It's All Your Money: Taxpayers may be on hook for US Postal Service losses

[Truthmatters]

the right seems to be anti founder

 

[Navy1960]

USPS makes money on package delivery Navy1960. In fact, they contract with FedEx to move a lot of it around. UPS didn't give them as good a deal. USPS is also cheaper in many cases, so you might want to rethink your suggestion.

My suggestion is that all of it's package delivery can be contracted in area's that both UPS and Fed-Ex cover. Even the employee's that deliver those packages can be contracted much like Medicare does with it's call centers now. While not an advocate for USPS to be cast aside, I am all for putting the effort into fixing USPS so that it's more streamlined and responsive to the needs of 21st Century mail delivery rather than 20th Century mail delivery. Clearly the model they use now is not working. While I am very well aware they contract with Fed-Ex to move a lot of their packages around, my suggestion was to expand that to the point where they deliver, process, and accept ALL package services in area's that are currently serviced by Fed-Ex. Now I might be coming at this from a Military purchasing standpoint, but one can even suggest that USPS do this on a fixed cost basis with these contractors. In short there are many ways to reform USPS without having to cast it aside.

 

[DiamondDave]

Keep the post office.. HOWEVER.. revamp it.. streamline it... and make it self sustaining once again... and make it required by law to stay that way

If you have to cut jobs.. raise rates.. stop paying for stupid post office commercials.. etc.. do it

 

[garyganu]

There is no downside to letting the post office go bankrupt and selling off the assets. FedEX and UPS will pick up the slack and new competition may emerge to help fill the vacuum.

Is there any good reason whatsoever for bailing out the Post Office?

 

[saveliberty]

There is no downside to letting the post office go bankrupt and selling off the assets. FedEX and UPS will pick up the slack and new competition may emerge to help fill the vacuum.

Is there any good reason whatsoever for bailing out the Post Office?

Ever wonder why FedEx and UPS don't have a booming letter delivery service? I'm sure things will be fine for you in the big city, but the postal service still plays a role in rural life. In short, your suggestion is flawed in principle.

 

[garyganu]

There is no downside to letting the post office go bankrupt and selling off the assets. FedEX and UPS will pick up the slack and new competition may emerge to help fill the vacuum.

Is there any good reason whatsoever for bailing out the Post Office?

Ever wonder why FedEx and UPS don't have a booming letter delivery service? I'm sure things will be fine for you in the big city, but the postal service still plays a role in rural life. In short, your suggestion is flawed in principle.

Then rural America will have to pay the market cost of letter service. This is not an insurmountable obstacle for anyone because there are always electronic alternatives to snail mail.

Local storefront services will emerge that will send E-mail to the city or town where it will be printed out and delivered by truck. Innovation WILL replace the Post office.

 

[eflatminor]

Ever wonder why FedEx and UPS don't have a booming letter delivery service?

I'm going to say that's because they would have to compete with an organization backed by taxpayer dollars. What rational company would choose to compete with a government run near monopoly on letter delivery? That would be crazy.

 

[saveliberty]

There is no downside to letting the post office go bankrupt and selling off the assets. FedEX and UPS will pick up the slack and new competition may emerge to help fill the vacuum.

Is there any good reason whatsoever for bailing out the Post Office?

Ever wonder why FedEx and UPS don't have a booming letter delivery service? I'm sure things will be fine for you in the big city, but the postal service still plays a role in rural life. In short, your suggestion is flawed in principle.

Then rural America will have to pay the market cost of letter service. This is not an insurmountable obstacle for anyone because there are always electronic alternatives to snail mail.

Local storefront services will emerge that will send E-mail to the city or town where it will be printed out and delivered by truck. Innovation WILL replace the Post office.

By your logic, highways should be funded by cities, since it connects them for commerce.

 

[eflatminor]

By your logic, highways should be funded by cities, since it connects them for commerce.

States actually...but cities are free to build roads too. There is nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government authority to build roads. This is why the interstate highways built in the 50s/60s that ended Route 66, supported Detroit and our reliance on oil and unfairly penalized the airline industry was funded through the Pentagon. No enumerated power for roads. It's a state issue.

 

[saveliberty]

Ever wonder why FedEx and UPS don't have a booming letter delivery service?

I'm going to say that's because they would have to compete with an organization backed by taxpayer dollars. What rational company would choose to compete with a government run near monopoly on letter delivery? That would be crazy.

Not sure what ends up in your mailbox, but mine has a lot of business advertising in it. You are going to pay for mail one way or another.

 

[Truthmatters]

why does the right hate the founders ideas on the USPO?

 

[saveliberty]

By your logic, highways should be funded by cities, since it connects them for commerce.

States actually...but cities are free to build roads too. There is nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government authority to build roads. This is why the interstate highways built in the 50s/60s that ended Route 66, supported Detroit and our reliance on oil and unfairly penalized the airline industry was funded through the Pentagon. No enumerated power for roads. It's a state issue.

No, you were suggesting cost shifting. There are federal gasoline taxes correct?

 

[eflatminor]

By your logic, highways should be funded by cities, since it connects them for commerce.

States actually...but cities are free to build roads too. There is nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government authority to build roads. This is why the interstate highways built in the 50s/60s that ended Route 66, supported Detroit and our reliance on oil and unfairly penalized the airline industry was funded through the Pentagon. No enumerated power for roads. It's a state issue.

No, you were suggesting cost shifting. There are federal gasoline taxes correct?

No? The feds are required to build roads? Please point to that in the Constitution.

 

[garyganu]

Ever wonder why FedEx and UPS don't have a booming letter delivery service? I'm sure things will be fine for you in the big city, but the postal service still plays a role in rural life. In short, your suggestion is flawed in principle.

Then rural America will have to pay the market cost of letter service. This is not an insurmountable obstacle for anyone because there are always electronic alternatives to snail mail.

Local storefront services will emerge that will send E-mail to the city or town where it will be printed out and delivered by truck. Innovation WILL replace the Post office.

By your logic, highways should be funded by cities, since it connects them for commerce.

I don't understand your reasoning. Besides, highway funding is another topic. I don't see the connection.
Don't you agree that the private sector will deliver mail better?

 

[Ariux]

The mix of unions and government produces the ultimate in incompetence. It's outrageous that the postal service will become taxpayer-subsidized, and it will.

If Congress had any integrity, they'd throw out the union and void the union contracts. Unions suck the blood of non-union workers. Unions have also chiefly responsible for causing Americans to lose jobs to imports.

 

[Truthmatters]

why do you people hate the founders ?

 

[Truthmatters]

why did the founders want a tax paid for Post Office?

 

[Truthmatters]

my oh my what will you do

 

[Intense]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".

While the post office does have it's problems, it does seem that rather than getting rid of the Post Office, it would make more sense given the fact that UPS and FED-EX do not have a traditional mail service or cover a lot of rural areas that depend on this service it would make more sense for Congress to exercise it's powers under the Constitution to actually fix the problem. As a thought here, one would think that USPS would and could contract a lot of its package delivery to the above mentioned companies reducing costs with little impact and leave open traditional Post Offices . I for one would never be in favor if simply saying the best solution is to get rid of something because we are unable to or unwilling to fix it.

I Totally agree. We have a Constitutional Mandate supporting it's purpose and function, which is well served. Major overhaul has been needed for a long time. It's way overdue.

 

[Intense]

why do you people hate the founders ?

Why are you here? ..... Oh yeah.