What's with the hatred some have for the US Postal Service?

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by fumster

Good luck when they close your local Post Office.

I live in a small town. The PO is less than a mile from my house. There's another one about a mile in about the same direction. There's a third one in the town next to me that I drive by every day. There's another one about a mile from my work.

They could close down half of them and I don't think anyone would notice.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I prefer to get my mail at the local PO in a PO Box. More secure. I literally didn't have a mailbox for years at my house. I added one for two reasons:

2. I started doing Netflix physical DVDs a while back and these are the only things that I preferred to get at my house so I didn't have to wait.

So, everything the PO does can be done better some other way, yet you've paid to have a PO box, and paid to get a new mailbox installed when the PO box wasn't convenient enough.

You use the post office, for bills and to get entertainment delivered to your door. The PO does this at a low enough cost that you can pay Netflix $8 a month to get things repeatedly mailed to and from your house.

Do you think UPS is going to deliver a 50 cent letter to your door? Folks have trouble getting their driver to ring their doorbell for a $15 package, and he's going to make an extra stop to drop off a DVD?

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Some people just don't like the post office because they've had too many experiences with rude and/or unmotivated USPS personnel.

It's also why lots of people hate UPS, FedEx, every airline, the DMV, the police, and really every other organization. Everything worth noting has pissed somebody off.

[Deeg]

Originally Posted by Leaper

do you believe that a private postal service (or a company currently in existence) would offer postal coverage (geographically, I mean) on par or better than the USPS for the prices the USPS offers if the USPS did not exist? If so, who and how?

I don't agree with Debaser on hardly anything but I will take a stab at this: I firmly believe that a private company could do it as well (and probably better). My reasoning (which you probably won't agree with) is that in most cases anything the government can do a private company can do, too. I don't believe there is anything inherently special about the USPS that can't be done by a private company.

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by Deeg

I don't agree with Debaser on hardly anything but I will take a stab at this: I firmly believe that a private company could do it as well (and probably better). My reasoning (which you probably won't agree with) is that in most cases anything the government can do a private company can do, too. I don't believe there is anything inherently special about the USPS that can't be done by a private company.

This actually triggers a related question: what is it EXACTLY about the Post Office that allows them to have their postal coverage for the rates they charge for first class stamps? Could a private company emulate whatever it is?

In short, is a rate increase under a private regime inevitable? If so, by how much?

[Jas09]

But the question isn't can they, but would they. USPS has a mandate to serve every address in the US for a flat rate (for first-class letters, at least). A private company would not have that mandate (unless you're proposing that they should).

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Deeg

I don't believe there is anything inherently special about the USPS that can't be done by a private company.

I might agree with that as well. However, I would at least note that the USPS is not ungodly bad either. IMO a private company might be a LITTLE better. And they would probably be more likely to fuck over the customers, the workers, or create a giant Enron type debacle at some point as well.

How about we legally allow a private company to deliver mail to every place the USPS does. But they also have to follow every law the USPS does. That should answer the question.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

So, everything the PO does can be done better some other way, yet you've paid to have a PO box, and paid to get a new mailbox installed when the PO box wasn't convenient enough.

Just because he agrees that it COULD be done a different way doesn't mean that he can't recognize the reality of the current situation and conform to it.

This "not everyone has internet" argument is bogus. Just because some people want to pretend that it's still 1981 doesn't mean that they get to suckle at the taxpayers teat.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Jas09

But the question isn't can they, but would they. USPS has a mandate to serve every address in the US for a flat rate (for first-class letters, at least). A private company would not have that mandate (unless you're proposing that they should).

As I posted in another thread, they don't serve every address. I have to drive a mile to get my mail. UPS probably wouldn't do better, but let's not pretend that the brave mail carrier is scaling cliffs to deliver mail.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by jtgain

This "not everyone has internet" argument is bogus. Just because some people want to pretend that it's still 1981 doesn't mean that they get to suckle at the taxpayers teat.

Did you miss the part that the USPS is totally self funded?

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by jtgain

This "not everyone has internet" argument is bogus. Just because some people want to pretend that it's still 1981 doesn't mean that they get to suckle at the taxpayers teat.

So all those rural people who don't have cable or DSL available are out of luck (funny how this question seems to keep coming back to rural areas)? Or are they expected to use dialup/satellite? Or trek to their local library?

To quote myself, how widely do you think physical mail is used today? What kinds of people use it? Do you think this rate should be lower? You appear (and correct me if I'm wrong) to think that the Internet is universally available and obsequious enough that no one should ever need to use physical mail.

For that matter, I'm not 100% sure that we WANT to expect every American, no matter what their location or socioeconomic status, to HAVE to have a decent functioning computer in order to participate in the necessities of life. I mean, right now, having a computer, or even e-mail, isn't an ABSOLUTE must in life. It would make you somewhat of a hermit, but you could live entirely without it. Do we really want to start making it a requirement?

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by jtgain

As I posted in another thread, they don't serve every address. I have to drive a mile to get my mail. UPS probably wouldn't do better, but let's not pretend that the brave mail carrier is scaling cliffs to deliver mail.

They also don't have delivery at all (you have delivery, at least technically) unless there are a certain number of people living in the area. Some of the tiny old crossroads communities in my county with their anachronistic post offices only have 50 households in the ZIP code, so they just get PO boxes (although that's probably closer for them than your "delivery").

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Debaser

But they don't need to.

Who still sends their taxes in the mail? It's all online now.

I'm a small business owner, and I have to pay monthly sales tax. I would love to be able to pay online, but for some reason I can't. I have to file the old fashion way. Every single goshdarn month.

So no, not everything is online. Maybe it all could be, but it isn't now.

[Jim's Son]

Originally Posted by al27052

I think the reason some conservatives hate the USPS because it's a way for middle-class people, even minorities, to still get relatively good benefits, pay, and job security.

Many conservatives seem to desire a country/world with the greatest possible economic disparity, i.e., the 'haves" and the "have-nots" being as far apart as possible. Destroying the middle-class jobs out there seems to be the fastest way to do that, so that's what they want.

And if those conservatives don't hate the middle class, why do their economic policy suggestions always seem to move things in the direction of increasing the wealth/income gap, thereby damaging the middle class?

Wow a whole four posts before some lefty feels the need to use the predictable but still utterly repulsive charge that people who disagree with them are racists. Of course conservative blacks such as Clarence Thomas and Allen West can tell you of the hatred
they receive for not practicing group think.
And how well are the middle classes and lower classes faring in places where liberals hold power..like New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco. How are the schools in Washington DC? How is that hope and change we supposedly got in 2008? 41 months of unemployment over 8%, which doesn't take into account those who drop out of the workforce and are unemployed? 46 million on food stamps. No prosecutions of the financial industry and a Treasury secretary and a number of White House staffers who don't pay taxes

As far as the USPS goes, it is semi private but they also have advantages in no taxes and government owned land for most of the buildings. It's not the worse run government agency but then they do have competition in FedEx, UPS and others to keep them on their toes.

As far as conservative opposition to municipal workers have unions, no less that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was opposed to them. They have a habit of using their power to elect politicians who will promise them generous benefits to get elected, damn the future generations who have to pay for it. Lots of municipalities are threatened with bankruptcy now.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by Debaser

But they don't need to.



Who still sends their taxes in the mail? It's all online now.

First of all, there are many tax forms which cannot be filed electronically, at least not yet. For example, the form you file if you donate your car to charity must be mailed in.

Second, if the IRS contacts you to let you know about a discrepancy in your return, that will be by mail. Your message in return, along with copies of any supporting documents, must also be by mail. I know because I just went through this process. My original return was filed electronically.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Conservative, anti-post office poster checking in.

The post office is outdated and should be abolished. We didn't continue using the pony express once we completed the telegraph lines. So why do we continue to have several post offices in every town after the internet has been developed?

Everything that the post office does could be better done via another method.

Need to pay a bill?
Do it online.

Need to ship a package or important letter overnight?
Use FedEx/UPS.

Need to send birthday party invitations?
Do it via Facebook.

The only thing that the PO has a monopoly on is sending non urgent letters, and that's only because everyone else is specifically banned from doing it. This isn't a service that's even needed anymore, and is only being propped up by the Direct Marketing industry sending junk mail.

At the very least the post office should close half its locations. Even small towns in my area all have at least two post offices, often within a mile or two of each other.

People talk about cutting Saturday delivery. Let's try cutting everything but Saturday delivery. Seriously, when was the last time you got a letter that couldn't wait until the end of the week? If it's that important, send it via FedEx.

The lavish and hideously expensive pay and benefits to the public sector union workers just makes the whole thing more of a waste.

The DMV sends its annual registration stickers by mail, and I don't know of another reasonable way for them to do it.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Just because he agrees that it COULD be done a different way doesn't mean that he can't recognize the reality of the current situation and conform to it.

This "not everyone has internet" argument is bogus. Just because some people want to pretend that it's still 1981 doesn't mean that they get to suckle at the taxpayers teat.

What suckling is going on when as has been pointed out the Postal Service does not get public funding?

[Deeg]

Originally Posted by Jas09

But the question isn't can they, but would they. USPS has a mandate to serve every address in the US for a flat rate (for first-class letters, at least). A private company would not have that mandate (unless you're proposing that they should).

A related question is it definitely good that everybody pays the same flat rate? If somebody decides to live in the boonies why should everybody else subsidize that? This is not necessarily my opinion but I don't see why the flat rate is inarguably a good thing.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Deeg

A related question is it definitely good that everybody pays the same flat rate? If somebody decides to live in the boonies why should everybody else subsidize that? This is not necessarily my opinion but I don't see why the flat rate is inarguably a good thing.

That is absolutely a valid question. It kind of ties in to the whole concept of essential government services and to what extent individuals vs. the community as a whole pay for them.

I think the founders believed that a functioning post was an essential government service - that's why it was one of the few powers explicitly granted. Whether times have changed sufficiently that this is no longer the case is, at best, debatable.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I use USPS for my little online rummage sale of old books I don't wamnt anymore.

The Post Office is cheaper than UPS, more convenient, & far less of a hassle to use.

And don't mention those idiots at Fed Ex to me at any time! They could {EXPLETIVE DELETED} a one car funeral!

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

What suckling is going on when as has been pointed out the Postal Service does not get public funding?

Federal retirement benefits and government health care, paid holidays, vacation, etc. Private employees would kill for what postal employees have. All paid for by you and me.

[babygoat666]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Federal retirement benefits and government health care, paid holidays, vacation, etc. Private employees would kill for what postal employees have. All paid for by you and me.

Get a job there.

[Typo Negative]

When you say you feel that a private company would do this better do you

A) Imagine that a private company would buy the USPS

b) Imagine that a private company would build up with it's owns buildings, trucks and equipment

C) Imagine that the Feds would simply give the infrastructure to a private company

Could anyone speculate as to what options A or B would cost?

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Federal retirement benefits and government health care, paid holidays, vacation, etc. Private employees would kill for what postal employees have. All paid for by you and me.

Well, apparently if you aren't living in 1981 (or so I hear) you don't even have to use the USPS so therefore you don't have to pay for shit. Its all Fex Ex, UPS and the internet baby.

[DSYoungEsq]

I have read through the thread in its entirety. I do not recall having seen debaser respond to the very cogent point that the internet is not available to everyone. A lot of his/her points on the idea of ending the USPS revolve around the ability to do what the USPS does via the internet.

One of the problems with the conservative mantra that things government does should be entrusted to the private sector is that the private sector won't do what the government does. To the extent that the USPS is a government operation, it has to follow mandates that private enterprise won't fulfill (such as making sure that everyone in the US can get 'delivery' of mail) for a flat rate regardless of where it is going. This is a service to the people of the US, one that was viewed at the founding of the country as so important that they made certain to empower the US itself to establish and fund such an entity. It is still important. It may be in the future that the time will come when we can do away it, but that time is not yet here.

[monstro]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Federal retirement benefits and government health care, paid holidays, vacation, etc. Private employees would kill for what postal employees have. All paid for by you and me.

Yes, and they provide services to you and me. Unlike our legislators, who receive all the above and don't do squat!

Politicians draw federal retirement benefits and receive government health care. They get paid holidays and vacation. Why should they receive such compensation for their work, while the person who scrubs their toilets or handles their mail is asked to sacrifice what they have fought for? That just isn't right.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Federal retirement benefits and government health care, paid holidays, vacation, etc. Private employees would kill for what postal employees have. All paid for by you and me.

Uh, maybe I'm mistaken, but don't they pay for that thought their operating costs?

They certainly have to pay their own retirement, since it's the nonsense requirement to fund their retirement out for almost a century that's causing their economic problems.

Since they're self-funded, how are you on the hook for their pay, healthcare and vacation time?

Honestly, I'm confused about this, am I just off base?

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Federal retirement benefits and government health care, paid holidays, vacation, etc. Private employees would kill for what postal employees have. All paid for by you and me.

1. They are paid for by you and me only to the extent that we buy their services, just like any private business with good benefits. No tax dollars involved.

2. If private employees want it, then they should learn the lesson and unionize and vote for candidates go support fair labor standards, such as mandatory paid leave, health care, etc.

[just_some_guy5]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

And, indeed, the Postal Service subsidizes UPS and FedEx by offering below-market prices for last-mile delivery.

How exactly does the USPS's decision to offer "below-market" prices for last-mile delivery subsidize UPS and FedEx?

[Acsenray]

Because many of the Postal Service's services are cheaper than market price. When UPS or FedEx don't feel like finishing the delivery they hand it off to the postal service to complete the delivery, paying the postal service less than it would cost to deliver it themselves. They are then free to either pocket the difference or lower the price. Without the USPS to complete the last mile in those situations, UPS and FedEx would either have to hike their prices or take a cut in their profits. So people paying for UPS or FedEx are actually paying less than they would otherwise because the USPS is actually so efficient, they can actually hand free money to UPS and FedEx while still offering the most comprehensive and least costly service while giving their employees good compensation and benefits, all without taking a cent of taxpayer money. Privatize the Postal Service and everyone will be paying more for delivery services. Many won't get any service. Employees will get paid less.

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Because many of the Postal Service's services are cheaper than market price. When UPS or FedEx don't feel like finishing the delivery they hand it off to the postal service to complete the delivery, paying the postal service less than it would cost to deliver it themselves. They are then free to either pocket the difference or lower the price. Without the USPS to complete the last mile in those situations, UPS and FedEx would either have to hike their prices or take a cut in their profits. So people paying for UPS or FedEx are actually paying less than they would otherwise because the USPS is actually so efficient, they can actually hand free money to UPS and FedEx while still offering the most comprehensive and least costly service while giving their employees good compensation and benefits, all without taking a cent of taxpayer money. Privatize the Postal Service and everyone will be paying more for delivery services. Many won't get any service. Employees will get paid less.

This argument is a little nonsensical.

What you describe is not a subsidy to UPS and Fedex. At least, not any moreso than it is a subsidy to anyone in the US who wants to ship a package to a person who lives in the middle of nowhere.

The people subsidizing UPS and Fedex are the ones paying them more to deliver a package than the USPS would charge.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Federal retirement benefits and government health care, paid holidays, vacation, etc. Private employees would kill for what postal employees have. All paid for by you and me.

Nope. First of all, Federal Holidays are about the same as those in the Private world, same with vacation pay and government health care. Health care is paid for partially by employees, much like most other workers. Retirement does have a small old-fashioned pension, which is paid for partially by the employee. Admittedly those are rare out there. The rest of the retirement is a 401K plan. Just like most workers have.

The benefits are nice, no doubt. But barely make up for the lower pay. In fact UPS and Fedex have almost exactly the same benefits, but higher pay. True, they dont have the small old fashioned pension, but who works 30 years for one company anymore?

Paying bills? Not only does not everyone have internet access but some firms don;t accept them. My water company for example.

Letters? UPS and Fedex are frightingly arrogant and unreliable, and many times more expensive.

Facebook? I dont do facebook.


Privatiztion is often a bad idea. Take this article from the San Jose mercury news:
ttp://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_21298325/exodus-leaves-san-jose-wastewater-plant-shorthanded?source=rss
"A rash of resignations driven by recent pay and benefit cuts has left San Jose's massive wastewater treatment plant severely short-handed,...he plant has lost 90 workers -- 43 percent of its workforce -- in the past three years, according to a city management report that said the shortage has required costly overtime for remaining employees...The city cut employee compensation 10 percent -- mostly in salary and health benefits -- to reduce job losses from budget deficits driven by rising retirement benefit costs. Voters also approved a June measure to reduce pension benefits.
But Friday's audit found plant employees' compensation 10 percent below market rates....The proposed contract with the only qualified bidder, Telstar Instruments of Concord, that's up for council consideration Tuesday calls for hiring up to three industrial electricians and six instrument control technicians over the next two years. The total annual rate for salary, benefits and overhead would come to $270,400 each for the electricians and $239,200 each for the instrument control technicians.
That's about 30 percent higher than the city's total cost for its own instrument control technicians and 46 percent higher than for its electricians, said Ashwini Kantak, an assistant city manager overseeing the plant. And the higher cost is largely due to management overhead and profit.
Both pay rates and benefit costs for Telstar's instrument technicians are lower than the city's, but Telstar's overhead and profit markup is 285 percent compared to a 40 percent city overhead markup, Kantak said."

So in other words, in this perfect example- by privatizing the City pays more, the workers get less and only the Company makes off better.

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by suranyi

The DMV sends its annual registration stickers by mail, and I don't know of another reasonable way for them to do it.

More to the point, my state and at least one other does all voting via the USPS, and all states offer absentee voting via opt-in, particularly to our hundreds of thousands of service members overseas. Your ballot is mailed to you and you mail it back after filling it in.

If the USPS is privatized or abolished, will I then have to pay FedEx $10 in order to exercise the franchise? Will we vote by email? Maybe we can just elect the president by a Facebook poll.

[Acsenray]

Without the USPS to complete the delivery, UPS and FedEx would have to charge more or take less profit. That's a subsidy.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Letters? UPS and Fedex are frightingly arrogant and unreliable, and many times more expensive.

I'm not saying UPS or FedEx would be better, but you can't really use price against them here. They're not actually allowed to have competitive prices for letters.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by Jim's Son

Wow a whole four posts before some lefty feels the need to use the predictable but still utterly repulsive charge that people who disagree with them are racists. Of course conservative blacks such as Clarence Thomas and Allen West can tell you of the hatred
they receive for not practicing group think.
And how well are the middle classes and lower classes faring in places where liberals hold power..like New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco. How are the schools in Washington DC? How is that hope and change we supposedly got in 2008? 41 months of unemployment over 8%, which doesn't take into account those who drop out of the workforce and are unemployed? 46 million on food stamps. No prosecutions of the financial industry and a Treasury secretary and a number of White House staffers who don't pay taxes

As far as the USPS goes, it is semi private but they also have advantages in no taxes and government owned land for most of the buildings. It's not the worse run government agency but then they do have competition in FedEx, UPS and others to keep them on their toes.

As far as conservative opposition to municipal workers have unions, no less that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was opposed to them. They have a habit of using their power to elect politicians who will promise them generous benefits to get elected, damn the future generations who have to pay for it. Lots of municipalities are threatened with bankruptcy now.

Look, there are 3 options here.

1. You hate minorities.

2. You hate the middle class.

3. You're a partisan who's so excited about capitalist economic theory that you haven't thoroughly thought through the consequences of extreme privatization.

So far as I can see, everybody who wants the USPS privatized falls into one of these 3 categories.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

I'm not saying UPS or FedEx would be better, but you can't really use price against them here. They're not actually allowed to have competitive prices for letters.

Ok, we will compare small parcels, instead.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by al27052

Look, there are 3 options here.

1. You hate minorities.

2. You hate the middle class.

3. You're a partisan who's so excited about capitalist economic theory that you haven't thoroughly thought through the consequences of extreme privatization.

So far as I can see, everybody who wants the USPS privatized falls into one of these 3 categories.

You forgot "4. Idiot"

[fumster]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Maybe we can just elect the president by a Facebook poll.

"Well Tom, as you can see, the incumbent is second in "Likes" behind a funny video of a baby goat".

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

It seems to me you haven't offered any actual problem with the Postal Service.

Of course he has. People who are not as good as he is are making a decent living. Not to mention that people too poor to have internet access have the audacity of wanting to communicate with each other, get bills and catalogs and the like.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Just to clarify, I've been out of that industry for quite a while now.

Even so, you can explain to us how the USPS is forcing industry to send DM. After all, all catalogs are on line, so LL Beans or whoever could save a bundle of money by stopping their mailings.
Or maybe, just maybe, the USPS helps them make money. Which is a good thing in my opinion.

[Mekhazzio]

Originally Posted by Leaper

This actually triggers a related question: what is it EXACTLY about the Post Office that allows them to have their postal coverage for the rates they charge for first class stamps?

Because the USPS, has a goal that isn't just "make the most money you possibly can in the shortest possible time". The highest priority is not to maximize profit, but to maximize access.

Clearly, they would be more profitable by dropping rural service, increasing rates to what the market will bear, and reducing employee wages and benefits. That's what every private parcel service does, so presumably, that's the way to optimize return on investment in this sector. It follows, then, that's exactly what the USPS would do, were it to be changed into an independent for-profit enterprise.

Whoever was wealthy enough to invest in it during the changeover would make out like a bandit from the short-term spike as it matches its competitors. Everyone else in the country would lose a cheap, reliable service.

In other words, it's exactly like every other Republican economic proposal. Socially destructive in the long term and individually completely daft, unless you've got gobs of money to fling around.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by fumster

You forgot "4. Idiot"

And "5. Asshole"

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by bouv

It's still amazing to me that for less than 50 cents, I can send a letter from where I live in New England, all the way to the southern end of California. And it will get there in just a few days, no less! Incredible!

A minor point in the overall debate, but the last time I sent a "letter" was 47 years ago. I was six years old and my mom forced me to thank an aunt for the ugly sweater she gave me for my birthday.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by suranyi

First of all, there are many tax forms which cannot be filed electronically, at least not yet. For example, the form you file if you donate your car to charity must be mailed in.

I've donated two cars to charity. Never sent in any form.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by suranyi

The DMV sends its annual registration stickers by mail, and I don't know of another reasonable way for them to do it.

In NH, you go to town hall to handle that. They hand it to you once you pay. Is that reasonable?

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

So, everything the PO does can be done better some other way, yet you've paid to have a PO box, and paid to get a new mailbox installed when the PO box wasn't convenient enough.

Of course. You have to use the USPS now, but you wouldn't if you got rid of it.

You use the post office, for bills and to get entertainment delivered to your door. The PO does this at a low enough cost that you can pay Netflix $8 a month to get things repeatedly mailed to and from your house.

That business model only made sense for a short time. It's already outdated and is moving online.

Do you think UPS is going to deliver a 50 cent letter to your door? Folks have trouble getting their driver to ring their doorbell for a $15 package, and he's going to make an extra stop to drop off a DVD?

Right now UPS is prohibited from even trying. Only the PO is allowed to send non-urgent letters.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by al27052

Look, there are 3 options here.

1. You hate minorities.

2. You hate the middle class.

3. You're a partisan who's so excited about capitalist economic theory that you haven't thoroughly thought through the consequences of extreme privatization.

So far as I can see, everybody who wants the USPS privatized falls into one of these 3 categories.

Originally Posted by fumster

You forgot "4. Idiot"

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

And "5. Asshole"

There's been a lot of well poisoning here, the insults were that much more inappropriate after someone began arguing against funding the postal service. Tone your rhetoric down to rational levels and stay far away from insulting other posters or warnings will be issued.

[Lightnin']

Originally Posted by Debaser

Of course. You have to use the USPS now, but you wouldn't if you got rid of it.

If it's working right now, why try to destroy it? We're talking, well, a lot of jobs. Why are you so eager to see them out of work just because you think their job could be done better by a private corporation? As I recall, veterans are preferentially hired by the Post Office- why do you want to remove potential jobs, especially in this economy?

And really, have you even shown a good example of how the USPS is doing something wrong that a private corporation can do better?

Originally Posted by Debaser

That business model only made sense for a short time. It's already outdated and is moving online.

Then you don't need to do anything. If you're right, the USPS' days are numbered, and they'll die a natural death- we don't need to shut them down or pull ridiculous prefunding schemes to drive them out of business. I think the fact that you (collective you) feel the need to shut it down is a good indication that it's not becoming outdated.

It's also fairly strange that the same people who enshrine the Constitution are so hell-bent on getting rid of the USPS. Guns are good, but mail is bad!?

[BobLibDem]

If someone wants to send me a bill or an invitation or whatever, they can misspell my name, get the wrong address, muff the zip code, and most times it winds up in my mailbox anyway. Someone flubs one character of my email address, I will not get it. I've got lots of email addresses, some of which I check more frequently than others. Some I abandon. My postal address rarely changes, so if something is important, then it should go there.

I've heard many times "boo hoo hoo, the USPS has a monopoly on non-urgent letters". How many companies are champing at the bit for the chance to pick up a letter, take it across the country, and deliver it for 45 cents? Answer: ZERO.

My 45 cent stamp covers the cost of delivery, gives secure employment with benefits to a good many workers who in turn patronize businesses all around the nation, and gives them a pension with ZERO contributions from the government. Hell of a deal if you ask me.