Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!
-
@Axtremus I don't think taxpayers have an obligation to fund a letter/parcel delivery service to everybody no matter where they choose to live. But just so we're aware of this population the USPS is primarily there to serve, can you give some examples of places no other delivery service serves, and can you ball park the number of such addresses in the US? Personally I've been hoping for the USPS to go away for decades now. It is more trouble than it is worth.
-
UPS and FEDEX go everywhere they have something to deliver. Are you so stupid that you think people out in the rural areas don't get packages? I guarantee you that if you turned the postal system over to UPS they do just as good a job, deliver ever letter, and show a profit.
-
I kind of agree with Ax. From my read, the US Post Office has a lot of restrictions that a private company do not have to deal with.
I agree that the US Post Office can do with some changes, but it is not as simple as saying - "see what these private companies can do."
-
I resent the post office for the efficiencies it has allowed for that are used to waste my time and attention picking up, sorting, opening, and throwing away advertisements I would prefer never to receive. That is why I think the private sector should take the industry over.
Actually I shouldn’t say the usps has allowed for efficiencies, I think the reason it’s cheap for advertisers to spam you is because of tax dollar support.
Education is extremely important.
-
I kind of agree with Ax. From my read, the US Post Office has a lot of restrictions that a private company do not have to deal with.
I agree that the US Post Office can do with some changes, but it is not as simple as saying - "see what these private companies can do."
@taiwan_girl said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
I kind of agree with Ax. From my read, the US Post Office has a lot of restrictions that a private company do not have to deal with.
I agree that the US Post Office can do with some changes, but it is not as simple as saying - "see what these private companies can do."
So... the inefficiencies of the postal service are due to them being restricted... By what exactly? Rules? Who put the rules in place? The government? So a government agency can't compete because of restrictions put on it by government? What is it exactly that a private company can do that the post office can't do? Since its a government agency, couldnt the government remove these restrictions so the post office can compete?
And if our healthcare system was turned into another government agency, wouldn't it stand to reason that the same poor leadership that restricted the post office to the point that it loses money because it can't compete with for profit companies also restrict the agency in charge of health care to the point that it couldnt provide healthcare as efficiently as for profit healthcare?
I pretty well know how you'll answer, so I'll go ahead and give you the correct answers. If there are restrictions on the postal service that causes it to be unable to compete with private, for profit companies, it's the government to put them there, and you've just proven that the best, most efficient way to run things is through private, for profit business. You have given us the very reason that government cannot run a cat fight, much less a postal service, or more importantly, healthcare.
-
I resent the post office for the efficiencies it has allowed for that are used to waste my time and attention picking up, sorting, opening, and throwing away advertisements I would prefer never to receive. That is why I think the private sector should take the industry over.
Actually I shouldn’t say the usps has allowed for efficiencies, I think the reason it’s cheap for advertisers to spam you is because of tax dollar support.
@Horace said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
I resent the post office for the efficiencies it has allowed for that are used to waste my time and attention picking up, sorting, opening, and throwing away advertisements I would prefer never to receive. That is why I think the private sector should take the industry over.
Actually I shouldn’t say the usps has allowed for efficiencies, I think the reason it’s cheap for advertisers to spam you is because of tax dollar support.
Yes indeed. At least 90% of the mail we get is unsolicited junk mail. I re=sent tax dollars being spent to advertise private companies.
Incidentally, our junk mail has risen even higher than that since I became eligible for Medicare.
-
@Jolly said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
-
It's much harder to do an audit during the dark phase of the moon, when Aquarius is rising. And that wouldn't satisfy some people,
-
USPS is bleeding money. What else would you like them to do?
-
Now you resort to strawman. I said to look at year-round trends to determine which collection boxes are under utilized. This is not a hard concept to understand or put into operation.
-
Give them money. It's an essential service that's even more essential in the middle of a pandemic. The USPS's financial issues have been there a long time. Trump put up with for the last three and a half years, the GOP controlled House put up with it for two, the GOP controlled Senate put up with it for three and a half. Choosing to squeeze the USPS in the middle of the pandemic, when the general public is rely on delivery services more than ever, is moronic and asinine. The right to do is to tie them over with additional public funds as the people cope with the pandemic, then get back to cost controls after the pandemic is over.
I will address @Larry's post next.
@Axtremus said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
@Jolly said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
-
It's much harder to do an audit during the dark phase of the moon, when Aquarius is rising. And that wouldn't satisfy some people,
-
USPS is bleeding money. What else would you like them to do?
-
Now you resort to strawman. I said to look at year-round trends to determine which collection boxes are under utilized. This is not a hard concept to understand or put into operation.
-
Give them money. It's an essential service that's even more essential in the middle of a pandemic. The USPS's financial issues have been there a long time. Trump put up with for the last three and a half years, the GOP controlled House put up with it for two, the GOP controlled Senate put up with it for three and a half. Choosing to squeeze the USPS in the middle of the pandemic, when the general public is rely on delivery services more than ever, is moronic and asinine. The right to do is to tie them over with additional public funds as the people cope with the pandemic, then get back to cost controls after the pandemic is over.
I will address @Larry's post next.
No, I wouldn't say that was a straw man argument, rather reductio ad absurdum. Your proposal to monitor a box for a year is so preposterous and resource consuming, it warrants little more than laughter.
-
-
We know why the post office is now suddenly an issue. In a couple of days it will be worse than Covid. Media lalapolloza and pig pile.
He but rhetoric is all we left with. It’s the new thinking taught in schools. Remember all these lies are just a debt to be paid in the future.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
I kind of agree with Ax. From my read, the US Post Office has a lot of restrictions that a private company do not have to deal with.
I agree that the US Post Office can do with some changes, but it is not as simple as saying - "see what these private companies can do."
So... the inefficiencies of the postal service are due to them being restricted... By what exactly? Rules? Who put the rules in place? The government? So a government agency can't compete because of restrictions put on it by government? What is it exactly that a private company can do that the post office can't do? Since its a government agency, couldnt the government remove these restrictions so the post office can compete?
And if our healthcare system was turned into another government agency, wouldn't it stand to reason that the same poor leadership that restricted the post office to the point that it loses money because it can't compete with for profit companies also restrict the agency in charge of health care to the point that it couldnt provide healthcare as efficiently as for profit healthcare?
I pretty well know how you'll answer, so I'll go ahead and give you the correct answers. If there are restrictions on the postal service that causes it to be unable to compete with private, for profit companies, it's the government to put them there, and you've just proven that the best, most efficient way to run things is through private, for profit business. You have given us the very reason that government cannot run a cat fight, much less a postal service, or more importantly, healthcare.
@Larry said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
If there are restrictions on the postal service that causes it to be unable to compete with private, for profit companies, it's the government to put them there, and you've just proven that the best, most efficient way to run things is through private, for profit business.
Larry, I dont disagree with you. When it comes to efficiency, private companies are better, for sure.
BUT, if private companies were allowed to run everything, there would be some unintended situation. City bus services, train services, etc would be almost eliminated or so expensive that they would be eliminated.
(FYI, this is not a US thing - I believe that the only public transport that is self supports itself is in Hong Kong, and even there, it is very close to not being so. Even Singapore, I do not think can self support itself on the public transit).
I think that rural post delivery would be effected if it were private.
One big thing I have been reading about recently is internet access. Definitely a "have" and "have not". Private companies do not want to extend high speed internet to rural areas. I can understand that. Does not make sense from a money point to do so. With most of the US students on line learning this year, is it okay to leave those kids in non-high speed internet areas left behind a bit.
Will that hurt them later in life? Maybe yes, maybe no. Dont have the answer to that.
Should the government assist in getting high speed internet to those areas? Dont have the answer to that.
To repeat, Private companies are much more efficient and generally can do things better, but part of that is because they can "leave out" part of the population.
The hard thing is determining what part of society are so critical that they require government looking in or helping out. I dont believe that government is required in every business, but I also dont believe that no government in any business area.
Dont have an answer to that either.
Post office is maybe one of those. (I dont know - a quick check showed that all countries world wide have a national post service. None have gone private).
Maybe there are others. What do you think?
-
"To repeat, Private companies are much more efficient and generally can do things better, but part of that is because they can "leave out" part of the population."
Wow.. That's a new one on me.... for profit companies are more efficient and can do things better than the government because... they can leave out customers......
Hahahahaaa
-
TG, maybe it would help you if you stuck with the issue instead of expanding a tangent. No one is saying the post office should be a private company. That isn't even the point of the conversation. The point being made is that the democrats are trying to push a narrative that says if Biden loses it will be because Trump didn't fund the postal service. They are literally claiming that Trump has people going around stealing mail boxes. The democrats are trying to scare old people by telling them all these "stolen mail boxes" will mean they wont get their social security checks in the mail.
The truth is, it is the democrats who are trying to steal the election through mail in voting. No one is stealing mailboxes. Social security checks are not sent through the mail, and haven't been for years. One thing that is a proven fact - if the democrats are accusing the Republican of something, it's because they themselves are doing it. So here it is: the democrats are trying to use vote by mail to steal the election, and as insurance in case they fail to steal it (because they already know they can't win being honest) they are setting the stage for blaming Trump by accusing him of doing what they actually are doing (stealing the election), and then after they've lost they can use this insurance as a reason to continue trying to impeach Trump.
That is the point, not whether UPS can do a better job than the post office ( although I just saw a video of Obama literally making that very claim).
-
"To repeat, Private companies are much more efficient and generally can do things better, but part of that is because they can "leave out" part of the population."
Wow.. That's a new one on me.... for profit companies are more efficient and can do things better than the government because... they can leave out customers......
Hahahahaaa
@Larry said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
Wow.. That's a new one on me.... for profit companies are more efficient and can do things better than the government because... they can leave out customers......
I think you misunderstand me. For example, iPhone. Apple looks to sell as many iPhone as possible at a certain price. They dont have to worry about selling to 100% of the population. They only worry about selling to the % of population that can afford it.
If government X said that iPhone is a critical infrastructure and EVERYBODY is required to have one; three things would happen:
Apple would have to lower their price so that the poorest could afford (this is not likely) or,
The government would make iPhone themselves (each one at a loss) so that everyone could have one or,
the government would give a subsidy to people who need it so that 100% of the population could afford it.
That is what I mean by a company being able to "leave out customers". in other words, Apple does not worry about the Indian bricklayer (or the Thai rice farmer) making USD $1.25.day. That is not their "base".
Hope I am more clearer on what I meant.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Rahm: “Didn’t Get Your Medicine, Your Social Security Check?” It's Trump's fault!:
I kind of agree with Ax. From my read, the US Post Office has a lot of restrictions that a private company do not have to deal with.
I agree that the US Post Office can do with some changes, but it is not as simple as saying - "see what these private companies can do."
So... the inefficiencies of the postal service are due to them being restricted... By what exactly? Rules? Who put the rules in place? The government? So a government agency can't compete because of restrictions put on it by government? What is it exactly that a private company can do that the post office can't do? Since its a government agency, couldnt the government remove these restrictions so the post office can compete?
And if our healthcare system was turned into another government agency, wouldn't it stand to reason that the same poor leadership that restricted the post office to the point that it loses money because it can't compete with for profit companies also restrict the agency in charge of health care to the point that it couldnt provide healthcare as efficiently as for profit healthcare?
I pretty well know how you'll answer, so I'll go ahead and give you the correct answers. If there are restrictions on the postal service that causes it to be unable to compete with private, for profit companies, it's the government to put them there, and you've just proven that the best, most efficient way to run things is through private, for profit business. You have given us the very reason that government cannot run a cat fight, much less a postal service, or more importantly, healthcare.
-
A couple of things...
-
The Post Office loves junk mail. It's what pays the bills. Even at a reduced bulk mail charge, it is a money maker. Since the USPS just deliver everywhere, there's already somebody on that route, walking or driving. Might as well make a little money off of something.
-
First Class Mail costs USPS, in most cases. The price should at least reflect the cost.
-
Should USPS be required to deliver everywhere? UPS and FedEx do not. The problem with dismantling the USPS, is that the private sector will lowball the bid to get the business and then Jack the prices on the next contract, knowing there are no alternatives but the private sector. I've seen it done, more than once.
-
The USPS retirement system is structured differently than many other government or quasi-government entities. They must have much more money out back to be considered fully funded.
-
-
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy says the USPS is suspending operational changes until after the November election.
Ideally, I'd like for the USPS to not reduce operational capacity until after the pandemic is under control.
