Support NeoGAF

[leroidys]

I'm here to disagree with you. I think the question should be (especially for something like the Post Office which everyone needs and uses) why can't they generate a profit- or at least come out even?

Because (IIRC) they were forced to create a fund to pay all of their pensions forward, something not required for any other private company, and this plunged them from a strong trajectory towards profitability to wallowing in the red.

EDIT: Yep, required to pre-fund benefits. (They argue that they are even being required to overpay).

Pensions Sink Postal Services Profit - 02/10/2011

 

[Byakuya769]

Why does it need to break even? And it's not like they haven't been consistently raising postage rates.

 

[Meadows]

Fox News UK website

Hopefully the 9/11 hacking case will get some play over there and you can do something similar to the UK (if that's what you want in the US)

 

[Hitokage]

Its a government agency.

If only there was a way to make profit in package and mail delivery...


http://i.imgur.com/L7DUe.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/IFGfp.jpg


Oh...

This is a stupid post, and here's why: by changing to a for-profit model you also change the nature of the service being provided. UPS and FedEx can tell whoever they want to fuck off if they think it's too difficult to service them. Meanwhile, the USPS has an obligation to serve a broad base of people, even those who are less profitable and out of the way.

 

[Cyan]

Damn Romney is acting way too sane.


http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-romney-rejects-gay-marriage-pledge-230845356.html

Hopefully Bachmann or Perry knocks him down.

When it was first circulated last week, the introduction to the pledge stated that African American children were more likely to be raised in two-parent households when they were born into slavery than they are today. The group struck that language and apologized after black ministers complained, but it said it stands by the rest of the document.

Um... wow.

 

[Escape Goat]

This is a stupid post, and here's why: by changing to a for-profit model you also change the nature of the service being provided. UPS and FedEx can tell whoever they want to fuck off if they think it's too difficult to service them. The USPS has an obligation to serve customers even the less profitable ones.

So the USPS is failing because of an obligation to serve...who again?

 

[leroidys]

So the USPS is failing because of an obligation to serve...who again?

Future former employees.

Because (IIRC) they were forced to create a fund to pay all of their pensions forward, something not required for any other private company, and this plunged them from a strong trajectory towards profitability to wallowing in the red.

EDIT: Yep, required to pre-fund benefits. (They argue that they are even being required to overpay).

Pensions Sink Postal Services Profit - 02/10/2011

 

[empty vessel]

I'm here to disagree with you. I think the question should be (especially for something like the Post Office which everyone needs and uses) why can't they generate a profit- or at least come out even?

Because it is a government service. Like roads. It is in our interest to use the government to provide this service, because private companies simply would not do it. Just because people live in rural areas does not mean they should not get mail service. This concept--that a society sometimes pays for something to give everybody access to enhance living conditions--used to be universally understood. Then along came Libertarians. Suddenly it became fashionable to ask why we deliver mail to people in rural locales.

(All that said, especially with the advent of the telephone and email, the USPS has actually become as much of a business subsidy as an actual service. Note that most of the mail you receive is business junk mail.)

 

[besada]

Because (IIRC) they were forced to create a fund to pay all of their pensions forward, something not required for any other private company, and this plunged them from a strong trajectory towards profitability to wallowing in the red.

EDIT: Yep, required to pre-fund benefits. (They argue that they are even being required to overpay).

Pensions Sink Postal Services Profit - 02/10/2011

They're also under a whole host of other mandates, like delivery to rural areas, and Saturday mail, that no other carrier has to deal with. Not to mention that price control is controlled externally.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Wait hold up just a second here. I thought I just saw something about the Post Office being 100% funded by postage -- somewhat implying that they're not losing money. What gives?

when they say 100% funded by postage ,they mean that's their source of funding. Postage. Not taxes or sponsorships or anything like that.

Just FYI, the post office isn't really allowed to operate at a profit. If they have a year where they have a surplus, they are supposed to spend the money to improve service or decrease prices so that they don't have excess funding. If they lose money, they are supposed to find ways to get that money back, but they are still required to provide a certain level of service. Basically, they can't make money, but they can lose money.

 

[eznark]

ha, Reid is on board for the McConnell plan. lol

 

[speculawyer]

They're also under a whole host of other mandates, like delivery to rural areas, and Saturday mail, that no other carrier has to deal with. Not to mention that price control is controlled externally.

Yeah, it is too bad that mandate exists. It would be awesome for the post office to say "You know what? Fuck off you rural people, you cost too much." and stop delivering mail to rural folks. And they we would all get to see those red-state politicians tie themselves in knots about 'less government' and 'less regulation' as they push all sorts of laws mandating that rural deliver.

As is so often the case, the very people who complain the most about government mandates are the very ones who benefit most from it. Just like those 'free-market' Republicans who support massive agricultural subsidies.

 

[Akainu]

Amtrak Expects 30 Million Riders - All-time Record
July 13, 2011
By: George Dooley


http://www.travelagentcentral.com/files/travelagent/nodes/2011/29534/amtrakwiki.jpg

Amtrak is projecting that for the first time ever its annual ridership will exceed 30 million passengers and in the process set a new all-time record when the current fiscal year ends Sept. 30.


“We are having a very strong year because people around the country are choosing the convenience, efficiency and hassle-free environment of Amtrak to meet their travel needs,” said President and CEO Joe Boardman. “Amtrak has wisely invested the federal funding we have received to improve infrastructure and equipment. Continued investment in Amtrak and passenger rail will support the further growth of this increasingly vital transportation option."

Amtrak is basing its projection of more than 30 million passengers on strong June ridership numbers and expected ticket sales for July, August and September. June 2011 was the best June on record with more than 2.6 million passengers for the month and marked 20 consecutive months of year-over-year ridership growth, a streak that began in November 2009.

This strong performance, Amtrak said, is part of a long-term trend that has seen Amtrak set annual ridership records in seven of the last eight fiscal years, including more than 28.7 million passengers in FY 2010.

Comparing the first nine months of FY 2011 (October – June) to the same time period in FY 2010, national Amtrak ridership is up 6.4 percent so far this fiscal year and all three major business lines are showing gains: the Northeast Corridor up 5.6 percent, state-supported and other short distance corridors up 7.8 percent, and long-distance trains up 3.9 percent.

Factors contributing to the continuing success of Amtrak include high gasoline prices, continued growth in business travel on the high-speed Acela Express trains with free Wi-Fi service, the increased appeal and popularity of rail travel and effective marketing campaigns.

Celebrating 40 years of dedicated service as America’s Railroad, Amtrak is the nation’s intercity passenger rail provider and its only high-speed rail operator. A record 28.7 million passengers traveled on Amtrak in FY 2010 on more than 300 daily trains – at speeds up to 150 mph (241 kph) – that connect 46 states, the District of Columbia and three Canadian Provinces
​

#################


High gas prices, continued busniess traveling, etc........yeah sounds like a great time to cut rail funds huh?

F*#! what wrong with this country? Looks like people in America want more trains, yet all I keep hearing is governors and some congressman trying to cut the rail funds.

I've only ever ridden tri-rail (which I like). What are Amtrak rides like? These are the ones with bedrooms right? Always wanted to travel on one.

 

[Cyan]

As is so often the case, the very people who benefit from the government mandates are the very ones who benefit most from it.

Amazing how that works.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Because it is a government service. Like roads. It is in our interest to use the government to provide this service, because private companies simply would not do it. Just because people live in rural areas does not mean they should not get mail service. This concept--that a society sometimes pays for something to give everybody access to enhance living conditions--used to be universally understood. Then along came Libertarians. Suddenly it became fashionable to ask why we deliver mail to people in rural locales.

(All that said, especially with the advent of the telephone and email, the USPS has actually become as much of a business subsidy as an actual service. Note that most of the mail you receive is business junk mail.)

Then why not set it up like a government service?
And charge the junk mailers up the ass for both wasting trees and my precious time.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

This is a stupid post, and here's why: by changing to a for-profit model you also change the nature of the service being provided. UPS and FedEx can tell whoever they want to fuck off if they think it's too difficult to service them. Meanwhile, the USPS has an obligation to serve a broad base of people, even those who are less profitable and out of the way.

As an addition to this: there was an anecdote on 538 a while back (I looked through the archives but couldn't find it) describing the common UPS practice of turning parcels bound for remote rural locations over to USPS and paying the postage to have them delivered, rather than making the deliveries themselves.

Furthermore: A business like Netflix could not have existed without the support of the USPS. That USPS and FedEx even have zipcodes to deliver to is thanks to the USPS--I don't see a private company going to the trouble of developing that kind of infrastructure.

 

[Byakuya769]

Then why not set it up like a government service?
And charge the junk mailers up the ass for both wasting trees and my precious time.

Now, this is how we find a middle ground.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Then why not set it up like a government service?
And charge the junk mailers up the ass for both wasting trees and my precious time.

It was until: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act

 

[Manmademan]

This is a stupid post, and here's why: by changing to a for-profit model you also change the nature of the service being provided. UPS and FedEx can tell whoever they want to fuck off if they think it's too difficult to service them. Meanwhile, the USPS has an obligation to serve a broad base of people, even those who are less profitable and out of the way.

not to mention UPS and FedEx charge a minimum of 8 dollars to send a package, no matter how small it is. They don't really specialize in carrying the letters that USPS will send anywhere for 44 cents.

On top of that, if their costs go up they can just raise rates at will to compensate, whereas USPS has to petition congress to allow them to increase the cost of a stamp by 5 cents. If UPS and FedEX had to do the same thing when they wanted to raise rates they'd have been bankrupt years ago.

 

[FLEABttn]

I've only ever ridden tri-rail (which I like). What are Amtrak rides like? These are the ones with bedrooms right? Always wanted to travel on one.

Amtrack rides are smooth and significantly more comfortable than an airplane. The seats have a large amount of legroom. Still need to move around? Stand up and go nuts. Walk up and down the train. Want food? Head down to the snack car and get a snack, soda, beer, pizza, burger, etc. Long enough trip? Get a reservation in the dining car and have a sit down meal. Want to watch a movie? Pull out your laptop and plug it into the train.

Not all trains have the bedrooms. I took one from Ann Arbor to Chicago and back and there was no sleeping section. That said the sleep compartments aren't too bad, and the ones where you have your own toilet are nice.

Downside is time and cost. Riding on an train from Albuquerque to Chicago would cost me $15 more than flying (assuming I don't get a sleeper room) and would take almost 27 hours to get there. Also Amtrack doesn't own the rails, so their schedule can be delayed by other trains.

 

[PantherLotus]

In case you guys miss it, there's an amazing thread going on that imagines GAF as a comic book. Here's my entry representing PoliGAF:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=29287198&postcount=268

 

[mckmas8808]

Um... wow.

Yeah Bachmann signed a document that stated black kids had it better during slavery because it was more likely that they'll be raised by 2 parents, then in these times.

It's so crazy you'd think she wouldn't have signed it. But alas that's where our politics are today. smh.

 

[PantherLotus]

Pawlenty signed it too.

 

[mckmas8808]

ha, Reid is on board for the McConnell plan. lol

Stupid fuck! You have to be joking right? RIGHT?!

 

[PantherLotus]

That's a good thing, pyscho.

 

[eznark]

Stupid fuck! You have to be joking right? RIGHT?!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...44003129534580.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...44003129534580.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

I can't read the full article, but from what I can read and elsewhere, he's stopping just short fo endorcing the details but rather praising the approach. Obama and likely Reid would rather not have it be a three part request dabbled on through election season. But of course, that's the entire point of McConnell's proposal.

 

[popeutlal]

Its a government agency.

If only there was a way to make profit in package and mail delivery...

Oh...

Will these companies deliver a price of paper across country for $.44?

 

[eznark]

I can't read the full article, but from what I can read and elsewhere, he's stopping just short fo endorcing the details but rather praising the approach. Obama and likely Reid would rather not have it be a three part request dabbled on through election season. But of course, that's the entire point of McConnell's proposal.

Ya. He likes the idea but isn't commenting on the specifics.

 

[mckmas8808]

That's a good thing, pyscho.

How is it a good thing?

 

[Escape Goat]

Will these companies deliver a price of paper across country for $.44?

Yeah, pouring billions down a rat hole so people in BFE can mail their bills is totally worth it.

 

[dave is ok]

Yeah, pouring billions down a rat hole so people in BFE can mail their bills is totally worth it.

The effects of the cheap letter going away would be horrible on consumers. Every business sends a fuckton of USPS mail every day. They'd all have to raise their prices

 

[PantherLotus]

How is it a good thing?

The better question is why you think Reid should oppose? In case you don't really know, here's a shot at why he shouldn't oppose:

1. Gives the power to Obama to do what is necessary.
2. Marginalizes the tea party caucus, who I currently believe the 'establishment' are trying to remove.

I could be wrong, but I think the GOP senators saw what is happening in the house and are gambling that they can survive another tea-party backlash. This move could marginalize that nonsense while providing a political 'out' for those involved. I can't imagine why any liberal-minded person would be against this when it sets the GOP back yet another 8 years, unless you see the executive power ramifications and shiver like I do.

Regardless, Harry Reid has zero reason to oppose this. This IS the grand bargain. McConnell and Boehner and Pelosi and Reid (and the American people) all have one common enemy, and his name is the stupid tea-partier bent on destroying America. GOP establishment takes a beating in the House, again, but they look the better for it. GOP gets to say Obama raised taxes by letting the bush cuts expire. The bonuses for the Dems should be obvious, but with your response I'm wondering what you were thinking in the first place...

 

[mckmas8808]

Yeah, pouring billions down a rat hole so people in BFE can mail their bills is totally worth it.

Are you arguing that some people in this country shouldn't have access to mail?

 

[Suikoguy]

I could be wrong, but I think the GOP senators saw what is happening in the house and are gambling that they can survive another tea-party backlash. This move could marginalize that nonsense while providing a political 'out' for those involved. I can't imagine why any liberal-minded person would be against this when it sets the GOP back yet another 8 years, unless you see the executive power ramifications and shiver like I do.

I can see the concern, however examining the whole process of the debt ceiling, rather the whole point of it.

Let's say another president continues the control of the debt limit, as long as the house/senate has the ability to override it, then I don't see the problem. It just changes the check in the other direction. Still, I would not change the check/balance in exactly this way, lol.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Nobody here commenting on Obama's (and the US's) shit approval ratings in the Arab world? It's fallen to levels never seen before.
I have to say I'm a little surprised.

 

[PantherLotus]

Nobody here commenting on Obama's (and the US's) shit approval ratings in the Arab world? It's fallen to levels never seen before.
I have to say I'm a little surprised.

The Syrian protesters' attack on the embassy was a bit alarming.

 

[Evlar]

Nobody here commenting on Obama's (and the US's) shit approval ratings in the Arab world? It's fallen to levels never seen before.
I have to say I'm a little surprised.

I wasn't aware, though I'm not surprised; a consequence of our inconsistent and self-serving response to the Arab Spring, I suppose.

 

[eznark]

I wasn't aware, though I'm not surprised; a consequence of our inconsistent and self-serving response to the Arab Spring, I suppose.

Plus the assassinations on their soil.

 

[gcubed]

Plus the assassinations on their soil.

what you think that they get mad when we drop in from a helicopter, kill everyone in a house, take a body and everything of use to us and leave?

or is it the continued use of drone attacks?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I wasn't aware, though I'm not surprised; a consequence of our inconsistent and self-serving response to the Arab Spring, I suppose.

Here is a summary of the Zogby Poll for those who haven't seen it. Poll

• After improving with the election of Barack Obama in 2008, U.S. favorable ratings across the Arab world have plummeted. In most countries they are lower than at the end of the Bush Administration, and lower than Iran's favorable ratings (except in Saudi Arabia).

• The continuing occupation of Palestinian lands and U.S. interference in the Arab world are held to be the greatest obstacles to peace and stability in the Middle East.

• While many Arabs were hopeful that the election of Barack Obama would improve U.S.-Arab relations, that hope has evaporated. Today, President Obama's favorable ratings across the Arab world are 10% or less.

• Obama's performance ratings are lowest on the two issues to which he has devoted the most energy: Palestine and engagement with the Muslim world.

• The U.S. role in establishing a no-fly zone over Libya receives a positive rating only in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, but, as an issue, it is the lowest priority.

• The killing of bin Laden only worsened attitudes toward the U.S.

• A plurality says it is too early to tell whether the Arab Spring will have a positive impact on the region. In Egypt, the mood is mixed. Only in the Gulf States are optimism and satisfaction levels high.

Bolded the most shocking ones to me.

 

[PantherLotus]

Let's not dismiss reality, the uprising started as a mixture of response to increasingly terrible economic situation for many over there and the images from around the region available only on Al Jazeera (as opposed to their state-run channels). With dictators and kings, there's a convenient scapegoat. A worthy scapegoat, sure, but when the dictators are gone and nothing changes ... who's to blame?

 

[Manmademan]

Nobody here commenting on Obama's (and the US's) shit approval ratings in the Arab world? It's fallen to levels never seen before.
I have to say I'm a little surprised.

If Obama was republican, I could see him running this quote in an campaign ad on fox or something and using it to get re-elected.

"Vote Obama 2012: Arabs hate him more than any president, ever."

 

[mckmas8808]

The better question is why you think Reid should oppose? In case you don't really know, here's a shot at why he shouldn't oppose:

1. Gives the power to Obama to do what is necessary.
2. Marginalizes the tea party caucus, who I currently believe the 'establishment' are trying to remove.

I could be wrong, but I think the GOP senators saw what is happening in the house and are gambling that they can survive another tea-party backlash. This move could marginalize that nonsense while providing a political 'out' for those involved. I can't imagine why any liberal-minded person would be against this when it sets the GOP back yet another 8 years, unless you see the executive power ramifications and shiver like I do.

Regardless, Harry Reid has zero reason to oppose this. This IS the grand bargain. McConnell and Boehner and Pelosi and Reid (and the American people) all have one common enemy, and his name is the stupid tea-partier bent on destroying America. GOP establishment takes a beating in the House, again, but they look the better for it. GOP gets to say Obama raised taxes by letting the bush cuts expire. The bonuses for the Dems should be obvious, but with your response I'm wondering what you were thinking in the first place...

1. On the first point I don't want the President to have the power to raise the debt ceiling. And like the bolded I do shiver. If we are to have a debt ceiling, I'd like that power to still be in the hands of the Congress. They have the power of the purse.

2. The tea party caucus isn't going anywhere. Doing this will only piss them off more. And believe me they will let their congressman and woman know when those 3 different votes have to happen during election time.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Here is a summary of the Zogby Poll

Stopped reading right here. Also, continue support for Israel and abuses of state sovereignty to fight terrorism will do that.

 

[Skiptastic]

They might as well give the President the power to raise the debt ceiling. It seems like these days the prez leads on the budget issues, so he or she might as well lead on the debt ceiling. If everyone agrees (and it seems like they only disagree if it's politically expedient to do so or they are super hardcore about debt reduction) that the debt ceiling is too important to put in political hands, they might as well have something like this where you need the 2/3 of Congress to put a stop to it. Though I don't think it should be a temporary, Obama only thing; it should be the standard going forward, whether the President is Republican or Democrat.

1. On the first point I don't want the President to have the power to raise the debt ceiling. And like the bolded I do shiver. If we are to have a debt ceiling, I'd like that power to still be in the hands of the Congress. They have the power of the purse.

That's exactly why the President should be able to lift the debt ceiling. He can lift it to 500 trillion dollars, but Congress still has either the 2/3 veto or the power of the purse to stop spending. Having that power takes something that people say should not be a political issue and puts it into the hands of the branch which is 'less political' (judicial branch ought to clearly be the least political).

 

[Evlar]

More from the senior Senator from Kentucky: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/us/politics/14fiscal.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, warned Wednesday that allowing a federal default could have disastrous political consequences for his party and “destroy” the Republican brand.

With increasing numbers of House Republicans digging in against an increase in the debt limit and dismissing the potential economic consequences from a default, Mr. McConnell used a radio interview to defend his proposal to allow a three-stage increase and predicted that Republicans would be punished if they did not allow the debt ceiling to be raised.

Recounting how the 1995 government shutdown helped President Bill Clinton win re-election the next year, Mr. McConnell said any impasse that hurt the nation’s credit and led to government checks being delayed could have the same result for President Obama.

“He will say Republicans are making the economy worse,” Mr. McConnell, who is recognized as one of his party’s top political strategists, said in an interview with the radio host Laura Ingraham.

First, he's right. Second, he can't stop being a partisan for a single full sentence. There's nothing here about the good of the country... it's just pure political calculation, which has finally arrived at the same answer any sane observer could have seen months ago: that the public will severely punish anyone who causes the US to default.

 

[Averon]

More from the senior Senator from Kentucky: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/us/politics/14fiscal.html?_r=1&hp
First, he's right. Second, he can't stop being a partisan for a single full sentence. There's nothing here about the good of the country... it's just pure political calculation, which has finally arrived at the same answer any sane observer could have seen months ago: that the public will severely punish anyone who causes the US to default.

The problem the GOP have is that the tea party--which they are afraid of--don't believe this. In fact, many in the tea party think they're doing the US a favor by allowing us to go into default. At the least they think the US going into default wouldn't be a problem in the short term.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

...the public will severely punish anyone who causes the US to default.

But, according to the latest gallup poll, only 22% of Americans are in favor of raising the debt ceiling. Why would the public punish those who agree with them? http://www.gallup.com/poll/148454/Debt-Ceiling-Increase-Remains-Unpopular-Americans.aspx

 

[Evlar]

But, according to the latest gallup poll, only 22% of Americans are in favor of raising the debt ceiling. Why would the public punish those who agree with them? http://www.gallup.com/poll/148454/Debt-Ceiling-Increase-Remains-Unpopular-Americans.aspx

Because they'll see the consequences of it. We've heard anecdotal evidence of how people freak out at even the suggestion Social Security checks might not go out... and that is by no means the worst possible consequence.