Why the GOP Hates the Postal Service

[cigaretteman]

did someone really compare our Military to the Postal Service?

And I don't know if I would say the Postal Service is working. Could we let an outside service handle it that is more efficient and not lose billions per year. Maybe.

As has been continually pointed out, had congress not strapped it with paying for as yet unborn future postal employees' pensions the postal service would be doing just fine. Most of its problems arise from that fact, and the fact the Republicans in congress refuse to allow it to enact any cost savings mechanisms it proposes because their motive is to kill it off rather than have it ably serve the country as it has for over 200 years.

 

[bdg8]

No, look into the problem. You could not. It would be impossible for any for profit interest to run the post office as the Rs dictate they must and make money. You might also be interested to know that the USPS is not taxpayer funded. It is a solid example of good government screwed up by the people who can't stand that example.

Why does it have to be about D or R? Who does fund the USPS to cover it's losses then. I am honestly curious

 

[naturalmwa]

Why does it have to be about D or R? Who does fund the USPS to cover it's losses then. I am honestly curious

Because Rs are the folks who formulated and passed the bills that brought about the mess. This is entirely a political ideological fight. This isn't about any practical concerns about how mail is delivered. The postal service generates money and has taken out loans to cover the mandates the R's imposed.

 

[moral_victory]

See Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. This lack of profit was intentionally created.

 

[ft254]

The postal service was created when their were not giant companies capable of doing the service. However, in today's world, private companies could do the same service better for a lower price. The Dems want to keep it for one reason, 300K union members.

Want to know the crap service they are doing, in Marion, in new housing areas, they set up one central mail box drop, they won't even come to your house anymore. You have to drive to your mail box. Brilliant move USPS.

So, UPS or Fed Ex would not use cluster boxes if they replaced the USPS? Are you stupid.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Because the GOP has been trying to undermine USPS for a while now.

How do you undermine something that does nothing but bleeds money in order to delivery junk mail?

 

[naturalmwa]

The postal service was created when their were not giant companies capable of doing the service. However, in today's world, private companies could do the same service better for a lower price. The Dems want to keep it for one reason, 300K union members.

Want to know the crap service they are doing, in Marion, in new housing areas, they set up one central mail box drop, they won't even come to your house anymore. You have to drive to your mail box. Brilliant move USPS.

Did you know that those "giant companies capable of doing the service" currently find it more profitable to hire the USPS to deliver many of their packages? You're talking out of your ass dude, you haven't a clue what you're talking about here.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

No, look into the problem. You could not. It would be impossible for any for profit interest to run the post office as the Rs dictate they must and make money. You might also be interested to know that the USPS is not taxpayer funded. It is a solid example of good government screwed up by the people who can't stand that example.

The only question that matters is, going forward, who will provide the best service at the best price for the consumer. I don't give a damn about the employees, I don't give a damn about the union, I don't give a damn about their history. If someone else can give me better service, why the hell would we keep the USPS?

 

[naturalmwa]

How do you undermine something that does nothing but bleeds money in order to delivery junk mail?

Step one: Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006
Step two: Deny any effort by the USPS to cut cost or make additional revenue.
Step three: ?
Step four: Undermine complete
Step five: Sell off the USPS
Step six: Profit.

The Postal Service belongs to Rs too, but you're helping your donor class steal it from all of us.

 

[IMCC965]

Far less money than the military loses, I can guarantee you that.

Why do you hate the military?

 

[naturalmwa]

The only question that matters is, going forward, who will provide the best service at the best price for the consumer. I don't give a damn about the employees, I don't give a damn about the union, I don't give a damn about their history. If someone else can give me better service, why the hell would we keep the USPS?

Name a company that will send your letters around the world for 50 cents? Admit it, you already have the best. Now be happy just one day in your life and tell the Rs to stop stealing your joy.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

Did you know that those "giant companies capable of doing the service" currently find it more profitable to hire the USPS to deliver many of their packages? You're talking out of your ass dude, you haven't a clue what you're talking about here.

And from this we can conclude that no company can deliver the mail cheaper and better than the USPS?

 

[IMCC965]

If congress hadn't burdened it with future pension payments that no business faces, it would be operating just fine. In fact, nearly every time the service has come up with ways to save costs, congress hasn't let them do it. Most of its problems have been inflicted upon it by congressional Republicans in an effort to make it look bad and give them a reason to kill it. Benjamin Franklin would be quite appalled.

So it's only been losing money since the Republicans have held congress?

 

[CeMar_Clone]

Name a company that will send your letters around the world for 50 cents? Admit it, you already have the best. Now be happy just one day in your life and tell the Rs to stop stealing your joy.

They can't it is against the law.

 

[TexMichFan]

See, that's the problem the Postal Service faces. The wingnuts whine and whine that it's losing money, but every time they try and institute a cost cutting measure, the wingnut just whine and whine about it. They just can't win.

Sorry, the Postal Service faces bi-partisan opposition to making changes in its business model.

 

[naturalmwa]

And from this we can conclude that no company can deliver the mail cheaper and better than the USPS?

Apparently not, or those giants you look up to would hire them, right? That's capitalism.

 

[naturalmwa]

They can't it is against the law.

I'm not surprised you think there is a law against you being happy, you sure act that way.

 

[TexMichFan]

Because Rs are the folks who formulated and passed the bills that brought about the mess. This is entirely a political ideological fight. This isn't about any practical concerns about how mail is delivered. The postal service generates money and has taken out loans to cover the mandates the R's imposed.

Which bills would those be?

 

[Huey Grey]

The postal service was created when their were not giant companies capable of doing the service. However, in today's world, private companies could do the same service better for a lower price. The Dems want to keep it for one reason, 300K union members.

Want to know the crap service they are doing, in Marion, in new housing areas, they set up one central mail box drop, they won't even come to your house anymore. You have to drive to your mail box. Brilliant move USPS.

Why couldn't you make the same argument with all the technological advances of the military? Anymore, you don't even need people to conduct strikes. It can all be done remotely.

 

[Huey Grey]

Why do you hate the military?

It's filled with losers for starters.

 

[LunchBox50]

The amount of misunderstanding and incorrect information in this thread is awesome.

 

[naturalmwa]

Which bills would those be?

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act and continuing resolutions denying the Postmaster from implementing management plans to cut services and consolidate offices.

Below are three other ways Congress has halted postal reform.

1. Congressional inaction: Pre-retiree health care. The costliest problem for the U.S.P.S. is the Congressional mandate that it pre-fund healthcare for future retirees to the tune of around $5.5 billion annually. Of the $15.9 billion the postal service lost last year, $11.1 billion was caused by two defaulted payments to the health benefits fund. (Most of the remaining $5 billion was due to lost revenue from lower mail volume.) The House hasn’t taken any action on healthcare funding, while the Senate passed a bill last spring that would allow the post office to reduce its workforce from 550,000 to 450,000 and recoup a projected $11 billion surplus from a separate federal pension fund.
2. Congressional disapproval: Closing post offices. Postmaster General Donahoe sought to close around 4,000 post offices to reduce costs, but after objections from a number of House members from rural districts, the Senate passed legislation forbidding the closure of any post office that’s more than 10 miles from another branch. Soon after, Donahoe announced that the post offices on the chopping block would remain open but with shorter hours and reduced services.
3. Congressional inaction: Shipping beer and wine. One way the post office is hoping to recoup some of its lost revenue is through the shipment of alcohol. The post office is legally barred from shipping “all spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented or other intoxicating liquors of any kind” thanks to a 1909 temperance law, according to the post office’s legal department. The postmaster general is trying to get that law overturned as well, and the Senate has passed legislation to do so. But, once again, the House has yet to take action.

http://business.time.com/2013/04/12...-problem-isnt-saturday-delivery-its-congress/

 

[Huey Grey]

And from this we can conclude that no company can deliver the mail cheaper and better than the USPS?

So far, none have proven they can.

 

[moral_victory]

The amount of misunderstanding and incorrect information in this thread is awesome.

Go ahead, and enlighten us all., or just come in, and make a blanket statement and leave.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

Want to know the crap service they are doing, in Marion, in new housing areas, they set up one central mail box drop, they won't even come to your house anymore. You have to drive to your mail box. Brilliant move USPS.

You're complaining about the USPS trying to cut costs?

BTW, UPS and FedEx won't go to a whole heck of a lot more houses...

 

[TexMichFan]

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act and continuing resolutions denying the Postmaster from implementing management plans to cut services and consolidate offices.

Below are three other ways Congress has halted postal reform.

1. Congressional inaction: Pre-retiree health care. The costliest problem for the U.S.P.S. is the Congressional mandate that it pre-fund healthcare for future retirees to the tune of around $5.5 billion annually. Of the $15.9 billion the postal service lost last year, $11.1 billion was caused by two defaulted payments to the health benefits fund. (Most of the remaining $5 billion was due to lost revenue from lower mail volume.) The House hasn’t taken any action on healthcare funding, while the Senate passed a bill last spring that would allow the post office to reduce its workforce from 550,000 to 450,000 and recoup a projected $11 billion surplus from a separate federal pension fund.
2. Congressional disapproval: Closing post offices. Postmaster General Donahoe sought to close around 4,000 post offices to reduce costs, but after objections from a number of House members from rural districts, the Senate passed legislation forbidding the closure of any post office that’s more than 10 miles from another branch. Soon after, Donahoe announced that the post offices on the chopping block would remain open but with shorter hours and reduced services.
3. Congressional inaction: Shipping beer and wine. One way the post office is hoping to recoup some of its lost revenue is through the shipment of alcohol. The post office is legally barred from shipping “all spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented or other intoxicating liquors of any kind” thanks to a 1909 temperance law, according to the post office’s legal department. The postmaster general is trying to get that law overturned as well, and the Senate has passed legislation to do so. But, once again, the House has yet to take action.

http://business.time.com/2013/04/12...-problem-isnt-saturday-delivery-its-congress/

When you say Congress do you mean both parties or just one?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

How do you undermine something that does nothing but bleeds money in order to delivery junk mail?

This has been answered several times in this thread.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think it's interesting that the constitution provides for a navy and a postal service but not for a standing army.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

When you say Congress do you mean both parties or just one?

I don't know, but I'd bet #1 and #3 are mainly the GOP while #2 is probably bipartisan.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

I think it's interesting that the constitution provides for a navy and a postal service but not for a standing army.

Sure it does... "to raise and support an army"

 

[LunchBox50]

One more time:

USPS is the only organization in the country that guarantees delivery to every residential and business address in the nation. UPS and FedEx pay USPS to deliver hundreds of millions of their ground packages to residences that they do not want to deal with each year. USPS pays UPS and FedEx for air transportation. And USPS receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Sure it does... "to raise and support an army"

You want to try reading my post and that portion of the constitution again?

 

[dbq hawk 32]

You want to try reading my post and that portion of the constitution again?

Section 1 Article 8? I know it pretty well...

Creation of an army and a navy is an enumerated power...

Does it literally say standing? No. It says raise and support. Just like it says "provide and maintain a navy".

 

[TexMichFan]

One more time:

USPS is the only organization in the country that guarantees delivery to every residential and business address in the nation. UPS and FedEx pay USPS to deliver hundreds of millions of their ground packages to residences that they do not want to deal with each year. USPS pays UPS and FedEx for air transportation. And USPS receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.

Actually this is not quite correct. In the coastal community I live in we have to get a P.O. Box since there is no residential delivery. We do get the box at no charge except for a small key charge each year. If you are not a permanent resident you have to pay full price if you want a P.O. Box.

Your point is a good one as they do provide service to the vast majority of people.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Section 1 Article 8? I know it pretty well...

Creation of an army and a navy is an enumerated power...

Does it literally say standing? No. It says raise and support. Just like it says "provide and maintain a navy".

I was trying to be nice and let you spot your own error. But like most here, you just double down. The part you (mis)quoted continues:

...but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Or do you think that's one of those parts of the constitution that the founding fathers didn't really mean? You know, like the general welfare clause or the 9th amendment - which cons like to pretend don't exist or don't mean what they plainly say.

Needless to say, the enumerated powers providing for the postal service and navy are NOT similarly restricted.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

I was trying to be nice and let you spot your own error. But like most here, you just double down. The part you (mis)quoted continues:

...but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Or do you think that's one of those parts of the constitution that the founding fathers didn't really mean? You know, like the general welfare clause or the 9th amendment - which cons like to pretend don't exist or don't mean what they plainly say.

Needless to say, the enumerated powers providing for the postal service and navy are NOT similarly restricted.

They aren't similarly restricted because it took a year to build a ship, and why would you dismantle the postal service?

The USMA was founded two years after the constitution was ratified and has been in existence ever since. Its purpose is to provide officers to a national army. The appropriations limit doesn't mean that the army wasn't a standing army, just that it would be re-authorized. We have always had a standing military in the United States.

The appropriations clause was a way to maintain congressional control over the military, not an indication that the founding fathers didn't intend for the creation of a standing army.

 

[22*43*51]

Far less money than the military loses, I can guarantee you that.

I agree. We should privatize defense.

 

[22*43*51]

Name a company that will send your letters around the world for 50 cents?

The USPS cannot either. That's why they lost 1.9 Billion last year.

Name a company that stays in business after losing 1.9 Billion year over year?...

 

[22*43*51]

One more time:

USPS is the only organization in the country that guarantees delivery to every residential and business address in the nation. UPS and FedEx pay USPS to deliver hundreds of millions of their ground packages to residences that they do not want to deal with each year. USPS pays UPS and FedEx for air transportation. And USPS receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.

I wonder how you would feel if congress reimbursed and loaned money to FedX.

Before 1971, the Postal Service received annual appropriations from the federal government. Since then, it has operated independently, with revenues generated through the sales of postage stamps and services.

But Congress does give the Postal Service $100 million a year to compensate the agency for revenue loss by providing, at congressional direction, free mailing privileges to blind people and overseas voters, a congressional report noted. The $100 million is less than 1 percent of the Postal Service’s annual budget.

The Postal Service’s debt rose from nothing to $10.2 billion between federal fiscal years 2005 and 2009, according to a congressional report. The federal fiscal year begins Oct. 1 and concludes Sept. 30.

In 2009, the Postal Service began borrowing money from the U.S. Treasury Department to deal with its troubles. Some news accounts report the service reached its borrowing limit of $15 billion in September 2012.

To sum up, the American Postal Workers Union claimed in its television ad that the U.S. Postal Service doesn’t operate on taxpayer dollars and and it’s solely funded by stamps and postage. The Postal Service has borrowed money from the government in recent years, primarily it says, to cover the cost to pre-fund employee health benefits.

The first part of the statement is on target. The second part, however, gets a return to sender.

We rate this claim Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...-union/postal-service-claim-not-fully-target/

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

They aren't similarly restricted because it took a year to build a ship, and why would you dismantle the postal service?

The USMA was founded two years after the constitution was ratified and has been in existence ever since. Its purpose is to provide officers to a national army. The appropriations limit doesn't mean that the army wasn't a standing army, just that it would be re-authorized. We have always had a standing military in the United States.

The appropriations clause was a way to maintain congressional control over the military, not an indication that the founding fathers didn't intend for the creation of a standing army.

Now you are just bloviating.

Just admit that you were wrong instead of shucking and jiving to find some ground that sounds good but doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in your original criticism.

Remember, it isn't the crime, it's the cover-up.