Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

It seems to me that a conservative would be supportive of conserving one of our oldest institutions, the Post Office. But, they don't. They actually HATE it. I have a feeling, though, that they'd LOVE it, if it weren't unionized..

Would I be close?

excon

---

I don't hate the postal service, I actually like getting mail delivered and at a reasonable price but it's so unnecessary these days. I can do nearly everything they do electronically except physically get something from one place to another. What I hate is it's just like every other thing the government has its hand in, it's woefully inefficient and overly complicated.

Part of my job is shipping, mostly parcel, and USPS is a pain in the a$$ to use. I can ship UPS with all the bells and whistles; email notifications, delivery receipts etc. in a matter of seconds - and have a daily pickup. What's not to love?

I do the same with USPS. No problems so far. What's funny though, most times my UPS, and FEDEX packages go to the post office and the mailman delivers them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I do the same with USPS. No problems so far. What's funny though, most times my UPS, and FEDEX packages go to the post office and the mailman delivers them.

---

Yes, sometimes (especially Fedex) uses USPS, but I never have anything shipped UPS delivered by anyone other than UPS. But there is no comparison in my view, UPS is much more user friendly than anyone else.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

But there is no comparison in my view, UPS is much more user friendly than anyone else.

---

If congress wanted the post office to be competitive, they could make it so.. But, they'd rather kill it, instead.

Excon

Do you print your own mailing label?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:
If congress wanted the post office to be competitive, they could make it so.. But, they'd rather kill it, instead.

excon

---

I think the congress is screwing the postal service myself.

It's pouring money down a sinkhole.

Postal Service expects only five-day cash reserve in October

The corresponding unions and their Democrat allies have blocked any attempt at reforming it, just like Detroit. Will you ever learn that after years of irresponsible management and spending money you don't have on promises you can't keep that eventually you have to pay the piper?

"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money." -Margaret Thatcher

Feel free to insert liberal/progressive for Socialist, same problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:
If congress wanted the post office to be competitive, they could make it so.. But, they'd rather kill it, instead.

excon

---

That would be a nice talking point if this was a recent development . But as you know... the Postal Service has been an inefficent money-pit for many years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd say Citizens United leveled the playing field especially in regards to public unions ,who "negotiate " their salaries with the same pols they bribe with campaign contributions... salaries that are paid for with tax dollars .

---

On that note...

Quote:

---

Investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently uncovered evidence of the lengths to which Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership are willing to go to stifle political speech with which they disagree, and it bears a disturbing similarity to the IRS scandal. There has been a concerted effort for several years among Democrats and their activist allies in the nonprofit world to force corporations to disclose more information about their support of independent political groups, especially those known as 501(C)(4) foundations, which are found across the ideological spectrum.

Forcing such disclosure could have a chilling effect on the firms' willingness to help groups supporting causes unpopular among liberal Democrats. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, "corporations tend to support groups on both the left and the right, whereas unions are more reliably liberal. If businesses are limited in the public debate, it's a big win for Democrats."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

that would be a nice talking point if this was a recent development . But as you know ...the Postal Service has been an inefficent money-pit for many years.

---

I don't suppose you would consider our model?

Australia Post - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd consider other models .Like I said ;the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to create a national postal service. With proper management and innovatin, it should be a no brainer to make it a profitable franchise.

Quote:

---

Already, the Postal Service expects to default on its next payment for a controversial requirement to prefund its retiree health benefits. Congress imposed the rule in 2006, but USPS officials and labor groups are calling for a repeal of the policy, which costs the agency about $5.5 billion each year.

---

Congress Fiddles While the Post Office Burns | The Nation

Quote:

---

In 2006, a Republican Congress—acting at the behest of the Bush-Cheney administration—enacted a law that required the postal service to “pre-fund” retiree health benefits seventy-five years into the future. No major private-sector corporation or public-sector agency could do that. It's an untenable demand. “(The) Postal Service in the short term should be released from an onerous and unprecedented burden to pre-fund 75 years of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period,” says US Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont. “With $44 billion now in the fund, the Postal Service inspector general has said that program is already stronger than any other equivalent government or private-sector fund in the country. There already is more than enough in the account to meet all obligations to retirees.”

“The Postal Service should also be allowed to recover more than $13 billion in overpayments it has made to its pension plans,” adds Sanders. “With these changes alone, the Postal Service would be back in the black and posting profits.”

---

So what hasn't Obama fixed it? You had two years of total Democrat control so why were they fiddling instead of fixing? Oh that's right, they were busy ramming Obamacare down or throats.

What didn't Bush 8 years fix the liberal indoctrination education issue? Or during Reagan's tenure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So what hasn't Obama fixed it? You had two years of total Democrat control so why were they fiddling instead of fixing? Oh that's right, they were busy ramming Obamacare down or throats.

---

The short answer is squeal, repeal, block, obstruct and destroy. Since 2008, that's been the only goal of republican. You guy are good at it.

A Manufactured 'Crisis': Congress Can Let The Post Office Save Itself Without Mass Layoffs Or Service Reductions | ThinkProgress

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

You had two years of total Democrat control so why were they fiddling instead of fixing?

---

According to your side, if he didn't fix EVERYTHING in his first two years, the problems he DIDN'T fix, clearly, CAN'T Be problems..

That's the stupidest crap I've EVER heard.

Excon

Hello again,

I got another question for our right wing batty friends...

I KNOW you reject global warming... But, I have a feeling, that what you reject, is what you PERCEIVE to be the solution, which would be HIGHER taxes, MORE government, and an assault on fossil fuels.

But, if we could come up with a solution that LOWERED taxes, stimulated economic growth, and left the oil companies alone, would you THEN accept global warming as real?

excon

Hello again,

Yeah, I got more to say... Although I BELIEVE in science, THIS particular science is full of holes. So, I came to my beliefs, NOT because of science, but because of simple OBSERVATIONS even a schmuck exconvict can make. You too, must have observed the same things...

When I was a kid, we threw our trash on the ground. We THOUGHT the ground was SOOOO big, that it would somehow swallow up, or otherwise HIDE the trash we threw there.. But, it didn't.

When I was in the Navy, we threw our trash off the fantail into the ocean.. We thought that the ocean was SOOOO big, that it would somehow swallow up the garbage, or otherwise HIDE it. But, it didn't.

Now, I know you object my terminology when I say TODAY, we are throwing our trash into the air, but there is NO OTHER way to describe what we're doing... Apparently, you think that the sky is SOOOO big, that it will somehow swallow up the trash we throw up there, or otherwise HIDE it. But, it doesn't. I can SEE it. You can too. I can SMELL it. You can too.

What would possibly have you think that what you can SEE, and what you can SMELL, isn't doing something BAD to our sky? It did bad things to the ground... It did bad things to the ocean. Why wouldn't it do bad things to the sky?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd consider other models .Like I said ;the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to create a national postal service. With proper management and innovatin, it should be a no brainer to make it a profitable franchise.

---

Our local post office looks like a mini Kmart (Walmart). Australia Post turns a profit for the government. The advantage when it comes to government agencies is that there is usually not much obstruction when the ruling party decides to implement change.There are of courses disadvantages as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

I got another question for our right wing batty friends...

I KNOW you reject global warming... But, I have a feeling, that what you reject, is what you PERCEIVE to be the solution, which would be HIGHER taxes, MORE government, and an assault on fossil fuels.

But, if we could come up with a solution that LOWERED taxes, stimulated economic growth, and left the oil companies alone, would you THEN accept global warming as real?

excon

---

Ex

I don't know which camp you put me in but let's say that here I am a conservative. So a opinion

I don't reject climate change but I still feel the jury is out on the extent to which human activity contributes and the extent to which we can do anything about it short of shutting down our economies and even then I think the horse has bolted leaving the stable door open.

Renewables have been a failure in reducing green house emissions too little, too late, and in any case we are now at the tipping point where releases of methane from the tundra and permafrost will outstrip anything we do. If we stop all activity right now we will still experience changes for at least the next century and then maybe things would stabilise, big maybe. Our real hope is the Atlantic conveyor might shut down and return us to an ice age, then burning fossil fuels would be a necessity to counteract the change but the impact is goodbye North America and Europe and Northern Asia and most of the population