66 replies to this topic

[dockman]

fine example of a government ran business and just think what you'll get from obama care !


http://news.yahoo.co...-222059604.html

[Farley]

well, well, well dockman...as usual you are incomplete, inaccurate, and a simple minded conduit for reichwing propaganda....do you ever get tired of being their hapless tool?
The post office actually ran in the BLACK, unfortunately the goBPers in 2006 pass the "postal accountability law" that required the post to fund 75 years of projected retiree's medical costs and to do it in 10 years. And the goBPers will not allow the postal retirement (70 to 80 billion) to transfer funds since that would deplete other fed pensions that the goBPers neglected to fund.....in other words docky, the goBPer put the post office in an untenable economic situation so they can "privatize" the people's postal department and provide another avenue for corporations to feast on the public teat.....and docky your idiotic posts just fuel that crap!

[dockman]

Farley, on August 10 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

well, well, well dockman...as usual you are incomplete, inaccurate, and a simple minded conduit for reichwing propaganda....do you ever get tired of being their hapless tool?
The post office actually ran in the BLACK, unfortunately the goBPers in 2006 pass the "postal accountability law" that required the post to fund 75 years of projected retiree's medical costs and to do it in 10 years. And the goBPers will not allow the postal retirement (70 to 80 billion) to transfer funds since that would deplete other fed pensions that the goBPers neglected to fund.....in other words docky, the goBPer put the post office in an untenable economic situation so they can "privatize" the people's postal department and provide another avenue for corporations to feast on the public teat.....and docky your idiotic posts just fuel that crap!

the federal government can't run a damn thing ...that's why those dreadful teamsters over at UPS is kicking their ass

re-read the story farley ..they lost 3.1BILLION from april to june ... nobody mails letters anymore ...hell the IRS and Social Security wants direct deposit of the checks , banks don't send out statements anymore ,and your bill collectors want to go completely paperless ...the post office is going to have to compete with the teamsters at UPS and i don't think they can!

[Farley]

Oh PLEASE!!!!! docky....at least scratch the surface before you continue to make an ass out of yourself.....look at the law...discover the facts...you know like how the postal service can raise rates based on WHAT? how about their over funded pension????? you know docky ...how the tea baggers are trying to put the postal service in a situation where they can turn this commonwealth item over to the private industry that funds their rampages......please docky...look beyond goBPer talking points.

docky the Post Office is just the latest reichwing boogie man......you know like ACORN, Planned Parenthood, Van Jones, NPR, etc...you see docky...if the reichwing cannot divert your attention by giving you someone to hate...you might just see who the real villians are....think about it......and please quit helping them with their dishonest dirty work.

[scb]

-Farley-

I'm trying real hard to figure out what "private industry" concern would WANT this "commonwealth item". Seems to me it would be somewhat the same situation as that confronting TNT in Europe, with the Dutch mail operation they operate; they can't get rid of the damned thing. No one wants it. The legacy of governmental overhead is simply too much to profitably overcome. Think UPS would want the Post Office? FedEx? What would whoever bought it do with it? There's nothing the post office does now that couldn't be absorbed by existing firms as needed,,,,with the possible exception of heavily subsidized junk mail. Personally, I could do without that.

Always get a kick out postal employees emphasizing that they don't receive tax money for wages. Somehow, they always seem to forget the government built postal facilities (which don't pay property taxes), the vehicles that run around without state licenses and/or fuel gumball stickers, the parking fines that aren't paid, and the imposition on patrons to provide reception boxes...whether they want to avail themselves of the service or not. And need we mention the word "monopoly"? And the list could go on and on. Guess they don't see all that as a supportive tax, nor do they want to admit that they don't really serve a useful purpose anymore. They're kinda' in the position of the Pennsylvania Toll Road collectors who went on strike a while back and posted on this forum for a short time; i.e. - individuals claiming that society couldn't do without them because they made change and gave directions at toll booths. Whoop-Dee-Doo!

The post office? If it's costing us money, then get rid of it. In just a few weeks, I doubt if anyone would really miss it.

-scb-

[Farley]

scabby....try harder to figure it out....eh scb? you don't get it? try on for size Halliburton providing meals for the troops? who would have thunk? eh scabby? I know it makes no sense in practical terms. When I served, mess and KP was handled by GI's and if we were attacked they could handle a M-14 as well as a spatula....makes some sense. eh eggy? now we need extra troops to protect the kitchen staff (read Halliburton) at extra expense to the tax payer...just the way your like it scabby.....and you might want to read about the philosophy behind the US Postal Service (hint Ben Franklin) to see why it is important you know scabby "the founding fathers and all that stuff you reichties like to talk about when it suits you and ignore when it doesn't.........
....and scabby no PRIVATE postal company would deliver a letter from Boring Oregon to Perry Florida for 44 cents, eh scabby? you know scabby, facts are stubborn things when they get in the way of your partisan failed reichwing ideas!

http://postalemploye...esses-mandates/

[scb]

-Farley-

Yep. It's those "facts" you present that get in the way....even the one that make no sense in "practicle" terms (whatever "practicle" means. That something associated with "reichties" and/or handling a "spatulla" maybe? Or is it, perhaps, something like "mees" that Halliburton is providing the troops.....smile!)

Tell Julie that Billy will meet her after school by the doors to the gym, will ya'?

-scb-

[IBBadDude]

The postal service was created to service the people of this country by the government!!! It was created to protect commerce and the exchange of information so that business, government and the people could depend on basic communication. It's not supposed to profit. Most post offices are in long term leases with someone else owning the property. The owner pays the property tax.

Scb,

Now the post office!! Come on, let the old lady get her letter from her grandson that is serving in Iraq to protect our freedom.

[scb]

-IBBadDue;

I beg to differ. In it's latest incarnation, it WAS created to be - if not be profitable, then - economically self-sufficient. And it's original incarnation, of course, existed in a time when there weren't things like the telephone, the internet, or massive private carriers that could provide the service more effectively. Yep, Ben Franklin was experimenting with electricity at the end of a kite strength....but I seriously doubt that even he envisioned the communciation advances of today.

Remember the pony express? It existed to "protect commerce and the exchange of information" as well. And it "existed" only long enough as it made sense; i.e. - that short period (what was it....and year and a half or so?) until the telegraph made it economically inefficient and untenable. That's where we're at today. We're not in the 18th century any more. There are more efficient ways of communicating. Beyond that, there are more efficient cost-effective private firms available to provide for even the present process. Today the post office exists only to subsidize those who work for it, and those that are too hide-bound in their outlook to deal with the world as it exists. The latter can hold on to their opinion.....but then they, themselves should solely support the traditional service they demand, and NOT place their burden of the rest of us.

Now I realize that you're one of those who WANT inefficient workers to be subsidized, and who thinks those who WON'T compete should be taken under the "welfare" wing of us who do. But, again, there a lot of us who aren't buying in to that argument...and we happen to be the ones that have traditionally been called upon to provide the support (read "welfare") Of course, if you want the post office to continue as it, then YOU can support it and YOU can finance it with YOUR wealth....but keep your cotton-picking hands off of that of the rest of us, thank you!

-scb-

[IBBadDude]

Ok, what about those privite companies that take government subsidies, infrastructure breaks, tax breaks or relief and bankruptcy? Is that welfare?

I can't wait to hear this one

[scb]

-IBBadDude-

I've commenced vacation, am about 2500 miles from home, in a foreign country, and don't plan to make this quick a response a habit for the next few weeks. But just this once, here goes.

In terms of "bail-outs", etc., "yes", I *DO* consider government meddling a form of welfare. I found the GM bankrupcty bailout particularly outrageous, for example. But then there was no reall bail-out of the actual company; the shareholders were left with nothing. And the debtholders - especially the secured debtholders - REALLY got the shaft! What was owed them - in contravention of two centuries of common law - was passed over in order to benefit the workers. Once again, it was those who contributed the least that got the most.

In terms of tax incentive, infrastructure support, etc., I do *NOT* consider that a form of "welfare"; rather, that''s market forces at work. No one bids on obtaining welfare receipients...but communties "bid" (in the form of tax incentives, etc) all the time to attract businesses which will add to the employment base, and thus increase tax revenues overall. Can't say I'm in love with the process, but I can't blame communities for "bidding on jobs", so to speak, nor can I blame companies for taking communities up on their offers;it's simply a matter of business. In essence, companies are selling their servics to the highest bidder. Think true welfare recepient (i.e. - those who are not being compensated on a market basis) are able to "sell" their services, do ya'? Outside of votes - something which de Toqueville (spelling ?) warned us of almost two centuries ago, I don't think so.

Here in Central America (and this is in relation to what that clown mentioned in terms of who the American worker couldn't compete with), the Chinese and the Taiwanese are setting factories up to take advantage of more cost-effective labor...not just in terms of high-tech items, but manufacturing as low in order as textile weaving. Meanwhile, the hotel I'm staying in has cable channels in SIX different languages; Spanish, English, German, French, Japanese, and Chinese, reflecting the international business interests the labor environment has attracted. And I read in the paper today that, when Wal-Mart completes it's most recent center - employing approximattely 250 people - the company will be the largest single private employer in the country. Meanwhile, I went for a late lunch this afternoon in a pizzeria and was amazed at how "upscale" the clientel seemed to be. The place was absolutely full, the crowd seemed "young" (post college age), and apparently didn't think anything of paying $15-$20 for a mid-afternoon Saturday meal.

The point I'm making, of course, is that the rest of the world *IS* competitve...and, in many instances, beating the American worker at his own game. Today the American worker - especially "union" ones - are NOT "racing to the bottom"; rather, they've already got there; they don't have jobs anymore. They're scrambling half-heartedly to hang on while the workers of other countries (and ones that a few years ago we considered "third world") are passing them by.

I *HATE* to see that. I *DESPISE* the idea of American workers - particularly union ones - giving up and expecting the rest of the world to take care of them. You read history, and glance at the Roman Empire, its successor Byzantine Empire, the Persian, etc., and all the other political entities down thru the ages who sold their birth rite for the sake of "bread and circuses" and think "that can't happen here in American".....and then you look around and see it *IS* happening in America! Very discouraging.

-scb-

[Farley]

typical scabby...ignore the real issue and go off on a rant over a typo, it just illustrates the bankruptcy of your failed ideas.

[Farley]

this should finally sink your dishonest reichwing talking points about the Post Office...
For some reason the link will not post....go to "you tube" and ask for Thom Hartmann postal crisis....

[a673teamster]

Is this it Farley?

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

the post office is mandated in the constitution. Tea bag fucks, why can't you respect the founding fathers and the constitution?

[Farley]

that is it...I see I need to get my computer scientist son to come and give me a lesson....When I copied the address and tried to post it...the space remained blank....I see that is me and not the web site....thanks for posting it.....maybe dockman will learn something.

[dockman]

tell you what boys .... since nobody writes letters or pays their bills by mail anymore and everybody is on direct deposit.. you guys all send your responses via snail mail to Haz in florida and let him post your responses for you ..do your part to save the post office and farley since you live in california your letter should make it to Haz by the middle or end of next week if it doesn't get lost and if you use the correct postage ..i look forward to your slooooow response ..

[stark]

The Republicans are NOT saying do away with the Postal service. Republicans only want to fire all postal workers and move those jobs into the the private sector. In other words Republicans are beefing up jobs in the private sector by going after ANY hourly employee on the Government payroll. To Republicans smaller Governmnet means doing away with the good paying jobs with benefits and replace them with privatized, low wage, no benefit jobs. That's their plan to "create" jobs.

[egghead]

The Post office has been in a death spiral for a decade--they were doomed once the public had other alternatives to their outdated business model--even their own projections show another 25% decline in volume in the next 5 years--and yet yahoo's like hartmann create another deflection awy from the real issue--snail mail is dead and the post office can not create a business model that can compete with the pro's--Pension funding is a deflection (crap even switching around pension to health only clears up 3 billion a year)--suspending all pension funding still leaves the post office 3 billion short of breaking even!!!!--My God did these brilliant commentaters ever take basic math

As for the government running any businesss--they can't compete so they need a monopoly to operate--to much oversight--and absolutely no incentive to innovate--Jeez farley The U S Forrest Service with the finest stand of timber in America will lose money on a product they paid nothing for .but Weyerhaeuser timber company will make millions--should tell you all you want to about Government competency

and Stark--Your response is exactly whats wrong with the government running anything--

Quote

smaller Governmnet means doing away with the good paying jobs with benefits and replace them with privatized, low wage, no benefit jobs

--See that entitlement mentality--Heaven forbid Government employees should work in the real world with the rest of us smucks--Is it a wonder why our state and federal governments are imploding in debt!!!

Just ask those Rhode Island government retirees what they think about your statement

[stark]

Throw in all the proaganda right wing talking points you like. It does not alter the fact that the Republicans do not want to do away with the postal service. They want to sell it off to private contractors. For everything else, these so called "social programs", they want to shift the burden back to the individual States. Sounds good until this all takes effect and you Sate taxes soar. You can let people die from lack of food and medical attention, AND you would still need your roads paved, dams, bridges, utilities, and water supply services maintained. Hardest hit will be the welfare states, that's the ones that take more Federal money than they collect. 6 of the top 10 "welfare sates" are red states, 7 of the top 10 welfare states have Republican govenors. (according to the Brooking Institute)

BTW...If we downsize the Governnet that should include having no more than 4 Congressmen per State, in Washington, D.C.. Why would we need ALL those Representatives in D.C. whom, under their own plan would make their jobs redundant.