. As one of his "constituents", I relish the opportunity and so do more than a few of my fellow Virginians. Wall Street and his Super PAC don't have enough money to convince us otherwise.
what benefit is that? Every other carrier I work with delivers to rural locations. Oh unless you think they will miss their ad's to Jimbo's Hardware store every weekComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
As consumer advocate Ralph Nader noted, if PAEA was never enacted, USPS would actually be facing a $1.5 billion surplus today:
By June 2011, the USPS saw a total net deficit of $19.5 billion, $12.7 billion of which was borrowed money from Treasury (leaving just $2.3 billion left until the USPS hits its statutory borrowing limit of $15 billion). This $19.5 billion deficit almost exactly matches the $20.95 billion the USPS made in prepayments to the fund for future retiree health care benefits by June 2011. If the prepayments required under PAEA were never enacted into law, the USPS would not have a net deficiency of nearly $20 billion, but instead be in the black by at least $1.5 billion.
I did not ask for an overview of the issue. I asked for a source for a very specific statement. When you have one, and you'll find there isn't one if you want to try, feel free to post it. If not, feel free to scroll down the page and you'll see the truth posted just a few comments down by kaelyiesta
@novenator
You don't think technology has anything to do with the decline of the USPS? I for one do all my bills and correspondents electronically. When I lived in the US all I ever got from the USPS was junk mail and credit card applications. We donât use the pony express anymore either, did republicans kill that too? I blame failure to adapt more than a political party.
Noven... wow I read nearly everyone of your posts, but this comment is pretty amazing, your having an off day for sure:
1. So someone is asking a government agency to be solvent? What audacity!
2. Prey tell what was profitable in the US postal service that wasn't being executed better by private companies, who BTW did so well that they had the capital to buy a piece of the USPS? (Citation definitely needed on this one.)
3. And dow you bust out the Constitution argument? What about states rights? I don't see you complaining about that. What about no federal income tax, the original root of all of the problems? Are you up in arms about that?The only part you care about is the Postal Clause? Are you kidding me?
For point number 2 the OP was likely referring to how USPS is not allowed to operate their own air fleet. They are forced to subcontract those services to other companies (in the case of airplanes it's FedEx - anything you send USPS express mail is actually carried via FedEx then delivered by USPS).
It is very odd, I can't imagine politicians interested in accountability and financial preparation. The conclusion that this is then sabotage is not unreasonable. What doesn't follow however is who is responsible for it. The conclusion that conservatives did it doesn't hold up:
The vote in both senate and house were not recorded(senate vote was 'unanimous' while house was voice vote). So right off, claims that 'conservatives did it' is unjustified. However, looking at the cosponsors, I found this:
Danny Davis (D-IL7)
John McHugh (R-NY23)
Henry Waxman (D-CA30)
Waxman is a surprising cosponsor. It makes it even less likely that this is some conservative conspiracy. That and the fact that the postal unions championed it, from what I could gather from news articles makes this very suspicious, but not as a plot by the GOP to shoot itself in the foot by showing that government is bad.
Others have pointed out the postal clause claims a power congress has, not obligation.
I'll leave others to consider point 2. I can only spend so much time considering claims without evidence, when each one so far turns out to be wrong.
Thanks for the quality response. I was not aware that there were a couple Democrats that were cosponsors. Both of them are surprising. The unrecorded yet unanimous votes are also very surprising. I wonder how that works exactly, but if it was indeed a unanimous voice vote, then indeed both parties would be guilty of this poison pill (even though the Republicans had strong majorities in both chambers at that point).
I guess the crux of my whole point is this: the conservative position has always been that "anything in government is bad", and as a consequence of this philosophy, they have been the ones primarily gunning to end the USPS for decades. Thus I naturally assign blame to primarily to them.
"none of my points stand, but I don't like republicans so I blame them anyways."
Seriously nov, did republicans kill the horse drawn carriage or the radio star too? Technology killed the post office; it's simply that since it's a government entity, someone has to pull the plug on the life support.
And oh no, a handful of people will get left behind... just like every other transition in society.
"artially privatizing it, giving all of the profitable services to private corporations"
That's one way to spin it. The other way is that there is something fundamentally wrong with a government sponsored company being given preferential treatment and then competing with a private company (unlimited tax payer funding, being the preferential treatment).
Imagine if GM was *ACTUALLY* owned by the government, and thus had the government's deep pockets to absorb the costs and risks associated with designing and manufacturing new cars.
Even if people are buying Fords, they're still being taxed to pay for GMs. That's not right, no matter how you slice it. It creates a conflict of interest between natural market demand, and politics.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Right wingers are a scream-- the way they perpetually undermine the government at every turn, point and laugh and say *I told ya so*, and then hope that their poorly educated voters (most right wing voters, actually) haven't yet figured out that the egg came before the chicken. Wingers? If the government was inherently bad as you like to always suggest, would you really have to act batsh*t crazy all the time trying to manufacture your horsesh*t? If your ideology is so wonderful and superior, why must you be in constant attack mode trying to discredit the left?
You are an idiot if you think its just one party or the other that is the cause of all the issues in our government. Most problems are caused by both sides abusing the system or creating ways to abuse the system.
Not a mess..a deliberate attempt by Republicans to create the illusion of a failed bureaucracy by forcing the prefunding of retiree benefits. Why? Because there arguments don't hold up to reality so they have to fake one.
"The $3.3 billion net loss was primarily the result of $3.1 billion accrued to pay for future retiree health benefits. The Postal Service is required to prefund those costs by a 2006 law with $12.1 billion for payments deferred from last year and due this year."
They are destroying are future and lining their own pockets..they have gone from loyal opposition to traitors and they must be thrown out of office.
If it wasn't funded like you're describing, it would be funded like SS: The current working generation pays for the previous working generation's retirement.
You know who else has to "prefund" their retirement? Everyone.
Last year the USPS had a net profit...except for the prefunding mandate. Most importantly: the USPS has not used taxpayer money for 3 decades! So even when the government runs things the way rethugs like...they still try to wreck it.
How does that back the claim that it was "a deliberate attempt by Republicans"? I know what the overall issue, but comments like yours this time ("the way the rethugs like") and the one I responded to are purely partisan drivel unless you can back that specific accusation up with a source. Feel free to try again.
Run the stupid post office like a business, jackasses.
At this point, I think we might consider farming the post office's duties out to third parties or at least seeing if we can get some competent management.
The post office shouldn't be losing money. It should be making a small profit that it puts into a rainy day fund and taps when it runs short.
The problem isn't as much the USPS management, as far as I can tell, it's that that management has to live with the rules Congress sets. For the USPS to make changes and adapt Congress has to approve, which brings in politics. Which is, to me, just another example of why we don't want the government running things.
Congress has to decide if it wants to keep the $55K a year jobs and mandates and fund it to the tune of $4B a year, or let the market fix this and get the hell out.
Oh, then I guess when the postal service reported they were going broke, that was in error.
Good to know.
You see the contradiction right?... They're telling us they're running out of money. That implies negative cash flow... eg... opposite of making money. And they appear to be asking for government help... and where does the government get money? Taxes.
So... I add 1 to 1... and do the very complicated math... I think I get 2.
"That, along with a non-cash actuarial adjustment to the Postal Serviceâs workersâ compensation costs, is entirely responsible for the $3.3 billion âloss.â The pre-funding alone accounts for $3.1 billion of the quarterâs âloss.â
Whatever the reason is, there was a $3.3 billion loss in the first quarter alone.
Average postal worker makes $55K a year plus benefits.
No idea why someone standing behind a counter (or more usually, walking around laughing in the background behind the customer desk) would ever be worth $55K + benefits.
Because you've been brainwashed by the Corporate media into thinking that all they do is stand around laughing. You've been brainwashed into thinking that because someone gets paid a reasonable wage, that somehow they don't deserve it and need it ripped from them.
bcarl314 is a postal union worker. He trolls around every time people criticise the pack of fat, shuffling and overstaffed overpaid postal minions to say they all provide EXCELLENT value for money and them acting as glorified cashiers for three times the going rate, with massive benefits is wonderful.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
@bcarl314 - the last time the post office was criticised with being too overbloated with too many grotesquely overpaid people you banged on about the unions, how great they were and how they stood up for their rights etc. and we correctly identified you as a union shill.
Then you tried to tell us that no, you were in management and that's how you know so much about the internal workings of the post office. You're clearly a liar and a paid union shill. That's OK. The teachers' unions organise their members to patrol Digg, Reddit and Facebook to get rid of the WI governor as well.
Wow, look who think he knows so much. But like every other "Digg Patriot", you make wild assumptions, and have no idea WTF you're talking about.
Yes, I worked for the USPS for 10 years, 1/2 as clerk, 1/2 as Management. I know BOTH sides of the equation MORE THAN YOU EVER WILL!
You, on the other hand, are nothing more than an ignorant fool, spoon fed propaganda from your corporate overloards, eating it up without question.
Let me guess, you're such a failure in life that you're working some minimum wage job (WalMart???) thinking that somehow being thankful to your employer will earn you a place in their graces. I feel sorry for you. You have no ability to think, are quick to make assumptions, and are gullible in the extreme. Your life must suck. But odds are, you're too stupid to know any better.
I know what I've done in my life, you don't. Go ahead and believe your little fantasy. If you get off thinking I'm a union shill, have at it. I know where I've been and where I'm going.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
It's simple fairness. Just because you refuse to stand up for yourself and demand more money and benefits from your employer doesn't give you the right to take away from others who have.
Have you ever been to a post office? 2 people manning six counters, and about twenty people in the back laughing and discussing the previous night's sports game.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Are you really that ignorant? 20 people in back - yeah, those would be the CARRIERS and CLERKS sorting the mail. Are you really so stupid to think that the mail delivers itself and the only people working are the people you see?
Congress just needs to let them go with a 50-cent stamp for fcuks sake. It's still cheap! I coudln't get a kid to take my mail from the living room to my mail-box for 50-cents.
We will be following this story closely. Here at www.munroemotors.com we started an e-commerce platform and use USPS exclusively as our shipping solution. We are happy with the USPS service, rates and software. USPS is our way of supporting an American business to sell European goods simultaneously. It will be shame if the lack of support for USPS leads to it's demise.
Despite all of the partisan wrangling over this issue as outlined in our comments, does anyone think that maybe the US Postal Service is at its knees because something far more effecient and free came along? The post office simply cannot compete with the internet. All my bills come through my email and I pay them online, its simply more convienient and as good as instantaenous. Sorry post office, you were nice and all but its time to say goodbye.
They need some out of the box solutions to their problems.
One thing they should have done a long time ago would be to replace their postal trucks with vehicles based off more fuel efficient platforms.
Rural routes could be served with an off the shelf crossover or mini van just use one for the European market for right hand drive and city routes with an EV.
They just need to deliver the goods to a local shop where people can pick there parcels up. Deliveries will only go up in the foreseeable future - and too many return visits are necessary when people are not at home. Why not pick it up from your local grocery store?
Ever tried to pick something up from a PO Box on a weekend? Only open til 1 pm - OH ITSS BECAUSE OF THE CUTBACKS - but they haven't lowered salaries any, I'd imagine. Just three hours more off a week for the same pay.
FTA: âWe have a Postal Service that essentially is living from paycheck to paycheck, which is a very risky proposition for the American economy and the 8 million private-sector workers whose jobs rely on the mail,â Art Sackler, coordinator of the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service, said in an e-mail. âEach day Congress fails to enact postal reform, this problem grows more difficult and perhaps more expensive to resolve.â
This is unedited from the story. Did anyone else notice some irony here?
The postal service is a needed service, but needed how much? Most of us get email, have the option to receive statements online, pay bills online. If you ship something, it's usually one of the larger parcel carriers because their tracking numbers actually work and don't charge their customers for it like the postal service does.
You couldn't be more incorrect with your last paragraph. The USPS is the CHEAPEST and most accurate for shipping parcels for individuals and businesses. If they go out of business and become privatized, you can expect costs to rise signifigantly.
I am an online 'small business' retailer. The USPS saves me AND my customers a boatload of money every time we ship parcels. Its also faster, careful and more accurate than any UPS or FedEx service.
Part of the trouble is these brain dead austerity measures congress seems in love with even though they are failing spectacularly in the EU.
Sometimes you have to actually spend some money near term to save money long term.
The postal system needs modernized badly.
Better computer tracking is needed to save labor and new vehicles to save fuel the LLV gets 17mpg a Chevy equinox gets 32mpg and the Ford Transit 27mpg.
It's ironic that republicans crying for austerity measure will, in almost the same breath, accuse Obama of trying to remake the US in the image of Europe.
Europe is the poster child of austerity! And they're failing!
8 Million people lose their jobs? Where did they get that number? Although it would be a shame to put all of those tree destroying, land pit filling junk mailers from Utah out of business. They might have to learn how to sell something other than As seen on TV crap...
Cosponsors:
Danny Davis [D-IL7]
John McHugh [R-NY23]
Henry Waxman [D-CA30]
Dec 8, 2006: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representativeâs position was not kept.
Dec 9, 2006: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senatorâs position was not kept.
"Establishes in the Treasury the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, to be administered by OPM. Requires the Postal Service, beginning in 2007, to compute the net present value of the future payments required and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year, along with a schedule if annual installments which provides for the liquidation of any liability or surplus by 2056."
How about cutting back on staff and services, closing some locations, reducing deliveries to three times per week, and increasing postage rates to cover the actual cost. That way snail mail will still be available to people who need/want a cheaper option than the private services, and the post office will still be available to recieve and process international mail. There is no reason to have mail delivery six days per week, there are plenty of other options for anything that is really time critical.
The moment USPS was privatized, it's investors would declare bankruptcy, dump it's pension obligations onto taxpayer backs (through the PBGC) and strip it clean for taxpayers to clean up later. So, you and your conservative ilk can roll your privatization idea into a tight little ball and cram it where the sun doesn't shine. Privatization is an extension of the SAME conservative greed and stupidity you've been hawking for years..............details:- http://www.newsingaporenews.com/
Tell the US government to stop stealing from the Post Office !!
Thank you conservatives for deliberately sabotaging the US Postal Service by:
1. forcing a mandate that requires the USPS to fund decades of retirement in just a few years
2. partially privatizing it, giving all of the profitable services to private corporations (like FedEx), while keeping the unprofitable parts in the public sector (to "prove" nothing government can work)
3. wiping your butts with the constitution once again, since the Postal Clause *requires* a public postal service in America.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The Post Office Is ALMOST useless due to technology. Online bill payments, Online Banking, Online Statements. An old invention EMAIL had to hurt a little bit too. They needed to adapt to the changing market place but failed to react. Their best strategy would be to stop delivering mail....Yes stop delivering mail and require folks to pick up in a central location. Look at all the pollution they cause with their vehicles running around everywhere. Their carbon footprint is huge plus they encouraged paper products to be mailed for years. LOTS OF TREES DESTROYED. This list goes on and on about their waste over the years too. STOP THE BLEEDING ALREADY. WHY DIDN't they invest into email technology, or payment systems, or other ad media, info distribution systems, etc? They hassled their customers alot too when trying to mail direct mail with 1000's of rules instead of making it simple and easy. They just were not flexible enough or smart enough to make the needed changes. USPS will become exstint eventually. Quit Blaming everything on everyone else and accept some personal responsibility.
The problems with Post Office is CONGRESS. The Post Service is commercial / governmental agency; no changes can be made unless congress vote it's approve. Congress never allowed USPS to fully use technologies that ever post service use throughout the world. Now the congress and USPS are in a situation that could have been avoided years ago by privatizing the Post Office. What going to happen is the monies will be found congress will blame the unions and uniform will follow that line and conservative will blame Obama and public will scream.
All above should but I think one more step that make the situation easier to take; provide away to Privatize the USPS. By allowing the Post Office to manage it own finances; they would have more flexablities to institute newer money saving technologies. The Government would save Billions. Funds invested by government could be converted in stock share that must be sold off in two to five years. This is also the same type of investment setup they did for the auto companies and they may a profit.
The truth is USPS (and everything else) is suffering because our economy is not growing fast enough for the current level of spending by our government. It will hurt for a while, but this is a good chance to get our fiscal house in order. There is no way the Feds or states will get the growth they need to mask budget shortfalls anytime soon.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
A postal worker once told me of the unbelievable amount of red tape, bureaucracy, outdated computer systems, old equipment, etc., that are ubiquitous in the USPS. It is a fine example of government waste and mismanagement. Nobody mails letters anymore. Everyone pays bills online. No one is buying stamps except for the 75 and above crowd, who will soon die off. People send packages by USPS and FedEx. If it weren't for eBay, no one would even be sending packages through USPS.
The USPS is finished. Done. It's gone the way of the cassette tape and rotary phone. Time to stop the bleeding and move on. Time to clean house and get a new business model.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
octoddFeb 9, 2012
I made sure all my bills get emailed to me and now all my USPS mail is just piles of junk I leave in my mailbox and throw away every few months
jftitanFeb 10, 2012
I was able to catch my mailman at the mailboxes, and I gave him a heads up of what I intended to do to him, in regards to unwanted junk mail. He tells me, unfortunately there isn't much I can do about getting it stopped, because most of the mail is presorted, and the junk mail is what makes the local post office its revenue. Plus, they can't block specific mail. So he basically gives me some insight as to how the local post office works. The levels of computerized sorting systems, that just don't have the ability to pull prepaid mailings. If its paid for, then its required to be delivered to its destination.
So I asked him what would he do if the mailbox he delivers to never removes the junk mail, but does remove its regular mail. He looked a bit angered by that question as in, 'someone' has done it before.
A week later my mailbox was full of 'unsolicited junk mail', I contacted the post office to make a attempt to have the mail stopped. All my important bills are automatically paid online, and I receive emails for the VIPapers. Otherwise everything in my box delivered is just junk, with the exception once in while a expected letter or package.
Three weeks later, I go to check my mail. The box is empty except for one letter and a note. "Please check your mail more often, the fliers and other mail filled up your box. SO I threw away all the expired mailers. -Thank You "
They change my mailman on a monthly basis, so each new one gets at least once in their lives, a full box.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
amaoicanFeb 10, 2012
Petty assh**e.
But as long as you want to get rid of junk, how about this:
1. Give everyone who might send you real mail an alias (false name).
2. Forward mail addressed to your house and your name to somewhere else (e.g. to the post office).
3. If/when the alias starts getting too much junk mail, repeat steps 1 and 2 changing from the alias to a new alias.
njdoo7Feb 10, 2012
Is it really his job to prevent people from sending him spam, by having to spend hours coming up with a system to avoid it?
The mail carrier should offer this option, but they don't since they make money from it.
It's not being petty at all to refuse to take ownership of spam that is delivered to you. The mailbox is the governments property, leave it there and they still own it.
amaoicanFeb 10, 2012
"The mail carrier should offer this option, but they don't since they make money from it."
Gmail currently provides me the service of filtering my Email, and sometimes they f**k up, sending a legitimate email into the spam folder. Luckily, when they do, I can just check my spam folder for the lost mail.
Do you really want to give the post office the power to choose which mail does and does not get through to you?
"It's not being petty at all to refuse to take ownership of spam that is delivered to you."
I think it is. I used to use a PO Box; I'd fetch my mail once a week, spend a few minutes going through what mail was 'real' and what was junk - I'd much rather receive all the junk than take a risk of missing some of the good stuff.
jftitanFeb 10, 2012
Then Google should buy the USPS, and start operating it like they operate GMAIL. Your solution is just FABULOUS
amaoicanFeb 10, 2012
@jftitan Are you kidding? Do you really think njdoo is going to like the idea of having a second mailbox just for junk mail? He's a f**king moron. He is stressing out because the government delivers mail he doesn't want to receive, as if they are supposed to be able to read his mind.
jftitanFeb 10, 2012
Now, I'm not saying your idea(s) are dumb, but when put into practice, its just pushing the labor to the end user.
Like the example you put about Google, and Gmail. Yes I use gmail as well, and I love its SPAM filtering capabilities. But you need to understand Real Mail versus Electronic Mail are two different worlds.
My current solution to junk mail already resolves all the issues. I already receive my important mail by email. So when it comes to debts, bills, invoices, etc, it is all done electronically. For traditional Snail Mail, I already know every once in awhile I have something I'm waiting for, it will be delivered to my door, or if its a letter, it will be in the full mailbox until I actually get to it.
Again, my system is flawless. (sure if I miss the typical holiday card, or some sort of importance, I will check my mail box accordingly. Otherwise, whatever is in the mailbox isn't important or classifies are important in my 'mailing' needs.
I gave the Post Office heads up. I even asked them, since they are the ones putting the junk mail into my mail. The Post Office is required by law to deliver what mail is already paid for, otherwise, those junk mailers would be pretty upset if the Post Office started throwing away the junk OR stop delivering what the advertiser paid them to deliver.
So technically, we need to take a further step back. We need to inform the advertiser to stop sending the junk mail. However in my area, I can't just goto a HEB (grocery) or WalMart, or any of the other locations in which the district management has a third party system whereas they pay a flat rate for zip codes. If the Post Office, Told the advertisers "For zip 78xxx" we had 400 people opt-out of the fliers, Your rate drops by $30 bucks" Then I would be f**k off happy about it, then the Advertiser doesn't get charged for mail that the Post Office wouldn't deliver the 'junk mail' to.
Is it my job to opt out of something I never opted into? Thats what CAN-SPAM was all about this issue when it came to spam emails. If the Spammer sent you a email, they are required by law to make a 'unsubscribe' option available in the spam email.
Where is that option in real mail? There isn't one. Again, I informed my Post Office to stop/filter the junk mail out. They informed me they couldn't. I resorted to, changing all my important mail to electronic mail. And only taking the necessary mail when I'm expecting mail. Otherwise, the junk mail remains in the mail box.
I know I resolved my delima better than your solution. Why the f**k should i change MY name, and then inform all my friends and contacts I have a new name for them to mail me at. Did you not read the Patriot Act, or any of these new laws our Representatives have passed to make it illegal for people to have alternate Identities. Why should I change my s**t to avoid junk mail?
Would you like me to wash your car windows while you are stuck at a red light? No, well I'm gonna wash your windows with a dirty rag, and s**tty rain water. You couldn't stop me huh? You happy that 'I' inconvenienced you and your clean car, and you didn't even get a chance to opt out of my free window washing service.
amaoicanFeb 10, 2012
Oh - you might have wanted to put that as a reply to the comment you were replying to.
amaoicanFeb 10, 2012
"Would you like me to wash your car windows while you are stuck at a red light? No, well I'm gonna wash your windows with a dirty rag, and s**tty rain water. You couldn't stop me huh? You happy that 'I' inconvenienced you and your clean car, and you didn't even get a chance to opt out of my free window washing service."
Yes, it's fine to work toward reforming institutions that co-exist in our world, but since you and I have no ability to change the system unilaterally, it is useful to find things that WE CAN do ourselves to address the problems we are facing.
Yes, if the doctor responds to your complaint that it hurts when you do THIS by saying "then don't do that..." you're going to be annoyed - you expect him to address the underlying cause of the problem. But in the meanwhile, it's good advice - don't do the thing that's hurting you.
bobosmitorFeb 9, 2012
Oh no.
novenatorFeb 9, 2012
Thank you conservatives for deliberately sabotaging the US Postal Service by:
1. forcing a mandate that requires the USPS to fund decades of retirement in just a few years
2. partially privatizing it, giving all of the profitable services to private corporations (like FedEx), while keeping the unprofitable parts in the public sector (to "prove" nothing government can work)
3. wiping your butts with the constitution once again, since the Postal Clause *requires* a public postal service in America.
blinker1315Feb 9, 2012
The USPS should've been privatized 25 years ago. Same with Amtrak.
eraptorFeb 9, 2012
Hardly! Why pay more than cost for the services provided by BOTH services.
Full privatization of U.S. infrastructure is moronic because it RAISES costs for the nation and everyone who lives in it. It NEVER lowers costs for the same level of service provided.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
Waiting for a citation how competition drives prices up, because logic and economic's seem to argue against that...
cybersaurFeb 9, 2012
High profit margins and effective monopolies drive prices up. It's less expensive to send a letter via USPS than either of your dominant private corporations.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
lol, because it's subsidized by us... the tax payers. (That's the whole point of the story here.)
The USPS is an outdated model that if it was a private business would have Chaptered out a few years after the invention of faxes and email. And if effective monopolies drive prices up wouldn't that essentially make YOUR USPS the lead offender? They are the only ones that get annual endowments from the Fed and collect money for stamps. (Aside from UPS's bail out... that they didn't need, but that's another story.)
Their real competition is email and that is a monopoly owned by everyone. And since UPS and FedEx exist, and DHL tried but lost, there is no monopoly except the one that USPS supporters have on their altered reality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 10, 2012
@sheopleherder,
The USPS is NOT subsidized. Take away the Conservative legislative sabotage and it would NOT be bleeding red ink. It would be PROFITABLE.
Yes, email and fax communications have impacted it's business model, but it serves rural areas of the the country in ways the private sector refuses to do. That makes it FAR more valuable than either Fed Ex OR UPS.
As for privatizing USPS, make NO mistake. The moment USPS was privatized, it's investors would declare bankruptcy, dump it's pension obligations onto taxpayer backs (through the PBGC) and strip it clean for taxpayers to clean up later. So, you and your conservative ilk can roll your privatization idea into a tight little ball and cram it where the sun doesn't shine. Privatization is an extension of the SAME conservative greed and stupidity you've been hawking for years. It amounts to NOTHING but a scam against the country.
beckeristFeb 10, 2012
@eraptor. A big reason it's failing is because they are required to offer "reasonable, and uniform price and quality" to everyone. As a result, UPS, FedEx, DHL..,ALL use the USPS for a large part of their own logistics which drives each of their own costs down but just forces the USPS to just bleed and bleed...
YachtRokrFeb 10, 2012
@sheopleherder,
Conservatives care about competition and low prices? Ha-ha...as if.
Privatizing USPS reduces competition and everyone knows private sector monopolies raise prices. Economic "logic" and truth are not on your side.
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
Everyone knows that Privatizing reduces competition? You honestly think that a government monopoly produces more competition?
Show me an example, any example. I mean that is so goofy I am actually laughing out loud at my desk here. There is so much evidence against your statement that I came to the conclusion that if I presented it to you it would break your brain. It might make you realize that your world view is based on a complete lack of facts. I don't want to ruin your day so I will spare you. So why don't you ruin my day and show me an example of how Socializing a private industry increased competition...And how it would be ran more efficiently without subsidies from tax money. (As all industries ran by the US Government are...)
Perhaps we can look to our southern neighbor Chavez as an example. He just privatized all essential industries... but now they are failing and he has to subsidize them with... you guessed it TAX MONEY! I hope that's not a win in your book. I am excited to see your response.
And since I am here, I would love to see your logic on how would an industry that already has 4+ competitors be a monopoly? You act like email, Fed Ex, UPS and DHL would suddenly become one company if the USPS became privatized? Can you help my brain wrap itself around how that would work? Honestly I want to see how you jump that logic gap.
In fact these statements are so backward I am going to hit refresh until you reply because I have never heard any educated person take these positions before. I'm not trying to belittle you I just need to understand how you can ignore the entire field of economics and just make up things. Your argument is so counter intuitive that no one would ever try to defend that position... until now!
eraptorFeb 10, 2012
@sheephumper,
I'll be happy to give you an example where heavy government involvement blows the doors off your pathetic ideological beliefs:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577198833989249406.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_2
If you can't acces the full article, either Google the title (U.S. attacks China Inc.) or go to your local public library and pick up the Feb. 3rd issue of the Wall Street Journal, Section B. Sorry I couldn't locate a liberal source for you to ignore, so Rupert's conservative media rag will have to suffice.
As for your tragically laughable example of market "competition", oligopolies are NOT an example of healthy competition..."genius". Have you COMPARED rates between the only TWO competitors who would be left once USPS was gutted? Brush up on your macroeconomic ecconomic knowledge because it's SORELY lacking.
mksmothersFeb 10, 2012
NEVER?
eraptorFeb 10, 2012
NEVER!
All things being equal (i.e., service and staffing), in what world is this economic equation NOT true?
"COST (USPS) < COST+PROFIT (PRIVATIZATION)"
"Cost" is ALWAYS cheaper/more efficient than "cost PLUS profit".
The private sector defines efficiency as fewer staff and radically degraded services. However, when equating BOTH staff and servicing between both sectors, the nonprofit model is ALWAYS superior to that of privatization.
golfguy6Feb 10, 2012
"The private sector defines efficiency as fewer staff and radically degraded services." - Have you been to a post office in the last 10 years? I'd rather have my taint waxed than deal with that place.
brainpile3000Feb 10, 2012
Except for when Cost is greater than both cost and profit because of inefficiencies which the USPS has no shortage of.
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
Are you under the impression that capitalizing some words makes you right?
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
Whaaat? Logic Fail. You don't seem to understand how the private sector works... I'm over this, it's like arguing with a stump.
miklkitFeb 10, 2012
Ok folks, here is one example of government run services being far far better than for profit privatized services.
Health care.
The U.S. has privatized health care and we pay twice what most other countries pay and the product that money buys is similar to what Slovenia gets.
http://peltiertech.com/WordPress/graphing-the-cost-of-health-care/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ajh16Feb 10, 2012
Uncontrolled costs due to government bureaucracy > controlled costs + profit. If what you say is true, then why has sending an identical package at the post office almost always cost more than either of the other carriers? The daily mail is the only thing that kept it even remotely close since they were driving a full route regardless. As the quantity of postal mail has dropped, the cost overheads have become substantial.
That all said, has the post office taken procedures that hurt it, sure, but that doesn't mean that privatization automatically is more expensive. Public versus private is irrelevant. What is relevant is competition to drive costs down. Private industry has to compete to keep costs down and limits profit margins, thus the consumer wins. Public industry has no need to compete as it can get funding when it needs. There may be no goal of profit, but if costs aren't controlled, then it will still be more expensive and cost control has never been something the government is good at because they always have the magical "raise revenue" button.
eraptorFeb 10, 2012
@golfguyt6,
If you don't want to go to the Post Office, then spend your time elsewhere. Your hairy taint is NO reason to privatize USPS.
@brainpile3000,
Your illogical reasoning makes me laugh. It also explains why you support so many morons in office.
bobcat7407,
NO!
Sheephumper,
I became financially independent (and helpd others do the same) by relying on the very economic principles you misunderstand and get wrong. At the very least, I understand how the private sector "works". It's a tragic shame you and your political ilk DON'T because this country would be in FAR better shape, economically and fiscally speaking, if you DID.
ajh16,
I've never suggested USPS is perfect, I simply oppose privatizing it because that is NOT the solution to its troubles OR our country's. If it weren't for conservative sabotage, USPS would be PROFITABLE. Of course, that would have interfered with the Conservative privatization agenda, so Republicans hamstrung the organization to "force" it's demise.
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
@eraptor
I almost dugg you up for your response to me cause it made me laugh a little. But I can't digg somebody up who uses name calling like you do.
"Of course, that would have interfered with the Conservative privatization agenda, so Republicans hamstrung the organization to "force" it's demise."
I also can't digg somebody up who posts things like this. Please provide a source for your partisanship, otherwise it is just like all the other pathetic partisanship on this site.
eraptorFeb 12, 2012
@bobcat7407,
Legislative hamstringing = H.R.6407 - Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.
Welcome to the Digg "fight club". Success depends upon one's grasp of economic/political history, truth, objectivity, credibility and humor.
Note: I don't suffer ideologically-driven fools well or apologize for calling anyone out for lying, deception and/or cherry-picking facts to champion a flawed political/economic narrative and agenda. Remember, debate "street fights" aren't a cotillion, especially when this country's future is at stake.
I give as much as I get...
jivatmanxFeb 10, 2012
Wrong.
European post offices were almost all privatized three decades ago. Now they are so profitable they are entering other businesses, ALLOW YOU TO OPT OUT OF JUNK MAIL, and sell services that will scan and email all of your outgoing and incoming mail. They have massively reduced costs by combining with convenience stores, rather than paying rent for their own buildings in the center of town.
The U.S. post office on the other hand, gets nearly all of it's revenue from junk mail.
Please challenge me on any of these points so I can provide you with sources.
eraptorFeb 10, 2012
Are you suggesting USPS can't adopt the SAME business and efficiency practices? I certainly hope not because that would blow your credibility out of the water. We don't have to privatize USPS to adopt those business/efficiency practices. I know that and YOU know that.
So, let's dispense with the "smoke and mirrors" and call this power play for what it is...a thinly-veiled effort to grab a lucrative national monopoly PURELY for financial gain AND at the nation's expense. U.S. taxpayers CREATED USPS after DECADES of investment and they deserve to benefit from it DIRECTLY.
Congressional saboteurs (i.e., Conservatives) and those angling to privatize USPS deserve to be thrown in jail for meddling with it.
jivatmanxFeb 10, 2012
I think that the USPS monopoly on sending paper mail should be ended.
I'm fairly sure that they would be unable to compete with UPS and Fed Ex on price or service, but if you think otherwise it would be interesting to see them try.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
buttleFeb 10, 2012
UPS doesn't want anything to do with sending paper mail. It would be a very big change for them, and very expensive.
golfguy6Feb 10, 2012
"So, let's dispense with the "smoke and mirrors" and call this power play for what it is...a thinly-veiled effort to grab a lucrative national monopoly PURELY for financial gain AND at the nation's expense." - Please show me said financial gain that is currently being amassed by the post office.
"U.S. taxpayers CREATED USPS after DECADES of investment and they deserve to benefit from it DIRECTLY." - Currently the post office is equivalent to a boat anchor on the taxpayer. You state that the profits have been stolen by "conservatives" but you cite no source.
"Congressional saboteurs (i.e., Conservatives) and those angling to privatize USPS deserve to be thrown in jail for meddling with it." - I hate to burst your liberal bubble, but no one in congress is a saint, and if you think they have your best interests at heart you were probably fed a mixture of paint chips and the film that collects around the rim of your garbage disposal as a child.
Na Na a boo boo, stick your liberal nose in doo doo.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
floorboardFeb 10, 2012
> Are you suggesting USPS can't adopt the SAME business and efficiency practices?
Nope. Because of POSTAL UNIONS.
miklkitFeb 10, 2012
You want a source? Look no farther than your lame duck congress of 2006. They set up the USPS to fail. Without their intentional sabotage the USPS would be showing a profit right now today.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/28/330524/postal-non-crisis-post-office-save-itself/?mobile=nc
jivatmanxFeb 10, 2012
@buttle
FedEX is currently USPS's largest contractor, carrying mail for them at a value of 1.35 billion.
Nice try though.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
Yeah they would have been bankrupt by now and we would have to invent something that allowed us to communicate without ripping down trees... if only we had the interwebs...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
Guess diggers don't like trees... Or the interwebs. What a fickle bunch of malfeasance we Digg Duggers are.
mksmothersFeb 10, 2012
don't privatize it. Simply fire all the employees, sell the buildings equipment and vehicles. Let the market decide. It isn't my responsibility to make sure farmers get their mail!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mekongkayakFeb 10, 2012
"It isn't my responsibility to make sure farmers get their mail!"
That's the spirit that won the War in Iraq! If folks like you were in power in the 30's Hitler would have won the war and we'd be no better off than a banana republic.
mksmothersFeb 10, 2012
That's quite a stretch. We "won" the war in Iraq be ause our opponents had the firepower and war fighting capabilities of your average state militia. I, through seizure of money, am forced to subsidize farmers mail service. If people are presented with real costs, they make changes to thei behavior to minimize costs. I make contracts with FedEx to deliver products from point a to point b. if UPS can do it cheaper or provide better service I go with UPS. Because we continue to bail out USPS wit its top heavy management and through regulation against delivering mail to mailboxes of anyone other than USPS they continue to underperform, and I continue to pay for their failure.
Hitler on the other hand was a political figure who destabilized Europe and rose to power as a result of the treaty of Versailles. Hitler would have failed even if the united states didn't enter the war.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mekongkayakFeb 17, 2012
First of all...i hate buried comments. Secondly..the UPS has had a profit numerous times (over 200 million last year) and receives no taxpayer money: unlike airlines.
The meme of government is the cause of all your problems and can't do anything right has done so much damage to our future..yet the Rethugs keep winning with those lies (all while getting ruch i their own districts with that government pork they all hate so much. At least when a Dem spends money it for bridges and roads...while the Rethugs spend billions in Afghanistan and Iraq and leave the place worse off than it was before.
The key is the essentially dishonest manor the Right achieves its goals.
bobcat7407Feb 17, 2012
Article from Nov. 15, 2011:
"The U.S. Postal Service said Tuesday it has lost $5.1 billion in the past year,"
http://news.yahoo.com/post-office-near-default-losses-mount-5-1b-210808129.html
Closed AccountFeb 10, 2012
How has having two or three express mail (or utility, or cable) companies to choose from benefited your household? How does the oil company monopoly benefit our country?
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
Your point seems a little mixed up my friend. Cable competes with DSL and over Air High def and now Hulu and the other thousand TV sites....
And the logistics of having 3 power companies to compete against each other would be a huge waste of resources. (3 coal fired plants in the same area burning up the atmosphere? Anyone who supports that must hate our children...)
And since it's such a monopoly I have the choice to select BT, The Kwikee Mart and my local gas station, so while the source is the market produced lots of retail competition. The biggest expense is the Tax on fuel that the real monopoly the Federal Government places on fuel doubling the cost... Anti I am not really sure what your point is...
sharky35Feb 9, 2012
Bush did it!
miklkitFeb 9, 2012
Yes he did. The poison pill legislation was passed by the lame duck republicon congress in late 2006.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/28/330524/postal-non-crisis-post-office-save-itself/?mobile=nc
novenatorFeb 10, 2012
The man with all the great links. I really hope you share all of these wonderful citations on Delicious (you can upload all of them at the same time).
miklkitFeb 10, 2012
Delicious? I will look into it.
miklkitFeb 10, 2012
Done. I think..........
novenatorFeb 11, 2012
OK, it's good to share solid link assemblages like the library you have. I've added many of mine there too in case your curious to see the type of data I have saved: http://delicious.com/novenator
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
"lame duck republicon congress in late 2006."
Please provide the voting record or stop with the partisan hackery.
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
BTW... 2 of the 3 co-sponsors of the bill were DEMOCRATS.
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
Hehe 2 out of 3 are dems. Hard to support either side when they are both destroying the US...
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
Absolutely. I don't mean any of my posts as a defense of Republicans or Democrats, I just find myself always trying to set the record straight against the partisan drivel that people post on this site.
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
I hear ya. It's just sad that people are willing to throw good ideas under the bus because someone wearing a blue or red tie said them. Partisanship is what brought us to the brink of hell, I doubt it's going to pull us back from the ledge...
auditortuxFeb 9, 2012
1. I would actually love to see a study of what the USPS pension would hypothetically look like if it were on its own. Only then could we determine whether we are forcing the USPS to fund too fast. There are VERY specific rules for running a pension. Unfortunately, the USPS doesn't have its own. But where are the estimates of what it would be, what it would look like? Without that information, we cannot tell whether it is under or overfunded. I do have a sneaky feeling that the pension it is contributing to is underfunded... mostly because most pensions are... due to those specific rules. (See CalSTRS - it was estimating 7.5% returns but their own report says that's too high - that directly impacts how well funded the pension is)
2. How did the US government give the profitable services to private corporations? By allowing them to provide their own services and show that they can do it more efficiently? Even this is hard to figure out as UPS/FedEx use some of the USPS infrastructure at times.
3. Actually, the Constitution states "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads" but does not require we have a government entity to run the actual delivering of mail. It would be entirely Constitutional (and literal) to have the USPS mere be a gathering point for the mail, then hand it off to UPS/FedEx for delivery. Nothing in the Constitution requires the home delivery of mail. As for Post Roads, I think our current infrastructure system more than handles that.
miklkitFeb 9, 2012
The USPS would have a budget surplus if it had just been left alone in 2006.
auditortuxFeb 9, 2012
I agree, that might very well be the case. But since the pension payments are usually claimed to be the reason for the cash loss, we need somewhat to determine whether those pension payments are actually required or not.
Basically, pretend that the USPS is an entirely seperate organization with its own pension. Getting the pension balance sheet might be a bit of accounting/actuarial wizardry, but we could get a few estimates. Then go through the entire process to determine how it would have to act under those circumstances.
Now, I don't know actual numbers, so let me just model. The Post Office was required a payment of $3.5 billion this year. If the study/estimates above showed that the real payments would have been in the $1 to $3 billion range, we know that the loss is due to the legislation mandating too high of payments. But if it were to come back saying that the payments should be in the $3 billion to $5 billion range, then we can conclude that the USPS would be screwed either way.
Ultimately, we don't know. We know that the USPS is being forced to prefund more than the rest of the government, but that might not be a bad thing is the rest of the government is prefunding too little to meet the future obligations.
We could also try and see if the rest of the government is funding enough, but that's a whole 'nother story. Pension accounting is a pain and there's a reason most are underfunded/dangerously underfunded.
youareretardedFeb 9, 2012
What businesses do you know of that put aside 75 years worth of pensions to be paid for within a five year period?
auditortuxFeb 9, 2012
Not quite true... here's the last GAO report (October 2011 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/68639855/GAO-Report-Allocation-of-Responsibility-for-Pension-Benefits#outer_page_40) Go to page 40 - that's where we get some good numbers.
Basically, the net balance of USPS pension and health liability of 0.4 billion (6.9 billion surplus, 7.3 billion shortfall - bullet point one)
The second bullet point also puts a strong point on it - these liabilities will grow each year (as pensions do). These balances are also based on PROJECTED returns of the funds assets. When those come in lower than projected (they almost always do now-a-days) that means the surpluses quickly disappear.
It does mention that there will be an update of this when the USPS releases its FY 2011 report... I tried but couldn't find it. Then again, its tax season here, so these are kind of short and to the point.
youareretardedFeb 9, 2012
I didn't make any statements of fact, I just asked a question.
Thanks for the info but you didn't answer the question.
auditortuxFeb 10, 2012
Except I can find nowhere in that GAO report where it states they have to fund 75 years worth. What it does state is that they must fully fund, on an actuarial basis, their liabilities.
I hate to be the voice of reason, but it should be that way for any organization with a pension. Pension accounting is one of the few areas where the accounting profession lost to business interests.
At best, it looks like the USPS is fairly close to being fully funded. I have no problem them taking the surplus from one and putting it in the other, but unless both funds show a surplus, there is nothing wrong what they are being forced to do.
Funny... we're regulating a business and forcing it to set aside the money its promised its employees... and people are complaining about it?
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
Here's the closest I can find:
"Establishes in the Treasury the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, to be administered by OPM. Requires the Postal Service, beginning in 2007, to compute the net present value of the future payments required and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year, along with a schedule if annual installments which provides for the liquidation of any liability or surplus by 2056"
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6407&tab=summary
miklkitFeb 10, 2012
You say you don't know the actual numbers, so I will let Ralph Nader speak.
As consumer advocate Ralph Nader noted, if PAEA was never enacted, USPS would actually be facing a $1.5 billion surplus today:
By June 2011, the USPS saw a total net deficit of $19.5 billion, $12.7 billion of which was borrowed money from Treasury (leaving just $2.3 billion left until the USPS hits its statutory borrowing limit of $15 billion). This $19.5 billion deficit almost exactly matches the $20.95 billion the USPS made in prepayments to the fund for future retiree health care benefits by June 2011. If the prepayments required under PAEA were never enacted into law, the USPS would not have a net deficiency of nearly $20 billion, but instead be in the black by at least $1.5 billion.
auditortuxFeb 10, 2012
Actually, lets look at plan balances (I posted this in the other reply's thread:
The last GAO report (October 2011 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/68639855/GAO-Report-Allocation-of-Responsibility-for-Pension-Benefits#outer_page_40) Go to page 40 - that's where we get some good numbers.
Basically, the net balance of USPS pension and health liability of 0.4 billion (6.9 billion surplus, 7.3 billion shortfall - bullet point one)
The second bullet point also puts a strong point on it - these liabilities will grow each year (as pensions do). These balances are also based on PROJECTED returns of the funds assets. When those come in lower than projected (they almost always do now-a-days) that means the surpluses quickly disappear.
It does mention that there will be an update of this when the USPS releases its FY 2011 report... I tried but couldn't find it.
---
Basically, their plans still are not fully actuarial funded. And that is a HUGE difference between being truly fully funded (the former allows for you to assume 7% returns on investments even in the face of 1 or 2% actual returns)
DiggPiggletFeb 9, 2012
No, the Internet and rural routes are killing it. Imagine FedEx or UPS driving 16 miles to deliver a post card to one address in the middle of nowhere.
smeagerFeb 9, 2012
That's why FedEx/UPS can be profitable because they don't have to to do it. The USPS is required to. But get this if you send a parcel/package to one of those remote locations via FedEx/UPS guess who might actually delivery it.... the USPS.
youareretardedFeb 9, 2012
How much would that cost?
auditortuxFeb 9, 2012
Actually, nothing in the Constitution requires the USPS to deliver mail. Its an act of Congress that requires it. Perhaps an answer is to allow the USPS to only deliver to rural routes every few days or twice a week... if those living out there want it more often, they can drive to the post office to retrieve their mail.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
floorboardFeb 9, 2012
Typically, they say you have to drive to a "supermailbox" in that kind of scenario.
DiggPiggletFeb 9, 2012
And those boxes are still miles apart in places that do that.
mekongkayakFeb 10, 2012
Umm...they do deliver anywhere and everywhere.
DiggPiggletFeb 10, 2012
They=USPS? And what problem does that create?
analogkid1Feb 10, 2012
Right. Payment to USPS for delivery of postcard: 32 cents
Cost of gas to USPS to deliver that postcard: $2.00
Is it any wonder they've just lost 3.3 BILLION?
mekongkayakFeb 17, 2012
Sorry I wasn't clear DiggPiglet...by "They" I meant UPS and Fedex.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
until 2008 when the bust happened and junk mail dropped off. (Yep junk mail was a huge cash cow for USPS...)
chadpyleFeb 9, 2012
The USPS struggles because it can't compete with the reliability and efficiency of private mail services. A common problem among government services.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 9, 2012
Psst...Private mail service providers USE USPS for logistical purposes.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
Is that why UPS is selling their own logistics services? Is it just rebranded USPS services? hmm I think this raptor needs a citation...
eraptorFeb 10, 2012
After you...
The UPS model doesn't hold a candle to that of the Postal Service. As several of my relatives can attest, their rural mail carrier delivers more than a few packages on behalf of UPS.
Checkmate!
cawpinFeb 10, 2012
This isn't only a rural thing either. I live in a suburb of Phoenix and about half the stuff, small packages, that is delivered to me from Fedex/UPS comes is actually delivered by my regular mail man.
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
Anecdotal evidence for the "Checkmate"?
freeformjazzFeb 10, 2012
UPS turns a profit. Thats a good model.
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
Wow you know some people that get rural mail from UPS through the USPS? That's a citation? Link? Way to have your Digg friends back you up, clearly your right because you have 4 other accounts you voted me down and you up with! Woot! Digg Majority Rule!
chadpyleFeb 10, 2012
Not buyin' that, eraptor. How would the same shipping model make huge profits for private shippers and bankrupt the USPS?
I receive packages weekly to my home and daily to my office and I can't recall a single instance where it was delivered via USPS.
Internet forums are replete with tales of lost and delayed packages; and the process for recovering your package or receiving compensation is horrendous.
Methinks you or perhaps family might be affiliated with the Postal Service? I can't think of any other reason someone would so adamantly defend a blatantly broken system.
atomheartmotherFeb 9, 2012
The Constitution grants congress the power to designate mail routes and construct or designate post offices, it doesn't "require" that they do so.
I'm glad that you haven't deviated from your chosen role as premiere digg idiot though. Congrats on the consistency, at least.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaelyiestaFeb 9, 2012
Information and insults are a frustrating combination. Support facts or discourage ad hominems...
atomheartmotherFeb 9, 2012
I vehemently disagree. Challenging misstatements with provable, verifiable information while at the same time adorning it with barbs, I find rewarding.
Sort of like when a boxer hovers derisively over his semi-conscious, prostate opponent after a knockdown.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaelyiestaFeb 9, 2012
I would have imagined it more akin to said boxer spitting on his opponent or something equally unnecessary, unproductive and just downright mean.
atomheartmotherFeb 9, 2012
Well let's just chalk it up to you being a little bit oversensitive and tender then.
I suggest frequenting the forums over at Good Housekeeping or Glamour, if you're so easily frustrated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorFeb 10, 2012
you see what happens when you try to reason with a some people kaelyiesta? This is why I don't even try to talk to these nuts anymore, they have nothing in them but bile and hate, and are incapable of a rational and respectful conversation.
atomheartmotherFeb 10, 2012
Ole, you're simply a talk-box for whatever Progressive tripe was fed to you on any given day.
You've shown no capacity to reason whatsoever.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jivatmanxFeb 10, 2012
Wikipedia is your friend. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_power.
It's not required any more that it's required:
"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"
And nor does having the power make it a good idea.
jacksons98Feb 9, 2012
Thank you liberals for once again proving government can't do anything within a budget. My mailman sits under a tree for 3 hours a day and takes a nap. I once questioned him about it and he told me if he finishes his route early he just get's a bigger route, but doesn't get anymore pay because that is based on seniority. No wonder they are losing moneyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stabsteerFeb 9, 2012
The ignorance just never ends...
eraptorFeb 9, 2012
Your lazy mailman does NOT justify privatizing USPS. Report his lazy ass to USPS supervisiors if that offends you so much.
As for "liberals proving that government can't do anything within a budget", this budgetary disaster was created by CONSERVATIVES, not Liberals. This situation proves CONSERVATIVES are incapable of fiscal/political leadership since it was by THEIR hand, NOT that of Liberals.
Not to worry, I will be contributing to Eric Cantor's "retirement" at the next opportunity. As one of his "constituents", I relish the opportunity and so do more than a few of my fellow Virginians. Wall Street and his Super PAC don't have enough money to convince us otherwise.
jacksons98Feb 9, 2012
no, it was created by liberals. Only liberals would think we even need the post office.
eraptorFeb 10, 2012
Could you possibly BE more clueless?
Let's see, who does one find MORE often in rural areas, benefitting from USPS rural mail services... Liberals or Conservatives? Answer: CONSERVATIVES.
WHAT...a moron!
jacksons98Feb 10, 2012
what benefit is that? Every other carrier I work with delivers to rural locations. Oh unless you think they will miss their ad's to Jimbo's Hardware store every weekComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mekongkayakFeb 10, 2012
Stop it..you'll hurt there brain with those pesky "facts" Reagan said are so stupid.
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
"As for "liberals proving that government can't do anything within a budget", this budgetary disaster was created by CONSERVATIVES, not Liberals"
Source?
miklkitFeb 10, 2012
As consumer advocate Ralph Nader noted, if PAEA was never enacted, USPS would actually be facing a $1.5 billion surplus today:
By June 2011, the USPS saw a total net deficit of $19.5 billion, $12.7 billion of which was borrowed money from Treasury (leaving just $2.3 billion left until the USPS hits its statutory borrowing limit of $15 billion). This $19.5 billion deficit almost exactly matches the $20.95 billion the USPS made in prepayments to the fund for future retiree health care benefits by June 2011. If the prepayments required under PAEA were never enacted into law, the USPS would not have a net deficiency of nearly $20 billion, but instead be in the black by at least $1.5 billion.
The full article...........
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/28/330524/postal-non-crisis-post-office-save-itself/?mobile=ncComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
I did not ask for an overview of the issue. I asked for a source for a very specific statement. When you have one, and you'll find there isn't one if you want to try, feel free to post it. If not, feel free to scroll down the page and you'll see the truth posted just a few comments down by kaelyiesta
omgscienceFeb 9, 2012
@novenator
You don't think technology has anything to do with the decline of the USPS? I for one do all my bills and correspondents electronically. When I lived in the US all I ever got from the USPS was junk mail and credit card applications. We donât use the pony express anymore either, did republicans kill that too? I blame failure to adapt more than a political party.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
Noven... wow I read nearly everyone of your posts, but this comment is pretty amazing, your having an off day for sure:
1. So someone is asking a government agency to be solvent? What audacity!
2. Prey tell what was profitable in the US postal service that wasn't being executed better by private companies, who BTW did so well that they had the capital to buy a piece of the USPS? (Citation definitely needed on this one.)
3. And dow you bust out the Constitution argument? What about states rights? I don't see you complaining about that. What about no federal income tax, the original root of all of the problems? Are you up in arms about that?The only part you care about is the Postal Clause? Are you kidding me?
meccaydnaFeb 10, 2012
For point number 2 the OP was likely referring to how USPS is not allowed to operate their own air fleet. They are forced to subcontract those services to other companies (in the case of airplanes it's FedEx - anything you send USPS express mail is actually carried via FedEx then delivered by USPS).
kaelyiestaFeb 9, 2012
Novenator is right about the pension bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/109-h6407/actions
It is very odd, I can't imagine politicians interested in accountability and financial preparation. The conclusion that this is then sabotage is not unreasonable. What doesn't follow however is who is responsible for it. The conclusion that conservatives did it doesn't hold up:
The vote in both senate and house were not recorded(senate vote was 'unanimous' while house was voice vote). So right off, claims that 'conservatives did it' is unjustified. However, looking at the cosponsors, I found this:
Danny Davis (D-IL7)
John McHugh (R-NY23)
Henry Waxman (D-CA30)
Waxman is a surprising cosponsor. It makes it even less likely that this is some conservative conspiracy. That and the fact that the postal unions championed it, from what I could gather from news articles makes this very suspicious, but not as a plot by the GOP to shoot itself in the foot by showing that government is bad.
Others have pointed out the postal clause claims a power congress has, not obligation.
I'll leave others to consider point 2. I can only spend so much time considering claims without evidence, when each one so far turns out to be wrong.
novenatorFeb 10, 2012
Thanks for the quality response. I was not aware that there were a couple Democrats that were cosponsors. Both of them are surprising. The unrecorded yet unanimous votes are also very surprising. I wonder how that works exactly, but if it was indeed a unanimous voice vote, then indeed both parties would be guilty of this poison pill (even though the Republicans had strong majorities in both chambers at that point).
I guess the crux of my whole point is this: the conservative position has always been that "anything in government is bad", and as a consequence of this philosophy, they have been the ones primarily gunning to end the USPS for decades. Thus I naturally assign blame to primarily to them.
quisquisFeb 10, 2012
"none of my points stand, but I don't like republicans so I blame them anyways."
Seriously nov, did republicans kill the horse drawn carriage or the radio star too? Technology killed the post office; it's simply that since it's a government entity, someone has to pull the plug on the life support.
And oh no, a handful of people will get left behind... just like every other transition in society.
agmlauncherFeb 10, 2012
"artially privatizing it, giving all of the profitable services to private corporations"
That's one way to spin it. The other way is that there is something fundamentally wrong with a government sponsored company being given preferential treatment and then competing with a private company (unlimited tax payer funding, being the preferential treatment).
Imagine if GM was *ACTUALLY* owned by the government, and thus had the government's deep pockets to absorb the costs and risks associated with designing and manufacturing new cars.
Even if people are buying Fords, they're still being taxed to pay for GMs. That's not right, no matter how you slice it. It creates a conflict of interest between natural market demand, and politics.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 10, 2012
Right wingers are a scream-- the way they perpetually undermine the government at every turn, point and laugh and say *I told ya so*, and then hope that their poorly educated voters (most right wing voters, actually) haven't yet figured out that the egg came before the chicken. Wingers? If the government was inherently bad as you like to always suggest, would you really have to act batsh*t crazy all the time trying to manufacture your horsesh*t? If your ideology is so wonderful and superior, why must you be in constant attack mode trying to discredit the left?
grim1316Feb 10, 2012
You are an idiot if you think its just one party or the other that is the cause of all the issues in our government. Most problems are caused by both sides abusing the system or creating ways to abuse the system.
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
Partisan much? Surely you have realized that there are stupid Donkeys and Elephants?
emfkFeb 9, 2012
What a mess.
mekongkayakFeb 10, 2012
Not a mess..a deliberate attempt by Republicans to create the illusion of a failed bureaucracy by forcing the prefunding of retiree benefits. Why? Because there arguments don't hold up to reality so they have to fake one.
"The $3.3 billion net loss was primarily the result of $3.1 billion accrued to pay for future retiree health benefits. The Postal Service is required to prefund those costs by a 2006 law with $12.1 billion for payments deferred from last year and due this year."
They are destroying are future and lining their own pockets..they have gone from loyal opposition to traitors and they must be thrown out of office.
quisquisFeb 10, 2012
If it wasn't funded like you're describing, it would be funded like SS: The current working generation pays for the previous working generation's retirement.
You know who else has to "prefund" their retirement? Everyone.
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
"a deliberate attempt by Republicans"
I keep seeing this claim...please provide a source that backs this up.
mekongkayakFeb 17, 2012
http://pressrepublican.com/0204_in_my_opinion/x1626822939/In-My-Opinion-Postal-losses-due-to-pre-funding-benefits/print
Last year the USPS had a net profit...except for the prefunding mandate. Most importantly: the USPS has not used taxpayer money for 3 decades! So even when the government runs things the way rethugs like...they still try to wreck it.
bobcat7407Feb 17, 2012
How does that back the claim that it was "a deliberate attempt by Republicans"? I know what the overall issue, but comments like yours this time ("the way the rethugs like") and the one I responded to are purely partisan drivel unless you can back that specific accusation up with a source. Feel free to try again.
tomasiiFeb 10, 2012
And this is the government that can make health care cheaper and more effective? bwahahahahaaahaha
mekongkayakFeb 17, 2012
Shhhh...don't tell this guy Obama's Republican Health Care program is working.
BTW...USPS hasn't used taxpayer money in over 3 decades and has turned a profit in many years (like last year!) http://postalnews.com/postalnewsblog/?p=945
tomasiiFeb 17, 2012
Working? hahaha and did you look at the headline of the article. The USPS, like nearly every government program is bankrupt.
mekongkayakFeb 18, 2012
"Facts are Stupid Things" - Ronald Reagan, misquoting someone else, but revealing his heart.
withearsFeb 10, 2012
For one thing, the USPS needs to up the rate on bulk mail.
But try to send a package/letter across country by one of the private carriers. Outrageously expensive.
floorboardFeb 10, 2012
Interesting: but FedEx handles that for them. HOW NOW BROWN COW
withearsFeb 11, 2012
FedEx is really expensive.
mekongkayakFeb 17, 2012
And in some rural areas USPS delivers of them.
LongBFeb 9, 2012
Kill Saturday delivery.
bobthejokerFeb 9, 2012
Whoa! Let's not get carried away here. If my porno mags came in Friday or Monday, I'd be screwed!!!!
howdoesseanrollFeb 9, 2012
bob, let me introduce you to something called the internet
bobthejokerFeb 9, 2012
You're right. File-->Print does wonders!
breadfredFeb 9, 2012
You wish - that would be a good reason to have them delivered on a different day!
agmlauncherFeb 10, 2012
Guess we ought to impose an email tax then
/governmentsolution
njdoo7Feb 10, 2012
Or we could just ignore the hole and print (indirect tax) to cover losses...that's what is done with other deficits.
karmashockFeb 10, 2012
It's always running out of money.
Run the stupid post office like a business, jackasses.
At this point, I think we might consider farming the post office's duties out to third parties or at least seeing if we can get some competent management.
The post office shouldn't be losing money. It should be making a small profit that it puts into a rainy day fund and taps when it runs short.
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
The problem isn't as much the USPS management, as far as I can tell, it's that that management has to live with the rules Congress sets. For the USPS to make changes and adapt Congress has to approve, which brings in politics. Which is, to me, just another example of why we don't want the government running things.
floorboardFeb 10, 2012
Congress has to decide if it wants to keep the $55K a year jobs and mandates and fund it to the tune of $4B a year, or let the market fix this and get the hell out.
karmashockFeb 10, 2012
A good point. I can't really judge them unless they're given enough autonomy to actually make decisions.
mekongkayakFeb 17, 2012
http://postalnews.com/postalnewsblog/?p=945
It does make a profit...it uses NO taxpayer money.
karmashockFeb 17, 2012
Oh, then I guess when the postal service reported they were going broke, that was in error.
Good to know.
You see the contradiction right?... They're telling us they're running out of money. That implies negative cash flow... eg... opposite of making money. And they appear to be asking for government help... and where does the government get money? Taxes.
So... I add 1 to 1... and do the very complicated math... I think I get 2.
Right?
Or did I miss something.
bobcat7407Feb 17, 2012
Your own article contradicts you:
"That, along with a non-cash actuarial adjustment to the Postal Serviceâs workersâ compensation costs, is entirely responsible for the $3.3 billion âloss.â The pre-funding alone accounts for $3.1 billion of the quarterâs âloss.â
Whatever the reason is, there was a $3.3 billion loss in the first quarter alone.
floorboardFeb 9, 2012
Average postal worker makes $55K a year plus benefits.
No idea why someone standing behind a counter (or more usually, walking around laughing in the background behind the customer desk) would ever be worth $55K + benefits.
bcarl314Feb 10, 2012
Because you've been brainwashed by the Corporate media into thinking that all they do is stand around laughing. You've been brainwashed into thinking that because someone gets paid a reasonable wage, that somehow they don't deserve it and need it ripped from them.
agmlauncherFeb 10, 2012
It's simple economics. Does the average postal worker do $55k worth of work that can't be done just as well for $30k?
floorboardFeb 10, 2012
bcarl314 is a postal union worker. He trolls around every time people criticise the pack of fat, shuffling and overstaffed overpaid postal minions to say they all provide EXCELLENT value for money and them acting as glorified cashiers for three times the going rate, with massive benefits is wonderful.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bcarl314Feb 10, 2012
Whatever. You have no idea who I am, and what I do.
floorboardFeb 10, 2012
You've already admitted to being a union shill. Then you said you were in postal service management, but you talk like a union shill.
bcarl314Feb 10, 2012
@floor
Really? Wow, I didn't know that. Amazing how you pull so much s**t out of your ass.
floorboardFeb 11, 2012
@bcarl314 - the last time the post office was criticised with being too overbloated with too many grotesquely overpaid people you banged on about the unions, how great they were and how they stood up for their rights etc. and we correctly identified you as a union shill.
Then you tried to tell us that no, you were in management and that's how you know so much about the internal workings of the post office. You're clearly a liar and a paid union shill. That's OK. The teachers' unions organise their members to patrol Digg, Reddit and Facebook to get rid of the WI governor as well.
bcarl314Feb 11, 2012
@floor
Wow, look who think he knows so much. But like every other "Digg Patriot", you make wild assumptions, and have no idea WTF you're talking about.
Yes, I worked for the USPS for 10 years, 1/2 as clerk, 1/2 as Management. I know BOTH sides of the equation MORE THAN YOU EVER WILL!
You, on the other hand, are nothing more than an ignorant fool, spoon fed propaganda from your corporate overloards, eating it up without question.
Let me guess, you're such a failure in life that you're working some minimum wage job (WalMart???) thinking that somehow being thankful to your employer will earn you a place in their graces. I feel sorry for you. You have no ability to think, are quick to make assumptions, and are gullible in the extreme. Your life must suck. But odds are, you're too stupid to know any better.
I know what I've done in my life, you don't. Go ahead and believe your little fantasy. If you get off thinking I'm a union shill, have at it. I know where I've been and where I'm going.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bcarl314Feb 10, 2012
It's simple fairness. Just because you refuse to stand up for yourself and demand more money and benefits from your employer doesn't give you the right to take away from others who have.
floorboardFeb 10, 2012
And as a result, the whole postal service is going bankrupt fast.
floorboardFeb 10, 2012
Have you ever been to a post office? 2 people manning six counters, and about twenty people in the back laughing and discussing the previous night's sports game.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bcarl314Feb 10, 2012
Are you really that ignorant? 20 people in back - yeah, those would be the CARRIERS and CLERKS sorting the mail. Are you really so stupid to think that the mail delivers itself and the only people working are the people you see?
Totally invalidates anything you say.
floorboardFeb 10, 2012
No, moron, THEY'RE STANDING AROUND TALKING.
And taking mail from one shelf and putting it on another one isn't worth $55K a year.
withearsFeb 12, 2012
How much should they be paid? And what are you basing that on?
withearsFeb 12, 2012
There's only 1 reason that a question gets dugg down - you can't answer it.
abdulnFeb 11, 2012
Congress just needs to let them go with a 50-cent stamp for fcuks sake. It's still cheap! I coudln't get a kid to take my mail from the living room to my mail-box for 50-cents.
withearsFeb 12, 2012
"Hey, would you mind taking this letter from Miami to Seattle? I'll give you 50 cents. Thanks."
MunroeMotorsFeb 10, 2012
We will be following this story closely. Here at www.munroemotors.com we started an e-commerce platform and use USPS exclusively as our shipping solution. We are happy with the USPS service, rates and software. USPS is our way of supporting an American business to sell European goods simultaneously. It will be shame if the lack of support for USPS leads to it's demise.
mapyourvoteFeb 10, 2012
That would be bad...
kinneasFeb 9, 2012
Break out the horses! Hee yah!
freeformjazzFeb 10, 2012
Despite all of the partisan wrangling over this issue as outlined in our comments, does anyone think that maybe the US Postal Service is at its knees because something far more effecient and free came along? The post office simply cannot compete with the internet. All my bills come through my email and I pay them online, its simply more convienient and as good as instantaenous. Sorry post office, you were nice and all but its time to say goodbye.
nitoriFeb 9, 2012
They need some out of the box solutions to their problems.
One thing they should have done a long time ago would be to replace their postal trucks with vehicles based off more fuel efficient platforms.
Rural routes could be served with an off the shelf crossover or mini van just use one for the European market for right hand drive and city routes with an EV.
bobthejokerFeb 9, 2012
The only out-of-the-box solution that can help them out now is teleportation
djguerrillaFeb 9, 2012
The last USPS commercial I saw, all they did was talk about boxes. Not outside them. Next to them. Around the corner. Nothing.
icwydFeb 9, 2012
A simpler solution would to vote out the conservatives. That would fix it right away. They don't like things that work and that don't make them rich.
bobthejokerFeb 9, 2012
Don't say that. Who's going to scare us and fear-monger?
breadfredFeb 9, 2012
They just need to deliver the goods to a local shop where people can pick there parcels up. Deliveries will only go up in the foreseeable future - and too many return visits are necessary when people are not at home. Why not pick it up from your local grocery store?
floorboardFeb 9, 2012
Ever tried to pick something up from a PO Box on a weekend? Only open til 1 pm - OH ITSS BECAUSE OF THE CUTBACKS - but they haven't lowered salaries any, I'd imagine. Just three hours more off a week for the same pay.
jeworldFeb 9, 2012
FTA: âWe have a Postal Service that essentially is living from paycheck to paycheck, which is a very risky proposition for the American economy and the 8 million private-sector workers whose jobs rely on the mail,â Art Sackler, coordinator of the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service, said in an e-mail. âEach day Congress fails to enact postal reform, this problem grows more difficult and perhaps more expensive to resolve.â
This is unedited from the story. Did anyone else notice some irony here?
The postal service is a needed service, but needed how much? Most of us get email, have the option to receive statements online, pay bills online. If you ship something, it's usually one of the larger parcel carriers because their tracking numbers actually work and don't charge their customers for it like the postal service does.
koobyFeb 9, 2012
You couldn't be more incorrect with your last paragraph. The USPS is the CHEAPEST and most accurate for shipping parcels for individuals and businesses. If they go out of business and become privatized, you can expect costs to rise signifigantly.
I am an online 'small business' retailer. The USPS saves me AND my customers a boatload of money every time we ship parcels. Its also faster, careful and more accurate than any UPS or FedEx service.
zjm9133Feb 10, 2012
Which is funny, because the USPS actually contracts their Express and Priority Mail out to FedEx - since 2011 and extended until 2013. Zing!
floorboardFeb 10, 2012
Cheapest to the CUSTOMER. The $3 billion they're haemorraging?
nitoriFeb 9, 2012
Part of the trouble is these brain dead austerity measures congress seems in love with even though they are failing spectacularly in the EU.
Sometimes you have to actually spend some money near term to save money long term.
The postal system needs modernized badly.
Better computer tracking is needed to save labor and new vehicles to save fuel the LLV gets 17mpg a Chevy equinox gets 32mpg and the Ford Transit 27mpg.
kochevnik2001Feb 9, 2012
Austerity measures brought Hitler to power. Banksters love fascists
kochevnik2001Feb 9, 2012
LOL some conservative here LOVES his austerity measures. Probably hangs out on stormfront
withearsFeb 12, 2012
It's ironic that republicans crying for austerity measure will, in almost the same breath, accuse Obama of trying to remake the US in the image of Europe.
Europe is the poster child of austerity! And they're failing!
chadpyleFeb 9, 2012
I'd have to set granny up with a PayPal account for my birthday dollar.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
8 Million people lose their jobs? Where did they get that number? Although it would be a shame to put all of those tree destroying, land pit filling junk mailers from Utah out of business. They might have to learn how to sell something other than As seen on TV crap...
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
Here's some facts about this bill:
Cosponsors:
Danny Davis [D-IL7]
John McHugh [R-NY23]
Henry Waxman [D-CA30]
Dec 8, 2006: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representativeâs position was not kept.
Dec 9, 2006: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senatorâs position was not kept.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6407
"Establishes in the Treasury the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, to be administered by OPM. Requires the Postal Service, beginning in 2007, to compute the net present value of the future payments required and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year, along with a schedule if annual installments which provides for the liquidation of any liability or surplus by 2056."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6407&tab=summary
So can we please stop with the partisan garbage?
withearsFeb 12, 2012
And 2 people dugg you down for speaking the truth? WTF.
Im_High_TechFeb 10, 2012
Dey tuk aor jhobs! *Redneck Voice*
craig1958Feb 10, 2012
How about cutting back on staff and services, closing some locations, reducing deliveries to three times per week, and increasing postage rates to cover the actual cost. That way snail mail will still be available to people who need/want a cheaper option than the private services, and the post office will still be available to recieve and process international mail. There is no reason to have mail delivery six days per week, there are plenty of other options for anything that is really time critical.
worthwildFeb 10, 2012
How are the retired Postal workers supposed to get their pension checks? pigeons, it has to be pigeons.
choppergirlFeb 9, 2012
Lysander Spooner wins, finally, post mortem!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
3 cent stamp? What an outrage... um, wait, we're paying 44 cents...
bksdmvFeb 9, 2012
this is a joke. Look up post office poison pill or click here http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2011/12/stop-poison-pill-killing-post-office This is the truth. they are making money, dont buy the hype.
carlmosconiFeb 9, 2012
Surprise, Surprise!
theboiFeb 9, 2012
$3.3billion = ouch
floorboardFeb 10, 2012
postal workers make $55K on average. I mean, great deal for driving down in a little truck and throwing packages on the lawn. But not sustainable
merriousFeb 10, 2012
The moment USPS was privatized, it's investors would declare bankruptcy, dump it's pension obligations onto taxpayer backs (through the PBGC) and strip it clean for taxpayers to clean up later. So, you and your conservative ilk can roll your privatization idea into a tight little ball and cram it where the sun doesn't shine. Privatization is an extension of the SAME conservative greed and stupidity you've been hawking for years..............details:- http://www.newsingaporenews.com/
turtlwingsFeb 10, 2012
ya they did not diliver my mail until i wen"t to post offiofes
turtlwingsFeb 10, 2012
ya they did not diliver my mail until i wen"t to post offiofes
yunuan2011Feb 9, 2012
Good! www.godhi.com
skinturtleFeb 9, 2012
they said that last year.
asilkyoneFeb 10, 2012
Tell the US government to stop stealing from the Post Office !!
Thank you conservatives for deliberately sabotaging the US Postal Service by:
1. forcing a mandate that requires the USPS to fund decades of retirement in just a few years
2. partially privatizing it, giving all of the profitable services to private corporations (like FedEx), while keeping the unprofitable parts in the public sector (to "prove" nothing government can work)
3. wiping your butts with the constitution once again, since the Postal Clause *requires* a public postal service in America.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bobcat7407Feb 10, 2012
Sources?
rixar13Feb 10, 2012
Raise the price of stamps and vote out all Republicans and Tea-Baggies... Problem solved..
rapidqrcodesFeb 10, 2012
The Post Office Is ALMOST useless due to technology. Online bill payments, Online Banking, Online Statements. An old invention EMAIL had to hurt a little bit too. They needed to adapt to the changing market place but failed to react. Their best strategy would be to stop delivering mail....Yes stop delivering mail and require folks to pick up in a central location. Look at all the pollution they cause with their vehicles running around everywhere. Their carbon footprint is huge plus they encouraged paper products to be mailed for years. LOTS OF TREES DESTROYED. This list goes on and on about their waste over the years too. STOP THE BLEEDING ALREADY. WHY DIDN't they invest into email technology, or payment systems, or other ad media, info distribution systems, etc? They hassled their customers alot too when trying to mail direct mail with 1000's of rules instead of making it simple and easy. They just were not flexible enough or smart enough to make the needed changes. USPS will become exstint eventually. Quit Blaming everything on everyone else and accept some personal responsibility.
mekongkayakFeb 10, 2012
You certainly aren't blaming anyone else..oh wait..yes you are.
yeah..i'm trollin' the stupids..been a long day.
misterbadideaFeb 10, 2012
What evidence do you have that everyone leaving their homes to go to the post office would leave less of a carbon footprint?
jacksons98Feb 9, 2012
They could close down for all I care. 99% of the mail I receive is junk
kantspelwriteFeb 16, 2012
I just want my mail carrier to stop reading my magazines and deliver them on time.
ElizabethGradyFeb 10, 2012
good story :)
gbreedFeb 10, 2012
The problems with Post Office is CONGRESS. The Post Service is commercial / governmental agency; no changes can be made unless congress vote it's approve. Congress never allowed USPS to fully use technologies that ever post service use throughout the world. Now the congress and USPS are in a situation that could have been avoided years ago by privatizing the Post Office. What going to happen is the monies will be found congress will blame the unions and uniform will follow that line and conservative will blame Obama and public will scream.
All above should but I think one more step that make the situation easier to take; provide away to Privatize the USPS. By allowing the Post Office to manage it own finances; they would have more flexablities to institute newer money saving technologies. The Government would save Billions. Funds invested by government could be converted in stock share that must be sold off in two to five years. This is also the same type of investment setup they did for the auto companies and they may a profit.
mekongkayakFeb 10, 2012
Lies....Lies...Lies....
DF68Feb 10, 2012
Going postal or Postal going?
Yes on both counts.
phillymozartFeb 9, 2012
The truth is USPS (and everything else) is suffering because our economy is not growing fast enough for the current level of spending by our government. It will hurt for a while, but this is a good chance to get our fiscal house in order. There is no way the Feds or states will get the growth they need to mask budget shortfalls anytime soon.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
analogkid1Feb 10, 2012
"get our fiscal house in order" I really hate that phrase. Not sure why. Just hate it.
asilkyoneFeb 10, 2012
Getting our fiscal house in order is only a pipe dream, sadly
proremodelers1Feb 9, 2012
I hope they start thinking!!!
Closed AccountFeb 9, 2012
How is it possible to lose that money as a business? They must have a hell of a lot of holes in their operation
analogkid1Feb 10, 2012
A postal worker once told me of the unbelievable amount of red tape, bureaucracy, outdated computer systems, old equipment, etc., that are ubiquitous in the USPS. It is a fine example of government waste and mismanagement. Nobody mails letters anymore. Everyone pays bills online. No one is buying stamps except for the 75 and above crowd, who will soon die off. People send packages by USPS and FedEx. If it weren't for eBay, no one would even be sending packages through USPS.
The USPS is finished. Done. It's gone the way of the cassette tape and rotary phone. Time to stop the bleeding and move on. Time to clean house and get a new business model.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.