bluehenbillk wrote:I'll bullet point this to make it easy to understand:
- America has a spending & debt problem - everyone seems aware of this
- The Postal Service is underwater financially
- Saturday mail - is it really needed anyway?
- The USPS wants to discontinue Saturday delivery so they can save jobs & money
- Congress amends an unrelated bill mandating continued Saturday delivery.
You should all feel more stupid today for re-electing your local representation.
USPS should absolutely keep Saturday deliverybluehenbillk wrote:I'll bullet point this to make it easy to understand:
- America has a spending & debt problem - everyone seems aware of this
- The Postal Service is underwater financially
- Saturday mail - is it really needed anyway?
- The USPS wants to discontinue Saturday delivery so they can save jobs & money
- Congress amends an unrelated bill mandating continued Saturday delivery.
You should all feel more stupid today for re-electing your local representation.
Agreed. I think people (not necessarily on this site) often forget that the USPS was doing fine and keep bashing it for misinformed reasons. It isn't mismanagement, competition, or even modern technology (email, etc.) that's killing the USPS, but that ridiculous government mandate. Barely any company can survive that.Wedgebuster wrote:Postal service was doing just fine operating on the revenue it gets selling postage. They were forced to deplete their cash by 100% up front funding of their employees pensions, by guess who, our government.
Guess they wanted the postal service to do just what they had already done, making sure that Social Security is secure and fully funded up front.
The post office was and is poorly run. I worked at a major mail facility and I have never seen a business full of such waste and corruption.∞∞∞ wrote: Agreed. I think people (not necessarily on this site) often forget that the USPS was doing fine and keep bashing it for misinformed reasons. It isn't mismanagement, competition, or even modern technology (email, etc.) that's killing the USPS, but that ridiculous government mandate. Barely any company can survive that.
The solution seems pretty obvious, but obvious isn't a word in Congress' dictionary.
Relative to most other actual and quasi government agencies the USPS is a model of efficiency. Relative to private companies that actually have to be efficient in order to stay in business it's another story.Cluck U wrote:The post office was and is poorly run. I worked at a major mail facility and I have never seen a business full of such waste and corruption.∞∞∞ wrote: Agreed. I think people (not necessarily on this site) often forget that the USPS was doing fine and keep bashing it for misinformed reasons. It isn't mismanagement, competition, or even modern technology (email, etc.) that's killing the USPS, but that ridiculous government mandate. Barely any company can survive that.
The solution seems pretty obvious, but obvious isn't a word in Congress' dictionary.
I could write a book and it would shock most taxpayers.
What will stamps cost once privatized?UNI88 wrote:Relative to most other actual and quasi government agencies the USPS is a model of efficiency. Relative to private companies that actually have to be efficient in order to stay in business it's another story.Cluck U wrote:
The post office was and is poorly run. I worked at a major mail facility and I have never seen a business full of such waste and corruption.
I could write a book and it would shock most taxpayers.
I agree that the USPS provides a valuable service that would likely be too expensive if privatized and have no problem with maintaining it. But let's be realistic, do we really need mail delivered 6 days/week? And even if we do, for how much longer will we need it? E-mail is replacing mail for communication and for delivery of bills and other business materials. You can pay your bills online. The USPS is becoming an anachronism. Let's see if the government does the smart thing and shrinks it down to an appropriate size or does the usual thing and maintains it because government agencies never die.kalm wrote:What will stamps cost once privatized?UNI88 wrote:
Relative to most other actual and quasi government agencies the USPS is a model of efficiency. Relative to private companies that actually have to be efficient in order to stay in business it's another story.
I think you guys are oversimplifying this. No one would argue that Congress's mandate to pre-fund the pensions doesn't have a negative effect on the Post Office. Of course it does. But last year (2012) USPS ended the year with a $15.9B (b as in billion) dollar hole. The mandate to pre-fund pensions only contributes something like $5.5B each year, and you can argue that even without the mandate that they'd still be on the hook to pay a quarter or half of that anyway. But even if we take that out, so no mandate and no funding of pensions, the USPS would've had a deficit of $10B last year. The USPS is failing and the mandate has nothing to do with that.∞∞∞ wrote:Agreed. I think people (not necessarily on this site) often forget that the USPS was doing fine and keep bashing it for misinformed reasons. It isn't mismanagement, competition, or even modern technology (email, etc.) that's killing the USPS, but that ridiculous government mandate. Barely any company can survive that.Wedgebuster wrote:Postal service was doing just fine operating on the revenue it gets selling postage. They were forced to deplete their cash by 100% up front funding of their employees pensions, by guess who, our government.
Guess they wanted the postal service to do just what they had already done, making sure that Social Security is secure and fully funded up front.
The solution seems pretty obvious, but obvious isn't a word in Congress' dictionary.
I don't like their music.AshevilleApp wrote:I've never had a problem with the Postal Service. Just lucky I guess.
I think we need to privatize/profitize the EPA, the USDA, and the military too. I mean they've been losing money hand over fist for decades now. They are clealy failing business models.GannonFan wrote:I think you guys are oversimplifying this. No one would argue that Congress's mandate to pre-fund the pensions doesn't have a negative effect on the Post Office. Of course it does. But last year (2012) USPS ended the year with a $15.9B (b as in billion) dollar hole. The mandate to pre-fund pensions only contributes something like $5.5B each year, and you can argue that even without the mandate that they'd still be on the hook to pay a quarter or half of that anyway. But even if we take that out, so no mandate and no funding of pensions, the USPS would've had a deficit of $10B last year. The USPS is failing and the mandate has nothing to do with that.∞∞∞ wrote: Agreed. I think people (not necessarily on this site) often forget that the USPS was doing fine and keep bashing it for misinformed reasons. It isn't mismanagement, competition, or even modern technology (email, etc.) that's killing the USPS, but that ridiculous government mandate. Barely any company can survive that.
The solution seems pretty obvious, but obvious isn't a word in Congress' dictionary.
The mandate doesn't help, but all it's really doing is speeding up what is already a failing business model anyway. First class mail peaked in volume back in 2001 - twelve years ago. At some point in time, we will just not need the USPS anymore.
I agree that like the military, EPA, etc. the USPS provides a valuable service to the American people and that should be considered in decisions regarding its future. Do you believe the USPS should continue to deliver mail 6 days a week? Has the value/priority of the service changed in the last 25+ years? Do you absolutely have to have mail service in order to 1) inexpensively communicate long-distance with friends & family? 2) receive and pay bills? 3) shop for things you can't get in your local stores? 4) ship packages to customers, friends, family, etc.? We now have e-mail, online banking, Amazon and the like, and FedEx/UPS. The value of USPS services is significantly lower than it used to be so why does the USPS need to operate like it did when way back when? Could operations be scaled back without significantly impacting the majority of the taxpaying public and in a way that those impacted could adapt to? Heaven forbid we ask anybody to change how they do things, the government used to do it so therefore they should always do it regardless of how inefficient and costly it might be.kalm wrote:I think we need to privatize/profitize the EPA, the USDA, and the military too. I mean they've been losing money hand over fist for decades now. They are clealy failing business models.
That's not to say the USPS isn't becoming obsolete or that it shouldn't be run with greater efficiency as you suggest, but government is not the same as a business. Not everything needs to be profitable.
Essentially agree with UNI here. While the EPA and the military, and other government agencies, still value and relevance in today's world, the USPS is slowly and irreversibly becoming irrelevant in today's world, and that's why it's not okay for it to lose tens of billions of dollars a year and just allowing it to continue. Like I said, first class mail, by volume, peaked in 2001. That's 12 years ago and it's never coming back. Peak mail (all classes) peaked in 2006. These are definitive, long term shifts and we should expect government agencies to eventually adapt and adjust.UNI88 wrote:I agree that like the military, EPA, etc. the USPS provides a valuable service to the American people and that should be considered in decisions regarding its future. Do you believe the USPS should continue to deliver mail 6 days a week? Has the value/priority of the service changed in the last 25+ years? Do you absolutely have to have mail service in order to 1) inexpensively communicate long-distance with friends & family? 2) receive and pay bills? 3) shop for things you can't get in your local stores? 4) ship packages to customers, friends, family, etc.? We now have e-mail, online banking, Amazon and the like, and FedEx/UPS. The value of USPS services is significantly lower than it used to be so why does the USPS need to operate like it did when way back when? Could operations be scaled back without significantly impacting the majority of the taxpaying public and in a way that those impacted could adapt to? Heaven forbid we ask anybody to change how they do things, the government used to do it so therefore they should always do it regardless of how inefficient and costly it might be.kalm wrote:I think we need to privatize/profitize the EPA, the USDA, and the military too. I mean they've been losing money hand over fist for decades now. They are clealy failing business models.
That's not to say the USPS isn't becoming obsolete or that it shouldn't be run with greater efficiency as you suggest, but government is not the same as a business. Not everything needs to be profitable.
I agree with Gil that we should keep PO's open on Saturday. Dropping Saturday rather than a weekday is an employee focused rather than a customer focused decision and would demonstrate that union influence often overrides customer focus, efficiency and good old common sense.
On to entitlements, gentlemen!
Gosh darnnit, I like the word "heck". It's like "hell" without being so harsh.Ivytalk wrote:Well, our house moderates Ganny and UNI88 have solved another problem!
Another sensible center solution that will never see the light of day.
I'd vote for GF for President if, and only if, he never used the word "heck" again.
Rob Iola wrote:And here I thought this thread was about 89's fluffer at the club...
