Can Any Dem/lib Tell Us What Agency The Govt Has Run Efficiently?

[rightwinger]

Most of them.

Which explains the long wait times at a DMV, as well the United States Post office dropping further and further into debt in comparison to their private sector competitors. Tell us another lie Sallow.

Took me about ten minutes the last time I went to DMV. Computers are great things

Post Office will survive if red state congressmen leave them alone

 

[Meathead]

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

The actual cost is more like 3 bucks, but then the taxpayers have to foot the bill. USPS will be history in short order.

 

[Care4all]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

The post office is much more effective and efficient then either FEDEX or UPS.

The reason it's "losing" money is because conservatives in Congress are trying to kill it:

1. Through funding pensions in a manner no other business or public agency has to do.
2. Having no control over how to price services, so they are kept unusually low.

Sheesh..that was easy.

USPS more efficient than Fedex and UPS----------------------that is one of the all time stupid posts to ever appear on USMB.

Eyeah.

I am sure you use both all the time to mail stuff.

operating and operating efficiently are two very different things. Fedex and UPS do not lose money every quarter, USPS does.

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

\

Both accounts are anecdotal and irrelevant.

And the notion of 'efficient' is meaningless absent an agreed upon definition.

Moreover, it's a fallacy to attempt to compare public and private sectors, given their different roles, responsibilities, and restraints, just as it's a fallacy to say that 'all' government agencies are 'inefficient.'

In fact it's extremist nonsense.

LOL. Nice try. Most of us live in the real world, been there done that. The fallacy is between your ears, sending packages via USPS and FedEx/UPS are generally not the same in efficiency. Performance rules the private sector, job security rules the public sector. And that IS the fucking point!

No one could afford to send letters at UPS's prices.

And honestly, what is wrong with a little job security. This insanity where we all change jobs every five years isn't really doing us very much good as a society.

I can't even send packages from my shop to customers via UPS!!!!! They are so expensive, it's ridiculous!

Give me the USPS, give me the Postal service over Fedx and UPS any day of the week! And my customers too! they feel the same way.....they don't want to pay UPS and FEDX's astronomical PRICES.....and I don't blame them, not one iota!

Hey, if government is willing to subsidize your business, you be a fool not to.

UPS and Fedx can't handle small packages and mail, at a reasonable price.

And the post office IS MAKING MONEY only the damn republicans are making the post office pay in to a retirement fund for employees that arent even hired yet....so that they can make the post office look inefficient...get USPS AND FEDX to pay in to a retirement fund for their employees out 50 years including employees that they haven;t even hired yet and see how profitable and efficient they look like on their books....

The post office is a dinosaur who's functions can now be easily ad far more efficiently replaced by the private sector. Ponderous and labor intensive government bodies like this have far outlived their usefulness. I give it ten years in its current form regardless of which party is in government.

sorry...you are out of your mind!!! One of the ONLY things the gvt has done that benefits everyone, is the USPS AND WITH MORE AND MORE IDENTITY theft occurring on line, more and more people could go back to paying their bills the old way....

and USPS has transformed, and is getting better in just the 3 years that I have owned this business...their service is fantastic,especially for small packages, and Priority Mail...with free tracking on your computer if you purchase the postage online, and insurance of $100 on your Priority mail packages.... and flat rate boxes and envelopes just around the corner from your home, or they even pick packages up at your home if you have a delivery for free, as long as it is your regular time to get your mail delivered....they charge $20 for a pick up if you need it to be another time....I'm telling ya, they are awesome!

 

[rightwinger]

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

The actual cost is more like 3 bucks, but then the taxpayers have to foot the bill. USPS will be history in short order.

Don't see either FEDEX or UPS jumping at the chance to deliver a letter for 49 cents

USPS will deliver it cross country......they wouldn't deliver it across town for 49cents

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

The post office is much more effective and efficient then either FEDEX or UPS.

The reason it's "losing" money is because conservatives in Congress are trying to kill it:

1. Through funding pensions in a manner no other business or public agency has to do.
2. Having no control over how to price services, so they are kept unusually low.

Sheesh..that was easy.

USPS more efficient than Fedex and UPS----------------------that is one of the all time stupid posts to ever appear on USMB.

Eyeah.

I am sure you use both all the time to mail stuff.

operating and operating efficiently are two very different things. Fedex and UPS do not lose money every quarter, USPS does.

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

If they were allowed to use mail boxes, I believe either could and would do, but that of course is illegal.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

The actual cost is more like 3 bucks, but then the taxpayers have to foot the bill. USPS will be history in short order.

Don't see either FEDEX or UPS jumping at the chance to deliver a letter for 49 cents

USPS will deliver it cross country......they wouldn't deliver it across town for 49cents

You DO understand that the post office is subsidized and that the .49 cents in noway reflects the actual cost of sending a letter cross country don't you?

 

[rightwinger]

If they were allowed to use mail boxes, I believe either could and would do, but that of course is illegal.

They wouldn't touch that mission with a ten foot pole

 

[Harry Dresden]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

it is always changing......in the 33 years i was there middle management every few years would have a new more "efficient" way to deliver the mail a few were good ideas.....but most of them.......just someone trying justify his/her job somewhere.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Exactly

The idea that we should entrust our lives to large corporations that we have no control over instead of a government that we do is just plain scary

do we RW?.....hey just askin....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Exactly

The idea that we should entrust our lives to large corporations that we have no control over instead of a government that we do is just plain scary

We have control over our government????????????? really?

corporations are controlled by their financial results and their shareholders. the government is accountable to no one. Sure, we can vote them out, but the number of lifetime congressmen and women prove that does not work.

Which govt agency do you think we citizens have control of? which of them is accountable to us?

Yes we have control over our government, we see the results in every election
All government agencies are accountable to the people
We have no control over a corporation who seeks profit over the best interests of we the people

you sure about that?.....maybe they tell you they are.....the Post Office sure aint.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

The post office is much more effective and efficient then either FEDEX or UPS.

The reason it's "losing" money is because conservatives in Congress are trying to kill it:

1. Through funding pensions in a manner no other business or public agency has to do.
2. Having no control over how to price services, so they are kept unusually low.

Sheesh..that was easy.

The post office is much more effective and efficient then either FEDEX or UPS.

depends on what you are talking about.....some things they are...some things they are not....

The reason it's "losing" money is because conservatives in Congress are trying to kill it:
once again.....Democrats are helping.....they are doing their bit too....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Both accounts are anecdotal and irrelevant.

And the notion of 'efficient' is meaningless absent an agreed upon definition.

Moreover, it's a fallacy to attempt to compare public and private sectors, given their different roles, responsibilities, and restraints, just as it's a fallacy to say that 'all' government agencies are 'inefficient.'

In fact it's extremist nonsense.

LOL. Nice try. Most of us live in the real world, been there done that. The fallacy is between your ears, sending packages via USPS and FedEx/UPS are generally not the same in efficiency. Performance rules the private sector, job security rules the public sector. And that IS the fucking point!

No one could afford to send letters at UPS's prices.

And honestly, what is wrong with a little job security. This insanity where we all change jobs every five years isn't really doing us very much good as a society.

I can't even send packages from my shop to customers via UPS!!!!! They are so expensive, it's ridiculous!

Give me the USPS, give me the Postal service over Fedx and UPS any day of the week! And my customers too! they feel the same way.....they don't want to pay UPS and FEDX's astronomical PRICES.....and I don't blame them, not one iota!

Hey, if government is willing to subsidize your business, you be a fool not to.

UPS and Fedx can't handle small packages and mail, at a reasonable price.

And the post office IS MAKING MONEY only the damn republicans are making the post office pay in to a retirement fund for employees that arent even hired yet....so that they can make the post office look inefficient...get USPS AND FEDX to pay in to a retirement fund for their employees out 50 years including employees that they haven;t even hired yet and see how profitable and efficient they look like on their books....

The post office is a dinosaur who's functions can now be easily ad far more efficiently replaced by the private sector. Ponderous and labor intensive government bodies like this have far outlived their usefulness. I give it ten years in its current form regardless of which party is in government.

I get mail almost every day.

 

[Harry Dresden]

USPS is an excellent example of government which cannot adapt to change. My 85 year-old mother is the only one I know that still sends letters. That bird has pretty much flown.

and that is the fault of congress not the PO.....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If they were allowed to use mail boxes, I believe either could and would do, but that of course is illegal.

They wouldn't touch that mission with a ten foot pole

Why not?

You don't really believe that 49 cents covers the USPS cost of sending a letter across country do you? Of course it does not. They charge 50 cents for a letter and $20 for a 1 lb package. They use the 1 lb packages to pay for the letters.

It's really no different than in the restaurant businesses when we sale cheap appetizers and expensive dinners. We lose money on the appetizers but that's okay b/c we make plenty on the entrees.

Of course FedEx could handle it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Both accounts are anecdotal and irrelevant.

And the notion of 'efficient' is meaningless absent an agreed upon definition.

Moreover, it's a fallacy to attempt to compare public and private sectors, given their different roles, responsibilities, and restraints, just as it's a fallacy to say that 'all' government agencies are 'inefficient.'

In fact it's extremist nonsense.

LOL. Nice try. Most of us live in the real world, been there done that. The fallacy is between your ears, sending packages via USPS and FedEx/UPS are generally not the same in efficiency. Performance rules the private sector, job security rules the public sector. And that IS the fucking point!

No one could afford to send letters at UPS's prices.

And honestly, what is wrong with a little job security. This insanity where we all change jobs every five years isn't really doing us very much good as a society.

I can't even send packages from my shop to customers via UPS!!!!! They are so expensive, it's ridiculous!

Give me the USPS, give me the Postal service over Fedx and UPS any day of the week! And my customers too! they feel the same way.....they don't want to pay UPS and FEDX's astronomical PRICES.....and I don't blame them, not one iota!

Hey, if government is willing to subsidize your business, you be a fool not to.

UPS and Fedx can't handle small packages and mail, at a reasonable price.

And the post office IS MAKING MONEY only the damn republicans are making the post office pay in to a retirement fund for employees that arent even hired yet....so that they can make the post office look inefficient...get USPS AND FEDX to pay in to a retirement fund for their employees out 50 years including employees that they haven;t even hired yet and see how profitable and efficient they look like on their books....

The post office is a dinosaur who's functions can now be easily ad far more efficiently replaced by the private sector. Ponderous and labor intensive government bodies like this have far outlived their usefulness. I give it ten years in its current form regardless of which party is in government.

I get mail almost every day.

Almost all of which is no doubt junk.

 

[Harry Dresden]

That no fault of the USPS.

The Truth About The Post Office s Financial Mess#.

The financial woes of the U.S. Postal System have become a point of contention on Capitol Hill. The Postal Service is supposed to make a $5.5 billion payment to its retiree health care fund by November 18th... but doesn't have the money.
US Postal Service workers have a retiree health care benefit in addition to their pension. Before Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, the USPS operated under a pay-as-you-go model for retiree health care funding. The new law requires the Postal Service to pre-fund its benefit obligations.
"The idea is that enough money is saved over the course of a career that the benefit is fully paid for by the time the worker retires.
Thanks to these prefunding payments, the Postal Service has greatly reduced its unfunded obligations for retiree health benefits. At the end of fiscal year 2010, these obligations were under $49 billion – a substantial sum, but much more manageable. If the Postal Service continues making its prefunding payments, its unfunded obligations for retiree health benefits will be around $33 billion by the end of the decade. And the postal service will be on course to pay these benefits over time," a Congressional insider explained.
But this pre-funding has become a lightning rod of controversy.
Members of the postal workers union say the pre-funding requirement has created a fiscal mess. Some people have even claimed that law has the effect of requiring the postal service to fund retirement obligations for people who are not yet employed by the USPS--potential future employees.
No one ever intended the law to work that way. And, in fact, it doesn't. Although accounting rules require the postal service to calculate future liabilities, including those for projected future employees, the law only requires pre-funding of obligations to actual current and past employees.
In light of all the controversy, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) sent off a series of questions on the pre-funding controversy to the Congressional Research Service to get to the bottom of the question: is pre-funding the reason for the USPS fiscal woes?
C-Suite Insider has exclusively obtained the CRS Memorandum on Postal Service Retiree Health Issue to Chairman Issa as well as an email explaining in further detail their findings. Below is a verbatim email correspondence between the CRS and Chairman Issa's office on the prefunding of 75 years of retiree health care benefits in just 10 years.
"The confusion over 75 years may be due to an "accounting" and not an "actuarial or funding" issue. They only have to fund the future liability of their current or former workforce. This would include some actuarial estimate about the mortality rates of their current workers (I.e. how long they live). So a 25 year old worker would have an average life expectancy (from birth) of 78.7 years. Thus, they would have to project future retiree health benefits for this individual up to about 54 years in the future.
But for accounting purposes they must estimate the future liability over a 75 year period (according to OPM financial accounting guidelines). In this case, they would make some assumptions about new entrants into the workforce and addresses your second question.
Theoretically, these new entrants could include someone who is not born yet. While they have to account for these future liabilities on their financial statements they do not have to fund them if they are not related to their current or former workforce."
Based on the findings of this memorandum, I asked Chairman Issa what his message is to the US Postal Service Unions who say Congress is to be blamed for this crisis.
Chairman Issa: Union leaders must understand that there is no easy fix to a crisis created by declining mail revenues. The often non-existent accounting issues unions want to talk about don’t address fundamental changes to delivery created by the growth of the Internet. Union leaders need to work with, not against, Congress on postal reform, because the alternative is a possible shut-down of the Postal Service next summer

And the usual suspects are involved.

So the fix is to give the USPS an unlimited budget? Then lets do away with stamps and make it all free.

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. Everything FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

all the PO wants is to be free to make their own decisions.......they cant make any major moves without about 3-4 committees approving it..... .let the guys who they are paying 6 figures to run it...run it.......when scanning tech came out in the 90's.....the PMG at that time was from Coke a Cola.....he told Congress the PO has to be on the cutting edge of this and get the hand held scanners now for the workers because UPS and Fed-X will be doing it.....Congress said nope cant spend money on that,you have other things to spend it on.....so about 5 years later after the other guys were well into tracking packages.....Congress then told the same PMG.....hey how come the PO isnt scanning packages and keeping up with the private sector?.....so when they got into it everyone else was on the 4th Generation scanners...

 

[Harry Dresden]

How about letting them operate like a private business?

Sounds good, but the unemployment rate will skyrocket.

how?.....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

That no fault of the USPS.

The Truth About The Post Office s Financial Mess#.

The financial woes of the U.S. Postal System have become a point of contention on Capitol Hill. The Postal Service is supposed to make a $5.5 billion payment to its retiree health care fund by November 18th... but doesn't have the money.
US Postal Service workers have a retiree health care benefit in addition to their pension. Before Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, the USPS operated under a pay-as-you-go model for retiree health care funding. The new law requires the Postal Service to pre-fund its benefit obligations.
"The idea is that enough money is saved over the course of a career that the benefit is fully paid for by the time the worker retires.
Thanks to these prefunding payments, the Postal Service has greatly reduced its unfunded obligations for retiree health benefits. At the end of fiscal year 2010, these obligations were under $49 billion – a substantial sum, but much more manageable. If the Postal Service continues making its prefunding payments, its unfunded obligations for retiree health benefits will be around $33 billion by the end of the decade. And the postal service will be on course to pay these benefits over time," a Congressional insider explained.
But this pre-funding has become a lightning rod of controversy.
Members of the postal workers union say the pre-funding requirement has created a fiscal mess. Some people have even claimed that law has the effect of requiring the postal service to fund retirement obligations for people who are not yet employed by the USPS--potential future employees.
No one ever intended the law to work that way. And, in fact, it doesn't. Although accounting rules require the postal service to calculate future liabilities, including those for projected future employees, the law only requires pre-funding of obligations to actual current and past employees.
In light of all the controversy, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) sent off a series of questions on the pre-funding controversy to the Congressional Research Service to get to the bottom of the question: is pre-funding the reason for the USPS fiscal woes?
C-Suite Insider has exclusively obtained the CRS Memorandum on Postal Service Retiree Health Issue to Chairman Issa as well as an email explaining in further detail their findings. Below is a verbatim email correspondence between the CRS and Chairman Issa's office on the prefunding of 75 years of retiree health care benefits in just 10 years.
"The confusion over 75 years may be due to an "accounting" and not an "actuarial or funding" issue. They only have to fund the future liability of their current or former workforce. This would include some actuarial estimate about the mortality rates of their current workers (I.e. how long they live). So a 25 year old worker would have an average life expectancy (from birth) of 78.7 years. Thus, they would have to project future retiree health benefits for this individual up to about 54 years in the future.
But for accounting purposes they must estimate the future liability over a 75 year period (according to OPM financial accounting guidelines). In this case, they would make some assumptions about new entrants into the workforce and addresses your second question.
Theoretically, these new entrants could include someone who is not born yet. While they have to account for these future liabilities on their financial statements they do not have to fund them if they are not related to their current or former workforce."
Based on the findings of this memorandum, I asked Chairman Issa what his message is to the US Postal Service Unions who say Congress is to be blamed for this crisis.
Chairman Issa: Union leaders must understand that there is no easy fix to a crisis created by declining mail revenues. The often non-existent accounting issues unions want to talk about don’t address fundamental changes to delivery created by the growth of the Internet. Union leaders need to work with, not against, Congress on postal reform, because the alternative is a possible shut-down of the Postal Service next summer

And the usual suspects are involved.

So the fix is to give the USPS an unlimited budget? Then lets do away with stamps and make it all free.

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. Everything FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

all the PO wants is to be free to make their own decisions.......they cant make any major moves without about 3-4 committees approving it..... .let the guys who they are paying 6 figures to run it...run it.......when scanning tech came out in the 90's.....the PMG at that time was from Coke a Cola.....he told Congress the PO has to be on the cutting edge of this and get the hand held scanners now for the workers because UPS and Fed-X will be doing it.....Congress said nope cant spend money on that,you have other things to spend it on.....so about 5 years later after the other guys were well into tracking packages.....Congress then told the same PMG.....hey how come the PO isnt scanning packages and keeping up with the private sector?.....so when they got into it everyone else was on the 4th Generation scanners...

You've just perfectly illustrated why private industry will ALWAYS be more efficient.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"
We have the ultimate control over corporations. If we don't like them or what they are doing we stop buying their products and they go out of business." (Redfish)

Well, then, I guess that Comcast, Cox Cable, Verizon and AT&T will go out of business any day now.....

 

[Redfish]

Most of them.

Which explains the long wait times at a DMV, as well the United States Post office dropping further and further into debt in comparison to their private sector competitors. Tell us another lie Sallow.

Took me about ten minutes the last time I went to DMV. Computers are great things

Post Office will survive if red state congressmen leave them alone

how about blue state congressmen, your fricken partison idiot.