Why on earth would you want the Post Office to be “profitable”?
…it beats losing billions?
Big monopoly? Bad working conditions? Sounds like you’re not a big fan of free markets, comrade.
Doncha know, a “businessman” is in office as president. So, the government needs to operate like a business…meaning profits are important.
I always heard here (when things like debt mattered) that the government is NOT in the business of making money.
My how times have changed.
It’s literally in the US Constitution. Is re-evaluating parts of the Constitution that don’t make sense in modern society cool now?
1 Like
Maybe the post office operation costs are bloated and needs to be cut back.
Seriously, how many items do most people receive in the mail that are not catalogs or junk mail? In our house, I think 1 bill comes in paper form, everything else is electronic. The rest is magazines or junk mail. Maybe its time to cut back mail to 3 days a week? Maybe two? Then the operation of sending packages would help offset the costs to operate, and then the Post Office could be net zero, which is ideal.
That’s a good point and it probably is time but…I don’t want to open Pandora’s Box of possibilities when corrupt politicians have a chance to alter a document that has withstood time.
…or at least remove the Saturday delivery? I agree that some changes are in order.
I agree, its a start.
I will say, if mail delivery is cut back, my wife will be disappointed. For some weird reason, she loves getting the mail. And she’s even a millennial. Even if she knows that ValuPack coupons are the only thing coming. If I get the mail, she seems a bit dejected.
No. Many people still use the post office for a large variety of services. The only waste is the silly pension plan they offered in the years leading up to 2006. After that date and the postal accountability act, all pension benefits are required to be pre-paid.
Meaning in about 10 to 15 or so years from now the post office will be very close to break even. As it stands they actually are very profitable right now with just the services they offer. Its the billions in unfunded pension liabilities they racked up prior to 11 years ago that caused this mess. So basically they have already taken care of the issues you raised, and they don’t need to raise rates to do it.
Young millennial are pretty retro people.
I’m retro in my music taste. Not in anything else.
I was unaware of the previous wrongs being righted now and believe it to be the right thing to do. Pricing is still a question IMO though. I’ll admit I’m not aware of what the competition is charging but if there’s room, the gap should be closed until there isn’t.
Could have sworn you guys were saying Hillary was the worst candidate ever. Now she’s better than every single Republican except Trump?
Say what? You actually want a business to charge more when they don’t have to? UPS and Fedex both charge a heck of a low more than the PS for small parcel and letter service. You may be the first person I’ve ever say they actually want increased prices.
Do you think only liberals work for, or use the services of Amazon? You think only liberals benefit from eh taxes paid by the Amazon Corp?
And most importantly, you think if we all sit idle while the POTUS uses his political power to damage a US corp, next year it won’t be some corp. near and dear to your heart?
lol.
So your answer to that is to use your political power while you can to hurt your poetical enemies.
Proving yet again you don’t care about conservatism And your BS reason for loving trump were just cover. You just crave power so that you can hurt americans.
she was the most dishonest candidate, worst for America, filled with delusions of grandeur, immersed in graft and corruption… but so very ruthless that no one except a fighter like Trump could survive her and her machine.
Is that best or worst candidate?
We likely disagree.
Not quite. They’re actually being required by legislation passed by a Republican Congress to pre-fund 75 years of benefits, a ridiculous standard that no private company has to or would ever meet.
To be fair I think Conan is one of the few who was fairly honest about supporting Trump because he wanted to burn everything down. Maybe slightly different than sticking it to your opponents specifically but somewhat more honest than claiming Trump was going to fix the country with his business savvy or whatever.
Yeah, but using the power of the government to hurt a private company for political gain is not ‘buring it all down’. At least, that is not the way he used to portray ‘burning it all down’.
And in this thread (and in others) he (baselessly) claims Obama used to do the same thing…if he believes his (baseless) claim, then trump is not ‘buying it all down’. He’s perpetuating the status quo.
And yet Conan supports him.
