Postal Service - Death Imminent

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by coolguybrad, Nov 15, 2012.

  1. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,177
    Likes Received:
    12,801
    Trophy Points:
    113

    That doesn't identify the physical delivery. You are changing the mail service, so all those that can't get to there postal station are screwed. Hence you will destroy the economy.
     
  2. coolguybrad

    coolguybrad New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,576
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Toll roads work fine. Thats a state level project. Then the road creation is private level.
     
  3. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with you on many things, and sadly in this I cannot. The postal service is actually quite a boon to our nation, the problem isn't their service, its their god awful management, and liberal unions and such. The service they provide is yet essential, as not everyone has entered the digital age. In less than fifteen years or so, indeed, they will be useless, but up to that point they serve a purpose, one that was created at least a millennium ago, of good government allowing its citizens the opportunity to converse with one another freely... Sadly we lack good government today, but the concept is still sound...
     
  4. coolguybrad

    coolguybrad New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,576
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You create more postal pick up locations in low mobility areas. Privatize the contract to build these stations.

    Instead of a postal worker spending 5-6 days a week delivering mail unnecessarily, two or three drive around to the localized stations and filling the mail boxes, dropping mail off twice a week.

    Offer private contracts for further delivery as a VIP service for those who wish to have their mail hand delivered.
     
  5. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now now, Yosh, no need to get nasty and defensive just because you know someone in the post office and don't want them to take a hair cut in a wasteful and inefficient branch of Government now, is there?

    You should be impugned over this position, as it's clearly a liberal position you have taken. You have family and friends in the Post Office, and cutting this particular branch of Government would affect them, so you've been compromised. Like I said, it's amazing how certain "conservatives" can get wobbly when they or someone they know is suddenly in the crosshairs.

    Here's a Government link. That's good enough, isn't it?

    http://postal.oversight.house.gov/postal_surplus.html

    Like another poster correctly pointed out already, if the Postal Service wasn't allowed to run 16 billion dollar deficits in order for you to enjoy your 45 cent stamps, they would be forced to raise their cost of doing business in order to break even. At that point, it's more likely that the private sector could be a lot more competitive.

    I don't think the military is directly analogous to the Postal Service, but thanks for the redirection attempt.

    Trimming the fat won't cut it. The Post Office needs a severe downsizing and a good amount of reform in order to continue functioning. The demand for their services just isn't what it used to be.

    The Government is dealing with those things to. The difference is, the Government is allowed to run a multi billion dollar deficit in order to keep the "cheap" price. If they weren't allowed to do this, like a private company isn't, their prices would be a lot higher than they are now. That's the fundamental that you are really not understanding.

    Fedex, UPS, and DHL do just fine. I don't see why you believe they couldn't also deliver regular mail. Their prices would definitely be higher than what we are used to, but so would the Post Office if it wasn't allowed to run a deficit.

    You're getting rather emotional, Yosh. Does your wife work for the Post Office, or something? Regardless of your personal involvement in the issue, it's a service that is losing money. It needs serious reform, or it needs to be replaced by something better. Your mentality is the reason why nobody is really looking to cut Government.

    How do you know that? People want to send and receive mail. It's a service people are willing to pay for.

    Strawman. I said it resists downsizing, and clearly it has. It has decreased over the last 15 years, but not nearly enough. That's why they continue losing money. Too many workers, not enough demand for their services.

    See above.

    More personal attacks. No need to get nasty, Yosh. I'm sure your Post Office family members do a bang up job. Nothing personal. I just think their usefulness is long since past, and getting weaker every year. No sense in sticking up for a fossilized branch of Government over it.

    Of course you don't. Your preconceived notions are what's really important. I'll post it again, since you were too lazy to read it the first time.

     
  6. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are lots of businesses that would LOVE to have a McPost Office set up in San Francisco, LA, Miami, New York, etc.

    But in South Dakota or any other rural semi isolated areas? Not so much. You simply can't make money doing that which makes me laugh when some Mensa members try to convince me that the almighty free market (which I support in many instances, but not all) can turn a profit delivering mail the way the post office does (or has to).
    It can't be done.
     
  7. coolguybrad

    coolguybrad New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,576
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You could do it if you charge a premium for long-range services.

    "Sure I'll bring you your mail, $40 a month, twice a week". If you can't pay, get your butt on the road and get your mail.
     
  8. siddhartha

    siddhartha New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    8,418
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Statement from NALC President Fredric Rolando about the Postal Service’s financial situation

    May 10, 2012 — Today’s U.S. Postal Service’s announcement about the most recent fiscal quarter reinforces our view of the financial situation facing the USPS and how it can be fixed.

    The Postal Service reports that 96 percent of its losses – $3.05 billion out of $3.18 billion – have nothing to do with mail delivery expenses, but rather result from an external political mandate. Since 2007, Congress has compelled the Postal Service to pre-fund future retiree health benefits for 75 years into the future, an obligation that will cost the USPS $11 billion this year. No other public agency or private company in the country is compelled to pre-fund.

    Today’s report follows on last quarter’s financial statement by the Postal Service, which also showed that in operational terms the Postal Service is doing quite well – in fact last quarter there was a $200 million profit delivering the mail, with pre-funding accounting for all the losses.

    The Postal Service’s own data shows that the first thing Congress needs to do is address this artificial political burden that is driving almost all the red ink. For the first half of this fiscal year, the USPS reports that pre-funding accounts for $6.2 billion of the $6.5 billion in red ink.

    It would be absurd to start to dismantle the universal network and degrade service to the American people and America’s businesses – when almost all of the red ink has nothing to do with the costs of those services but stems directly from a burden that Congress imposed and Congress could fix overnight.

    The service reductions called for in the Senate bill, and the worse ones called for in the House bill, would not fix the actual financial drain on the Postal Service. Rather, they would worsen things by driving customers away and reducing revenue.

    We acknowledge that a thoughtful restructuring of the Postal Service is needed to adapt to the country’s changing needs. For 200 years, the USPS has adapted to an evolving society. Neither of the bills before Congress provides for such a thoughtful or constructive approach.

    The Postal Service’s own figures and statement shows that the major cause of the financial problems is not – despite the conventional wisdom – Internet competition. In fact, the USPS today, as last quarter, cited a sharp rise in the shipping of packages ordered online as contributing to the good operational performance. That bodes well for the future, because that part of the business will continue to grow. If Congress will step up and fix the pre-funding problem it created, the USPS can focus on taking full advantage of this and other opportunities to better serve the public.

    For 30 years, the Postal Service has not used a dime of taxpayer money, while providing the world’s most efficient and most affordable delivery service.
     
  9. 110db

    110db New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obviously liberals love the US Postal Service.
     
  10. coolguybrad

    coolguybrad New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,576
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep, not one responds to my perfectly legitimate methods to solve the problems.
     
  11. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My friends in the Post Office have nothing to do with a common sense position I have taken. You seem to think you can snap your fingers and just replace the Post Office. You can't and no one can maintain the service and security our mail has enjoyed at it's low rates (lowest postal rates in the industrialized world).
    You can't even point to a company that has said it could take over the universal service mandate the constitution specified...because NO ONE can turn a profit delivering billions of pieces of mail every day to all across the nation and the world.

    I send packages to Rwanda through the US Postal Service because UPS charges seven or eight times what the USPS charges.

    No. It isn't, and your "government" link has nothing to do with the government itself. It's some slickly packaged lie designed to fool gulible dupes. I see it did it's job and frankly anything that blatantly dishonest makes me certain I'm on the right trail.
    Please show me which governmental agency this site belongs to.
    Big Business interests are hoping to hack the Post Office to pieces and make off with the most profitable parts. Wow! Do you also believe emails you get from Nigerian princes?



    The Postal Service funds itself and if not for the congressionally mandated pension funding, would turn a modest net profit every year.


    It's an organization that's put in place to provide a service to the American people (just like the Postal Service). Why couldn't the free market come in and run a more fiscally responsible military? You seem to think it's an open and shut case.

    Who says the post office needs a severe downsizing?
    YOU? :roll:
    It's cost effective as it is, (without congressional funding mandates) thanks anyway.

    The funding of retirees has nothing to due with the rates, which are set by a congressionally apponted Postal Rates board, that the Post Office operates under. One isn't connected to the other. You know nothing about this matter.


    :roll: These businesses hit a fraction of the number of customers USPS hits every single day. This is the definiton of an ignorant apples and oranges comparison.

    Stop being so ignorant. I've already listed in detail all the ways in which these companies are not equiped to meet a universal delivery mandate requirement. The capital investment alone just to get up to speed would make the delivery of mail so prohibitively costly the buinsess would kill itself.
    I don't want to have to make this argument again.

    Again, the rates charged for postage and the deficit from funding liabilities are two separate things. Stop being so ignorant.


    Serious reform is underway. I don't know if I mentioned it constantly or not (yeah....I have over and over again).
    And your mentality, speaking of mentalities, is the reason people are repelled by rapacious
    greedy businessmen pretending to be conservatives. You have given us illegal immigration and you've wanted to break apart the Post Office for years and sell it off piece by piece thereby leaving most of the country with either no service or service so expensive it can't be afforded.
    What's wrong with you? Thank God you can't get your way.

    Will people still be willing to send mail when postage has been marked up three to four hundred percent? I doubt it.

    Clearly it hasn't. It IS downsizing, but don't let facts get in your incredulous way.

    The losses come from funding liabilities. Congress can fix that easily.

    You see above. You know next to nothing about this issue.

    You really do see no difference between a vital government service and a gas station or hamburger stand, don't you.



    I'm not too lazy to read it. I just realize I'm dealing with an ideologue arguing from a position of ignorance of the subject. As long as you think a slick bit of online propoganda is from the "government" and that it's wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater and that DHL could just step right in and do the job of the Post Office then you remain hopelessly ignorant and your analogies aren't apt in any event.
     
  12. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They haven't done it because the Post Office still exists. My original point is that, if the Post Office ceased to exist, the private sector would fill the void. People would still want to send and receive mail, regardless of whether or not the Government is providing the service.

    Good for you. If the Post Office wasn't allowed to go billions in debt, they'd have to charge a lot more for their services. You don't seem to mind deficits, so it's a nonissue to you.

    So the giant "Committee on Oversight and Government Reform" banner at the top of the page didn't catch your eye? What's the "Committee on Oversight and Government Reform" you may ask? Here.

    And, to my knowledge, "big business interests" can't register a .gov website address. It's reserved exclusively for Government agencies.

    I showed two sources so far that say you are incorrect, including a Government agency on oversight and reform. You've produced nothing but your biased and unsubstantiated say-so. Here are the facts one more time. Maybe it'll sink in this time.

    http://postal.oversight.house.gov/index.html

    So the "modest profit" you are describing would be dwarfed by a rapidly accumulating unfunded liability that would have to be paid by taxpayers within 10 years. You can't defend their current business model and then (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about the inevitable bailout when it happens. Just remember that.

    Because I believe we'll always need a military. I don't believe we'll always need the Post Office. Fedex, UPS, and other private companies can deliver the packages, and most if not all letters will eventually be sent electronically.

    False for reasons already given. You're clearly content to keep repeating the same falsehoods. It's not "cost effective" unless you consider a 100 billion dollar debt to be "cost effective", in which case, I'm surprised you're so opposed to Obama's Presidency.


    If the Post Office is running deficits as large as they are, they are clearly not charging enough for their services. Businesses in the real world need to take things like retiree pensions into account when they determine a price for their products or services. No private sector business will allow their retiree pensions to accumulate tens of billions in debt while keeping the cost of their products low. Not if they want to stay in business. Those bills need to be paid sooner or later.

    Your attempts to dismiss my argument aren't cutting it, guy. I'm throwing real information at you, and all you can do is spout off immature insults. Grow up.

    And if the Post Office wasn't around, I'm sure they would expand and hit a much larger fraction of the number of customers USPS hits.

    You've done no such thing. It doesn't have to be an overnight transition. The Government can slowly turn over the mail duties to private companies over time.

    Absolute nonsense. Liabilities are part of a company's balance sheet. You don't just get to ignore something and price your product without taking into account a growing unfunded liability. Not if you want to stay in business, at least. In the real world, businesses would charge a price for their product or service that will allow them to pay their liabilities. The Post Office should be no different.

    Baseless accusations and personal attacks. Feel free to prove I'm a "greedy businessman" and have "given us illegal immigration". I'm probably more against illegal immigration than you are.

    No, what I really am is a conservative who isn't afraid to point to an unprofitable and wasteful branch of Government that needs to be done away with or seriously reformed. You have friends who work there, so your objectivity is compromised. You're thinking with emotion, not logic, like a liberal would. Your defense of the Post Office is a defense of the Government going in debt and requiring taxpayer bailouts in order to fix the situation.
     
  13. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Would they be willing to pay the Post Office if the Post Office charged a price for its products and services that allowed them to pay their own bills?

    Then it would be at a size that reflects the level of demand for its products and services. It's not.

    How?

    Argument of dismissal, logical fallacy.

    I see a difference in a business that has to pay its liabilities and one that depends on future taxpayer bailouts. Too bad you don't. Give my regards to your "friends".

    Feel free to prove that the information from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is "propaganda". So far you've only presented your biased and unsubstantiated say-so. Excuse me for not being convinced.
     
  14. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can only say this... Having received a care package overseas, I respect and love the post office... UPS and FedEx, and all other private entities would not or could not deliver such to me. That is simple truth, there is no profit in the armpits of the world and private entities will not venture there. The USPS should remain for that reason alone...
     
  15. Dasein

    Dasein New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh oh. Division in the ranks.
     
  16. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,838
    Likes Received:
    7,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I saw you post suggestions, but I didn't see anything perfectly legitimate.
     
  17. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The USPS is a good example of a company that is reluctant to adjust to the marketplace. In the private sector these types of companies disappear. But the USPS has access to the government teat, using questionable accounting practices, and so it sloshes along losing customers, losing money, becoming a dinosaur, while the American public in it's ignorance demands service-as-usual no matter the financial losses. Just like so many government programs in deep financial trouble, none of them are sustainable in their current form.

    As long as Obama and Congress and US citizens define the USPS as a company who delivers mail 7 days a week, 365 days a year, through rain, sleet and snow, and high water, and pesky Indians, to every square inch of the USA and it's territories, we will have what we have today which is inefficient and not sustainable.

    Considering UPS, FedX, electronic communications, public mail boxes, etc. Obama and the flock need to re-define the USPS for the next couple of decades. It is impossible to maintain the status quo...so what will the USPS become...
     
    Brewskier and (deleted member) like this.
  18. Montoya

    Montoya Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,274
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Privatizing the USPS is the worst idea I have ever heard. UPS and FEDEX are NOT cheaper and are way less efficient.

    And to Zos, privatized police? I love you and all but that is an ABSURD idea.
     
  19. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps, but only in larger population centers where a profit could be made (maybe).
    And there would still be the problem of investment in infrastructure, buildings, equipment, transportation, labor, etc. which would keep everyone away anyway because who can run make a profit on a business with declining volume and service to mostly unprofitable areas?

    At two or three dollars per stamp I would stop sending mail, certainly.


    If congress wouldn't demand that USPS fund their retirees in a completely different manner than anyone else there would be little to no deficit to worry about. So problem solved.


    You got me there but it's strictly a partisan site (the dems have one too( and it seems to be exclusively a
    place where Daryll Issa can beat his little drum for busting up the Post Office (so business can swoop in).
    So in practical terms, it is a de facto business site. In any event it's so one sided one can hardly get a balanced picture of the issue.

    Not so. I gave a citation. If you don't look I'm not to blame.
    Save your bandwidth. You are just repeating assertions that are not proven fact. If you have a less biased citation (from someone NOT trying to parcel out the USPS) I'd be happy to look. http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/09...-postal-job-killing-retiree-bill-moves-states
    At least I'll balance out the scales.


    Remove the onerous requirement that, somehow, only the Post Office has to comply with, and they'll pay their own way just as always.
    Funny how the "inefficient bloated" Post Office has been self sustaining since Nixon made them an independent business under government control in 1971 but it's only been since this one of a kind funding liability was placed on them (2006) that USPS has been
    loosing ground. Do you see any correlations, perhaps?


    That's not what I asked (deflection noted). If the free market can do everything better why not contract out the military? Please don't duck the question again.

    As long as USPS has this onerous one of a kind burden to meet it will run up deficits (which I'm starting to think is the point). Remove the burden, and the problem is removed. It's pretty simple, really.


    You tell congress and the Board of Governors about postal rates. The USPS has no say.
    No private sector business would have to fund their pensions the way the Post Office is forced to so there is no need going on about
    how no private sector business would do this or that. It's blather.


    I'm stating fact. You know nothing about the Postal Board of Governors. You proved it. Call it an insult if you like.

    And if America wasn't around we wouldn't need a post office anyway. I deal in reality. I asked you once before to show me the company that thinks it can step up and do what the post office does. I don't recall getting a reply.

    There are lots of companies that would love to swoop down and skim off the cream but NO ONE can replace the Post Office because no one can serve the entire nation and some day you Bush republicans (that put profits before the county) may come to understand that your greed is ruinous and some government services cannot be run like a gas station.


    You've already admitted that private companies will charge people more for their McMail company due to the profit motive. What's the government's motivation to turn over their duties to some corporation?
    And what else should the government simply give away to business crony? Fire department, police department? The FBI?


    Once more your ignorance of the Postal Governor's Board shows it's ugly ignorant head. Here's the time line again: from 1971 to 2006...USPS okay. From the onerous funding requirement until now...big deficits.

    I don't need to prove you are a greedy pro illegal immigration businessman since I never said you were. I said you exhibited the mentality of a greedy pro illegal immigration businessman. Feel free to read before you jump.

    I recognize that you have a cartoon version in your head of what the USPS is like. Fat, lazy government workers sitting around drawing fat paychecks for nothing....blah blah blah.

    The USPS has paid it's own way and been self sufficient for decades. If congress would leave it alone and restore things to the way they were it could be that way again. Many parts of our economy depend on the Post Office, as inconceivable as that may seem to you, and to put a national constitutionally appointed service in the hands of businessmen, whose only allegiance is to their own pockets, should disturb you but for some reason it doesn't.
     
  20. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Most people would. However, like I said, the true cost of sending a stamp through the post office is much higher than what you've been saying. The only reason they get the cost that low is because they are not paying their liabilities. It would be easy for companies to charge an extremely low price when they don't factor in their costs into their products. The private sector doesn't operate that way, and neither should the post office.

    False for reasons already given. They have to fund their liabilities or else they would need a taxpayer funded bailout within 10 years. The Post Office has been running an unsustainable business model for a long time and it finally came to a head. Getting the problem in control now is better than waiting for it to become a full blown financial crisis and then dealing with the problem, which is what you seem to prefer.

    Of course, the best way to deal with the problem is to stop offering pensions to future employees, or at least substantially less generous plans, but you seem to be of the mindset that the postal workers won't do a good job unless they have a pension waiting for them after 20-25 years of service, which I think is nonsense. Most of the private sector is getting used to the idea that pensions won't be there for them, the Government should too. There's no sense in having public sector workers getting better benefits than the private sector workers who fund them.

    So what if it's a "de facto business site" (whatever that means)? The Post Office is a business, isn't it? If you're going to try and dismiss sources you don't agree with, you could at least give a better answer than "it's partisan, so I won't listen to it". A "balanced picture". Gee, that sounds like Obama's "balanced approach" to dealing with the deficit. It's sad to see "conservatives" talking like progressives.

    Feel free to post evidence that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is wrong. Dismissing the source as "biased" without giving a convincing explanation is not a legitimate rebuttal.

    That's not true at all. The problems with the Post Office really started in the 90's when email started taking away business from the Post Office. This has only gotten worse as time went on. People use the Post Office far less now than they did in the past. The reason the law was enacted in 2006 was because the Post Office had accumulated liabilities that would, if not addressed, require a taxpayer funded bailout within a decade. Congress wanted to avoid this, so they required the Post Office to pay down their liability burden until 2017, when they would have essentially "caught up" after allowing the problem to grow for many years.

    Strawman. I never said "the free market can do everything better". Maybe don't start off with a false premise if you want a genuine answer to your questions.

    It's not simple at all. You're intentionally ignoring contrary evidence to support your narrative that it's a simple issue, but that doesn't make it so.

    If a private sector company can't pay its liabilities down the line, it will go out of business and liquidate. The only people on the hook would be shareholders. If the Post Office can't pay its liabilities it needs to get bailed out by the taxpayer. Big difference.

    Actually, I called it a dismissal first, which is what it is. It doesn't really matter if the rates are set by different agencies or not, the argument is that the rates the Post Office is charging customers for its services is not a realistic cost when they are not bringing in enough revenue to pay its liabilities. Like our entitlement program, they overpromised benefits that will not be there in the future unless changes are made now. If the Post Office wishes to give its employees pensions, then they should be able to pay for it without being bailed out by the taxpayer.

    That's because it's a stupid question. Why would a company "step up" and announce it can do what the Post Office does when the Post Office still exists? My point is, that if the Post Office went away, there would still be a demand for its services, which would be filled by the private sector. Of course, I believe if the Post Office went away there would be a hastening of the trend of moving toward electronic correspondence.

    "Bush Republican"? If anything, you're the Bush Republican, here, with your "deficits don't matter" mentality. Just another weak, baseless jab from Yosh.

    False analogy. Those agencies aren't setup to run like a business. They don't sell their services and products to the public in the way the Post Office does.

    Wrong again. The USPS was not "OK" up until 2006. If it was, they wouldn't have passed the law in the first place. They realized the Post Office was going to be in trouble down the line and they took preventative measures to address the situation. This conservative forward-thinking approach should be done with our entitlements as well if we wish to have our social safety net for the future.
     
  21. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I did read. Here's what you said:

    How did I "give us illegal immigration", exactly?

    With your level of emotionalism over the idea of reforming a Government program that is losing billions of dollars a year, maybe you should rethink this whole "conservative" thing. You're coming across as a liberal who is terrified his/her Government program is being attacked. You're even using the same language that they use.

    Sounds like something a liberal union member would say. I've said nothing like this. Another strawman from Yosh.

    Demonizing business and businessmen with every post. And you wondered why your "conservative" credentials would be called into question? Unbelievable.

    The USPS had not "paid its own way" for reasons already described. They wanted to keep their generous pension and benefit structure even with a huge section of their business going the way of the typewriter. They put off their pension liabilities until it was clear that the Post Office would require a taxpayer funded bailout in order to survive. Actions were taken to avoid that scenario. Your defense of the Post Office's 16 billion dollar deficit and unfunded liabilities is a defense of Government running up debt and using taxpayer money to bail them out. Mentalities like yours are the reason why people will never get serious about cutting spending and waste in Government.
     
  22. coolguybrad

    coolguybrad New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,576
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nice rebuttal. People around here are so self-righteous.
     
  23. coolguybrad

    coolguybrad New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,576
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its cheap because its subsidized. I don't need the postal service. Why am I paying for it?
     
  24. coolguybrad

    coolguybrad New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,576
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly. Of course food would be free if it was nearly completely government subsidized too.
     
  25. coolguybrad

    coolguybrad New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,576
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Keep the service for that. We don't need a government subsidized company to deliver mail to northern rocky mountain BFE on a national scale.

    Its highly ineffecient.
     

Share This Page