Donk Hero Reid: Save the USPS! Seniors Love Junk Mail!

[Cap'n Cat]

Oh, knock it off, Picky Pete.

Saying the existence of the Post Office system is Constitutionally mandated and that we need to ammend the Constitution to eliminate it rises above the level of pickieness considering that it is flat out incorrect. It's akin to people actually thinking that UNI will ever defeat Delaware on the gridiron - such sheer incorrectness always requires correcting.

Hey, the day is coming. Eastern Washington never beat UNI in a hundred tries, but they got a champy. It'll happen.

[kalm]

Saying the existence of the Post Office system is Constitutionally mandated and that we need to ammend the Constitution to eliminate it rises above the level of pickieness considering that it is flat out incorrect. It's akin to people actually thinking that UNI will ever defeat Delaware on the gridiron - such sheer incorrectness always requires correcting.

Hey, the day is coming. Eastern Washington never beat UNI in a hundred tries, but they got a champy. It'll happen.

I'm rooting for you Cappy!

As for the USPS, I guess the roomers about the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act passed in 2006 that requires them to fund 75 years worth of future employee benefits over the next 10 years has nothing to do with the postal crisis?

[clenz]

You mean the Constitutionally mandated USPS?

It also mandated that alcohol was illegal.

It never said owning it was illegal

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[∞∞∞]

I think the USPS is important, but they need to simply rework how the mail is distributed. I think you should be required to go to the post-office to drop/pick up mail and packages unless you want to pay a fee for it to come directly to your house. Convert local mailboxes with money slots if you want to send your mail that way, and companies can just leave coupons and advertising materials at the post-office and people can pick them up if they want. It cuts down on equipment, operational and maintenance costs, facilities, and manpower. It also cuts down on wasting paper as well as lowering the USPS' carbon footprint.

[kalm]

As I implied earlier, there was not much wrong with the USPS before this.

An aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was warning me about this last week. There are organic reasons for all of this: The U.S. Postal Service is staring down the same barrel trained at our magazine and newspaper businesses, i.e. its revenue model is being wiped out by the internet.

But politics also plays a huge part in this. In 2006, in what looks like an attempt to bust the Postal Workers' Union, George Bush signed into law the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. This law required the Postal Service to pre-fund 100 percent of its entire future obligations for 75 years of health benefits to its employees – and not only do it, but do it within ten years. No other organization, public or private, has to pre-fund 100 percent of its future health benefits.

"No one prefunds at more than 30 percent," Anthony Vegliante, the U.S. Postal Service's executive vice president, told reporters last year.

The new law forced the postal service to come up with about $5.5 billion a year for the ten years following the bill's passage. In 2006, before those payments kicked in, the USPS generated a small profit. Not surprisingly, the USPS is now basically broke.

The 2006 law also bars the Postal Service from offering "nonpostal services," which means the USPS can't, say, open up a bank, or an internet cafe, or come up with any new entrepreneurial ideas to generate new income, as postal services do in other countries.

The transparent purpose of this law, which was pushed heavily by industry lobbyists, was to break a public sector union and privatize the mail industry. Before the 2006 act, the postal service did one thing, did it well, and, minus the need to generate profits and bonuses for executives, did it cheaply. It paid for itself and was not a burden to taxpayers

This is a classic example of private-sector lobbyists using the government to protect its profits and keep prices inflated.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... z1sxepKiiI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... z1sxeYsiFw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ivytalk]

As I implied earlier, there was not much wrong with the USPS before this.

An aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was warning me about this last week. There are organic reasons for all of this: The U.S. Postal Service is staring down the same barrel trained at our magazine and newspaper businesses, i.e. its revenue model is being wiped out by the internet.

But politics also plays a huge part in this. In 2006, in what looks like an attempt to bust the Postal Workers' Union, George Bush signed into law the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. This law required the Postal Service to pre-fund 100 percent of its entire future obligations for 75 years of health benefits to its employees – and not only do it, but do it within ten years. No other organization, public or private, has to pre-fund 100 percent of its future health benefits.

"No one prefunds at more than 30 percent," Anthony Vegliante, the U.S. Postal Service's executive vice president, told reporters last year.

The new law forced the postal service to come up with about $5.5 billion a year for the ten years following the bill's passage. In 2006, before those payments kicked in, the USPS generated a small profit. Not surprisingly, the USPS is now basically broke.

The 2006 law also bars the Postal Service from offering "nonpostal services," which means the USPS can't, say, open up a bank, or an internet cafe, or come up with any new entrepreneurial ideas to generate new income, as postal services do in other countries.

The transparent purpose of this law, which was pushed heavily by industry lobbyists, was to break a public sector union and privatize the mail industry. Before the 2006 act, the postal service did one thing, did it well, and, minus the need to generate profits and bonuses for executives, did it cheaply. It paid for itself and was not a burden to taxpayers

This is a classic example of private-sector lobbyists using the government to protect its profits and keep prices inflated.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... z1sxepKiiI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... z1sxeYsiFw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm and Matt Taibbi: brothers from another mother.

[kalm]

As I implied earlier, there was not much wrong with the USPS before this.





Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... z1sxeYsiFw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm and Matt Taibbi: brothers from another mother.

Dispute any of it smarty pants.

[Ivytalk]

kalm and Matt Taibbi: brothers from another mother.

Dispute any of it smarty pants.

OK. Start with the union-busting premise. Give me proof of that from one objective source. I'll settle for one lobbyist e-mail.

[kalm]

Dispute any of it smarty pants.

OK. Start with the union-busting premise. Give me proof of that from one objective source. I'll settle for one lobbyist e-mail.

No, I'm a lazy liberal and that's too much work.

But I will ask you 1) what was the logic behind asking an organization to fund 75 years worth of employee benefits in a ten year period 2) who sponsored and voted for the bill 3) who are their top donors and 4) what makes the world go 'round?

[Ivytalk]

OK. Start with the union-busting premise. Give me proof of that from one objective source. I'll settle for one lobbyist e-mail.

No, I'm a lazy liberal and that's too much work.

But I will ask you 1) what was the logic behind asking an organization to fund 75 years worth of employee benefits in a ten year period 2) who sponsored and voted for the bill 3) who are their top donors and 4) what makes the world go 'round?

The bill was sponsored in the House by two Democrats (including Henry Waxman, who's no conservative) and two Republicans. Unfunded pension/benefit obligations hang over virtually every state and local government, and political considerations block either reducing those benefits or increasing taxes to pay for them. I suppose that the postal pre-funding requirement was a poorly executed way of trying to avoid this problem for the USPS, an organization which is neither fully public nor effectively private. I'm guessing that the scheduled payments were based on overly rosy projections for USPS revenues, which should have been obvious in the Internet age.

[YoUDeeMan]

The bill was sponsored in the House by two Democrats (including Henry Waxman, who's no conservative) and two Republicans. Unfunded pension/benefit obligations hang over virtually every state and local government, and political considerations block either reducing those benefits or increasing taxes to pay for them. I suppose that the postal pre-funding requirement was a poorly executed way of trying to avoid this problem for the USPS, an organization which is neither fully public nor effectively private. I'm guessing that the scheduled payments were based on overly rosy projections for USPS revenues, which should have been obvious in the Internet age.

BORING!


The conspiracy theory is much more entertaining.

kalm is doing a good job filling in while espandos is busy doing his deep undercover sleuthing through the internet bushes.

[Ivytalk]

The bill was sponsored in the House by two Democrats (including Henry Waxman, who's no conservative) and two Republicans. Unfunded pension/benefit obligations hang over virtually every state and local government, and political considerations block either reducing those benefits or increasing taxes to pay for them. I suppose that the postal pre-funding requirement was a poorly executed way of trying to avoid this problem for the USPS, an organization which is neither fully public nor effectively private. I'm guessing that the scheduled payments were based on overly rosy projections for USPS revenues, which should have been obvious in the Internet age.

BORING!


The conspiracy theory is much more entertaining.

kalm is doing a good job filling in while espandos is busy doing his deep undercover sleuthing through the internet bushes.

Damn! I guess I was channeling my inner GannonFan.

[GannonFan]

BORING!


The conspiracy theory is much more entertaining.

kalm is doing a good job filling in while espandos is busy doing his deep undercover sleuthing through the internet bushes.

Damn! I guess I was channeling my inner GannonFan.

We all should do that from time to time.

[kalm]

No, I'm a lazy liberal and that's too much work.

But I will ask you 1) what was the logic behind asking an organization to fund 75 years worth of employee benefits in a ten year period 2) who sponsored and voted for the bill 3) who are their top donors and 4) what makes the world go 'round?

The bill was sponsored in the House by two Democrats (including Henry Waxman, who's no conservative) and two Republicans. Unfunded pension/benefit obligations hang over virtually every state and local government, and political considerations block either reducing those benefits or increasing taxes to pay for them. I suppose that the postal pre-funding requirement was a poorly executed way of trying to avoid this problem for the USPS, an organization which is neither fully public nor effectively private. I'm guessing that the scheduled payments were based on overly rosy projections for USPS revenues, which should have been obvious in the Internet age.

That's better.

[Ivytalk]

The bill was sponsored in the House by two Democrats (including Henry Waxman, who's no conservative) and two Republicans. Unfunded pension/benefit obligations hang over virtually every state and local government, and political considerations block either reducing those benefits or increasing taxes to pay for them. I suppose that the postal pre-funding requirement was a poorly executed way of trying to avoid this problem for the USPS, an organization which is neither fully public nor effectively private. I'm guessing that the scheduled payments were based on overly rosy projections for USPS revenues, which should have been obvious in the Internet age.

That's better.

Than what? Your soul brother Taibbi? Obviously!

[kalm]

That's better.

Than what? Your soul brother Taibbi? Obviously!

Don't make me get off my lazy ass and prove you wrong.

[Ivytalk]

Than what? Your soul brother Taibbi? Obviously!

Don't make me get off my lazy ass and prove you wrong.

Matt Taibbi and a broken cock[sic] are right twice a day!

[kalm]

No, I'm a lazy liberal and that's too much work.

But I will ask you 1) what was the logic behind asking an organization to fund 75 years worth of employee benefits in a ten year period 2) who sponsored and voted for the bill 3) who are their top donors and 4) what makes the world go 'round?

The bill was sponsored in the House by two Democrats (including Henry Waxman, who's no conservative) and two Republicans. Unfunded pension/benefit obligations hang over virtually every state and local government, and political considerations block either reducing those benefits or increasing taxes to pay for them. I suppose that the postal pre-funding requirement was a poorly executed way of trying to avoid this problem for the USPS, an organization which is neither fully public nor effectively private. I'm guessing that the scheduled payments were based on overly rosy projections for USPS revenues, which should have been obvious in the Internet age.

But why did they choose this particular government organization to address the issue in this manner? Why pay for 75 years worth of benefits in 10 years? How many other government entities and businesses do the same? Your take is a good intention gone awry?

[Ivytalk]

The bill was sponsored in the House by two Democrats (including Henry Waxman, who's no conservative) and two Republicans. Unfunded pension/benefit obligations hang over virtually every state and local government, and political considerations block either reducing those benefits or increasing taxes to pay for them. I suppose that the postal pre-funding requirement was a poorly executed way of trying to avoid this problem for the USPS, an organization which is neither fully public nor effectively private. I'm guessing that the scheduled payments were based on overly rosy projections for USPS revenues, which should have been obvious in the Internet age. [/quote

But why did they choose this particular government organization to address the issue in this manner? Why pay for 75 years worth of benefits in 10 years? How many other government entities and businesses do the same? Your take is a good intention gone awry?

that's my take on it. Typical government SNAFU. The guys who crunched the numbers should be sacked.

[kalm]

that's my take on it. Typical government SNAFU. The guys who crunched the numbers should be sacked.

Cluck's right. It's way more fun when you're acting the role of partisan hack like Gannon.

[HI54UNI]

The pension issue is part of the problem. Congress needs to fix some other things. They need to allow the USPS to do things to be more competitive and offer additional services for a modern age. The entire management of USPS should be fired for agreeing to a union contract a year ago that guaranteed no layoffs. They need to end Saturday delivery. They need to close a lot of small town post offices. They need to close duplicative post offices (where I work there are two adjacent towns, one is pop. 4000, the other pop. 1200. They each have a post office. They are 1/2 mile apart ).

But none of this will happen because our govt. is completely disfunctional.

[Cap'n Cat]

Cap'n Cat's "inner GannonFan":

[D1B]

So now you support the Constitution...

BOOM goes the dynamite!!

93.07 of Z's posts are "boom" posts.




"Boom!!!! turn out the lights, this pah tay is over!"

[YoUDeeMan]

Is that UNHWildkitty in the white t-shirt checking out bicycleman's junk?

[AZGrizFan]

BOOM goes the dynamite!!

93.07 of Z's posts are "boom" posts.




"Boom!!!! turn out the lights, this pah tay is over!"

BOOM!!!