Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Postal Workers Need Support From the 99 Percent

Posted 2 years ago on March 3, 2012, 6:22 p.m. EST by bklynsboy (834)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In 2006 a lame-duck Republican-majority Congress passed a bill requiring the Postal Service to set aside more than $5 billion a year into a fund to guarantee health benefits for retirees up to 75 years from now. This money cannot be diverted to cover operating expenses.

But between 2007 and 2010, revenue taken in actually exceeded operating costs by $700 million, according to the USPS year-end 2010 report. It was the Congressional attack, not the Internet or other market forces, that caused the postal deficit. NO OTHER business is required to fund retirements IN FULL for 75 years into the future!

The USPS actually runs a profit, but this kills Repugnicons who want to privatize it for profit and destroy the largest union in the US.

http://www.truth-out.org/postal-workers-need-support-99/1330631103

230 Comments

230 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

They do need our support.

These clowns want to force people to use the crappy service by FedEX. That is who lobbied for this crap. So, there is no other argument except we are going to force you to use this crappy service over here that jacks it's employees around because it helps FedEx.

You have to be a complete moron to think that everyone is using emails and everyone has a cell phone. There are others that do not. Every move to make it work is being blocked.

Screw FedEx.

[-] 6 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Right on! Exactly!

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Mail away, sweet cakes. Oh, you meant someone else is supposed to support them like a good little liberal, but not you.

The Post Office is so behind, it's just pathetic. The union would have them running empty trucks all over the country if we let them. Saturday delivery should be stopped immediately, then work out the rest of the downsizing as soon as possible. Email, who'd have thunk it? LOL.

Very funny, "screw Fedex". Sure, because it's a marvel of efficiency in the private system, it's bad, very bad.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I do support them little unwashed cretin.

It is more efficient for smaller business owners. FedEx is not a marvel of efficiency. It's crap service and they treat their employees like crap. I have had problems with FedEx and I won't use them and neither will a lot of other people. Not everyone is connected to the internet, honey. You need to remember that.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

It's a "marvel" for anyone being subsidized, but not so much for the people doing the subsidizing.

[-] 0 points by TruthSeekerCA (2) 2 years ago

Personally I love FedEx, I rely more on them than I would the USPS. Tracking packages is built into their rates. That service is extra with the USPS. I mean realistically who cares about Saturday delivery. Is there anything so important it can't wait until Monday? If not have a service like UPS or FedEx that charges a Saturday premium.

The USPS is outdated and needs an overhaul. Look at England who privatized their Post Offices. Then again have you noticed it is not USPS.gov anymore and now USPS.com?

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The USPS works fine. In fact it operates better than FedEx. I track packages through USPS all the time. This is not about Saturday delivery. This is about privatizing the entire operation.

The service is not outdated. Yes, I have seen the website and you can click on the Inspector General at the bottom of the page and you wind up right back on a gov website. It is neither here nor there.

Watching a bunch of clowns attempt to privatize everything in England is a joke.

[-] 4 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Lets see non-profit verse for profit. The one that is jacking you to make their stock go up and up is going to cost more. It is inherently inefficient to create billionaires. The suckage and rape and pillaging of our government by and for the people continues( It is not our government if it ever was). The top .001% wants stock in everything everywhere, they want to own you. And they want power, more and more. They don't want you have choices or any means of feeding yourself beyond selling yourself to slavery in their system. Now they are buying you with trinkets like cable and ac and cute little gadgets. They aren't really benevolent, they are just generating more junk currency for their coffers because it is the way of the game they play. Once they truly own it all, they think they won't have to offer anyone any more trinkets and they will have minions falling all over themselves to wipe the royal rear-end. Just saying, a two year old could tell you it is not efficient to waste billions and trillions with privatization so politicians and investors can pocket money stolen from the government and therefore, (In theory only) from the people.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I agree with that.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I think you have clear insight of the situation and enjoyed your post. You might consider posting this theme on the main form for further discussion. Others need to be enlightened.

Cheers :)

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Privatization as more efficient? That means fewer employees, lousy benefits, poorer working conditions and insane quotas, investors, particularly politician investors, cashing in and moving wealth from workers and our government to investors and lining the coffers of the wealthy who love to own things like the only hospital with in thirty miles. My grandfather looks like an Indian, I asked if he was part Indian one day. He said, I can't be, I have blue eyes. I asked him if he thought that if he told a big enough lie long enough people would believe him. He said it had been working so far. And its true, everyone went along with it, even family members. He never tells his kids how he had an uncle with the power to take the fire out and heal burns or any other juicy tidbits of family history. Sometimes if you stand up and say, "The emperor has no clothes!", eyes open. I may be getting screwed over every time I turn around, but by God don't think I haven't noticed!

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

USPS is excellent.

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Repubs by killing USPS, also kill the union, setting up a very profitable privatized mail business.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

Agree. Housing, education, environment, medical, civil rights, international relations, are all wrecked. And now USPS.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

And one can say it's all for profit at the destruction of America.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

Agree.

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

People are blind to the republican perfidies.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

We will continue to get the truth out there.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

We outnumber them.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

Yes. They have a tiger by the tail.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

But FOX is concentrated evil.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

Agree.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

I think in spite of all the Koch dollars, we'll win.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

Yes, we will win. With getting the truth out there and the internet petitions reaching so many, things are starting to change. We are watching the politicians and corporations like never before.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Fox is a major problem. Roger Ailes: evil for profit.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

Agree

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

In 2006, Congress passed the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act (PAEA), which forced the USPS to put aside billions of dollars to pay for the health benefits of employees, many of whom hadn’t even been hired yet. Over a mere 10 year period, the USPS was required to prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years, something no other government or private corporation is required to do. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader observed, if PAEA had never been enacted, USPS would now be facing a $1.5 billion surplus.

The USPS is a profitable, self-funded venture that is not supported by the taxpayers

In 1999, it employed nearly a million people; and today, it employs over 600,000. Where are those workers to go, when the post office is no more?

To Downsize or Diversify?

Whatever caused the financial woes of the USPS, there is another way to mitigate the crisis than slashing employee benefits and customer services. In a December 21st article in Reader Supported News, Tim Fernholz suggested that instead of focusing on cuts, the post office should approach the problem from a business perspective and find a new way to make money. One way to keep the USPS alive, he says, is for it to include basic banking services in its product line, providing a ”public option” in banking:

Roughly 9 million Americans don't have a bank account and 21 million rely largely on fringe financial services like usurious check cashers rather than traditional financial institutions. Giving low-income people access to a safe banking system will firm up their economic futures.

The Proud, Forgotten History of Postal Banking

Banking in post offices is not new. Many countries, including Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand, have a long and successful history of it; and so does the United States.

From 1911 to 1967, the U.S. Postal Savings System provided a safe and efficient place for customers to save and transfer funds. It issued U.S. Postal Savings Bonds in various denominations that paid annual interest, as well as Postal Savings Certificates and domestic money orders. The U.S. Postal Savings System was set up early in the 20th century to attract the savings of immigrants accustomed to saving at post offices in their native countries, provide safe depositories for people who had lost confidence in private banks, and furnish more convenient depositories for working people than were provided by private banks. (Post offices were then open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. six days a week, substantially longer than bankers’ hours.) The postal system paid two percent interest on deposits annually. The minimum deposit was $1 and the maximum was $2,500. Savings in the system spurted to $1.2 billion during the 1930s and jumped again during World War II, peaking in 1947 at almost $3.4 billion.

The U.S. Postal Savings System was shut down in 1967, not because it was inefficient but because it was considered unnecessary after private banks raised their interest rates and offered the same governmental guarantees that the postal savings system had.

Ellen Brown

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/saving.php

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Yes, bring more services back like banking, but the established banks will lobby it to death.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/brics.php

Politicians may actually prefer banks not to be in the public sector. . . . Conditions of weak corporate governance in banks provide fertile ground for quick enrichment for both bankers and politicians – at the expense ultimately of the taxpayer. In such circumstances politicians can offer bankers a system of weak regulation in exchange for party political contributions, positions on the boards of banks or lucrative consultancies. Activities that are more likely to provide both sides with quick returns are the more speculative ones, especially if they are sufficiently opaque as not to be well understood by the shareholders such as complex derivatives trading.

Government owned banks, on the other hand, have less freedom to engage in speculative strategies that result in quick enrichment for bank insiders and politicians. Moreover, politicians tend to be held accountable for wrongdoings or bad management in the public sector but are typically only indirectly blamed, if at all, for the misdemeanours of private banks. It is the shareholders who are expected to prevent these but lack of transparency and weak governance stops them from doing so in practice. On the other hand, when it comes to banks that are in the public sector, democratic accountability of politicians is more likely to discourage them from engaging in speculation. In such banks, top managers are more likely to be compelled to focus on the more mundane job of financing real businesses and economic growth.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

A well-reasoned response. I intuitively believe politicians must be educated on your thesis.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20901) 2 years ago

Full support to the USPS. The attempt to take down our mail service is just the beginning of a right wing attempt to begin the privatization of all government services, and in their dream world, the near elimination of the federal government.

[-] 1 points by TruthSeekerCA (2) 2 years ago

Look at England who is well known for their socialist programs who privatized their Post Offices. It worked for them, maybe we should follow suit.

http://m.cnbc.com/id/46852987

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20901) 2 years ago

There is nothing wrong with our Post Office except for the fact that the Congress is requiring it to fund pensions for the next 75 years when most corporations don't fund their pensions at all. It is just an attempt to privatize the postal service so that the people who want to invest in that industry, rich folks, okay, the 1%, can make some more money off the backs of the working people. Privatize, privatize, privatize = The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is the goal.

[-] 2 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

I always did think that legislation was ridiculous. But I never thought it might be to destroy their union. Interesting..

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

You get it!

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and yet congress and presidents get this same protection.. for life.. pensions and free healthcare until they die why dont you protest that union

[-] 0 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

ONLY the USPS has to pay $5 BILLION a year for this. Understand? It's not difficult.

[-] -3 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Screw all the federal employees and their very cushy benefits.

Downsize and privatize what makes sense to do, most all of it including the postal orifice.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

So rather than being upset that billionaires pay a lower tax rate than you do, you're upset at people who you perceive to have "marginally" more benefits than you enjoy? It's amazing how the top 0.0001% is able to manipulate people, and actually succeed in getting people who don't have much, to hate other people who don't have much, or have nothing at all. The level of stupidity is just surreal.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

"marginally" you say?

try walking a mile in my shoes before judge me

Let me tell you this, the federal employees are much easier for the 1% to control and manipulate than those of us out here who hold our own using only what is between our ears connected to our hands.

21 million of them, is that enough?

With your level of 'superior intelligence' do you deem the federal government ideally would employ 100 million? Still not enough?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Ummm, actually no, I don't endorse unlimited growth in government (not by a long shot). However, the USPS isn't costing us money, it turns a profit, so the premise of your statement is problematic. I mean, we can send a piece of mail for under 50 cents, and amazingly, the USPS is able to actually make a profit (while at the same time paying postal employees relatively well, compared to other lower skilled workers). It's cheaper to send things overnight using the USPS (compared to fed ex or ups), parcel rates are generally cheaper than ground rates, and more importantly, one of the enumerated functions of congress, under our constitution, is operating a post office (yes it's true, check it out for yourself). Our founders felt a post office was important enough to mention in our founding document. So considering the fact that the USPS doesn't cost the taxpayer any money, and it is an enumerated function, I have no idea why anyone would harp on this? Moreover, fed ex and UPS do just fine. With all the problems we have in this country, why would you guys pick a function where government actually does an okay job, and where our private sector is also doing a good job?

This is one of those things that we shouldn't be worrying about, yet this is just another example of the class warfare waged by conservatives. They say if you want to get away with something, accuse your opponent of it first. Even if your opponent isn't doing it, this tactic tends to take the argument away from your opponent. I mean imagine, conservatives are walking around accusing us of waging class war, with the 1% vs. 99% mantra. Yet, they try to pit us against each other. They want middle class workers angry at other middle class workers, so we'll do their job for them. It has been an effective tactic, I'll say that much, but "it is a tactic" nonetheless (so don't fall for it).

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Good, let them stand completely privatized and their sinking or swimming be none of your, or my concern.

Do you know why anyone in DC would want the USPS to lay back that liquid?

You may think you do, but, you must realize DC clearly has regard for your Constitution only when it's convenient.

You are aware of that, correct?

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I'm not a democrat, but it's mostly Conservatives who only have regard for our Constitution when it suits them. Nevertheless, we're not going to allow you people to strip away our post office, our grandparents social security, Medicare, and whatever else you narcissistic, America hating ass wipes have in mind.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Do you think any of the post office workers are over compensated?

BTW... you are a twit for buying into the bi-party sleight of hand.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

No, I don't think postal workers are over-compensated. I think most workers are under-compensated (while USPS workers are compensated at adequate levels). And no I don't necessarily buy into the bi-party mantra, but you certainly seem to be buying into it.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

I do?

You think elected servants should be paid six figures or anyone working at the post office should as well?

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Ok, it's clear you don't think so, but, you really have no idea if any of the 200 and 300K per year postal workers are overpaid, do you?

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

postal workers salary The highest one is the one reported by the site that has an agenda, go figure, none of them have your inflated number. Where did you get that outliar? postal workers make a good salary, maybe it is time for the private sector to step up to the plate. I could see how the federal gov't offering employees a better retirement package could make the private sector look shameful, but that don't give their lemmings the right to bash a good thing. Business and the Guardians Of Privilege are just hating.

[-] -2 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Wrong, the postmaster general just got his pay, with bonuses, cut to still above that of a senator. It was over 300K with bonuses. The dozen hand appointed staffers were too vulgarly overpaid.

Do you know how many hours a year they actually "work". I didn't think so.

Now for the federal employees having better benefits than nearly most all other americans, fuck that and you too.

Even at that, it pales compared to what congress gets, again, fuck that and you too.

Make it available to all or let federal employees fend for themselves like everyone else.

regardless, the federal government employs over 10% of America's workforce with the actual real number being over 20%. Next add in all state and local government employees and you're looking at better than 30% of the workforce being paid by the remaining citizens.

This is absurd and anyone with any sense knows that's just too many.

BTW.... the average federal job cost taxpayers 4 million bucks from starting to death.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You just gave me an Idea, maybe if we pay this guy what the Post Master General makes, maybe the Fedex workers could have better benefits.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

That's brilliant!

If the majority merry band of morons would pull all their money OUT of the stock markets and say no to allowing thieves like him, of which mere investors have no say about how vulgarly he is compensated, the world would be a better place.

However, The People damned sure SHOULD have a say in how federal employees are compensated, union or not!

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

So is your claim that the private sector is unable to pay more than minimum wage or below federal levels because the federal bureaucracy is paid too much? I believe if we enact austerity on our gov't, not only will this make corruption more rampant, but I believe this would embolden employers to keep wages down for the working class.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

It's still lower than what a CEO and his or her management team make, so who cares. Now who is the envious one? You give me a hand full of people who make a lot of money and say they don't deserve it, two can play that game. Look at the supply chain they manage, running the logistics for such an endeavor well justifies the pay that baker's dozen receives. What are you saying that people in managerial positions should get paid the same as nearly most of the citizens? That sounds like a good idea, lets move that idea to the private sector and we'll see how well your logic holds up? Be careful, your argument seems a little envious, and not very right wing.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

You're small minded if you must resort to insisting I'm on one side or the other.

Here is my point, pal, MANY in government are indeed grossly over-compensated even if they were not stealing right out from the people's own savings and retirement accounts with impunity.

If the people are not willing to put a stop to their government riding them rough shod, they corporate elitist know their futures are safe for a looooooooooooooong time.

I know plenty working at the post office, several of them are dumber than a brick and do nothing resembling W O R K. Most of them are paid much closer to 100K than 52K, and either number is absurd for what they actually do, not even considering their lifetime cushy entitlements.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The first step to reverse this travesty has been taken.

I'm sure our help and support will be needed to see it through.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/25/1919381/postal-services-defazio/?mobile=nc

The libe(R)tarian HATE of unions must be negated

[-] 1 points by childseyes (85) 2 years ago

Scandalous manipulation by congress working to destroy government services that work. OMG! People get on this now. Hey, this is classic type behavior where an article 5 convention can fix things that can't be fixed any other way.

This is the only strategy I've seen that is comprehensive. i hope others can see that the effort we place in this legal process comes back tenfold.

http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?33-Amendment-By-Layers-Of-Priority-Amendment-Package-Making-CONST.-Intent

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

They seek to destroy the largest union in the US and privatize for profit resulting in service cuts and higher rates.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

This is one of those issue where I guess voting for democrats probably will make a difference.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

You get it!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Great post, thanks. How can everyone in this country not see by now how we are ALL under assault?

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

There was a medical study showing republican-conservative brains are wired differently and they ignore and deny facts.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

Good Post

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

In the interest of fair competition, all delivery corporations should be "forced" to fund all liability for next 75 years and do it in the next ten.

Just to level the playing field.

Plus they have to start delivering chickens.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

You got it!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Since this was "forced" on the USPS, It should also be "forced" on all corporations.

Just think, no more under funded pensions, while the guys at the top still get the golden parachutes that suck them dry...

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

All part of the rupugnicon initiative to privatize for profits.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

They don't really privatize anything, they profitize everything they can.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Yes, regardless of cost.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

We could cure it by demanding that Congress fund it's pension and health care plan the same way.

Along with some hefty member contributions................:)

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Yes, but that won't occur with repugnicons bent on destroying USPS and the union. Bernie Sanders gets it. This administration is silent. Obama could fix it by using the bully pulpit.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The correct question is. Who lobbied for this in the first place?

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

Hi bklynsboy, Good post. Time to bring up to top of page again.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Shooz above is right.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

Agree.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Where is the outrage on a $5B pension requirement?

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

Hi bklynsboy,
Much troll attention on this thread. This is validation that your post has great merit, and the cause is just. The trolling energizes us to post even more to get the truth out there. Best Regards, Nevada

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Yes. I believe they're paid by special interests to give OWS a bad rep. in the media.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

Hi bklysboy, Agree. Will visit here often to bump post for visibility. Best Regards

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

I think it can be done a limited number of times.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4651) 2 years ago

We will do our best.

[-] 1 points by belltor (60) 2 years ago

Called setting them up for failure to justify privatization

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Yes, even the Union Head sold them out. Donohoe

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is so true the R's hate this excellent example of the people doing something good through their government, they fear we might figure out we could do this a few other places as well, also on the unions, just thought this fit.

Going after unions is essential to their strategy, I know an airline pilot that makes poverty wages, it reminds me of the old quote, I was quiet when..., job by job they are taking down the middle class, doctors and lawyers may think they’re safe, but so did computer techs. Today the hot thing is “government unions” I was chatting with a troll and I told him why don’t you just drop the “government” truth is you hate all unions.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

They are purely dollar and profit driven, at all costs, even weakening America and endangering it. Applies to environmental regulation, endless wars and military actions, Wall St. deregulation. All for profit.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I think the justification for the goal of profit

is that in a free market money flow

will create the most efficient and inventive society

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

Free markets are a good thing, but we have Crony Capitalism, which is profitable to a very small number of well connected at the expense of the majority.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

seems like a waste of human resource

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

Over a mere 10 year period, the USPS was required to prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years, something no other government or private corporation is required to do. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader observed, if PAEA had never been enacted, USPS would now be facing a $1.5 billion surplus.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I don't know why guaranteeing health benefits should be so expensive

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

In 2006, Congress passed the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act (PAEA), which forced the USPS to put aside billions of dollars to pay for the health benefits of employees, many of whom hadn’t even been hired yet.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

congress has "fixed" the numbers on a successful government agency to cause unnecessary crisis

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

true, and this has not been reported by the main stream propaganda machine, which is owned by the one thousandth of one percent.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Free markets are an illusion. They always were and always will be.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

I agree with you to a point. Paul Craig Roberts Ph.D. Economist has pointed out the fact that our nation was not built by free trade but by protecting our markets.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Which of course misses the whole point of understanding that free markets are an illusion.

Now matter how you try and explain them, they will remain an illusion.

They can be nothing more.

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

It doesn't miss the point at all. Completely unfettered markets cannot exist.

The Constitution requires the Federal government to provide for the general welfare. The "Money Power" has seized control of our government and things have been deteriorating because of it.

"The World economy has been taken down and wrecked by the financial establishment and their economists; and by their supporters in the media they own, and even by some in the executive and legislative branches, in the name of “free markets” and insatiable greed. Shame! Shame on them all!

The American Monetary Act, [introduced by Congressman Kucinich] as the “National Economic Employment Defense Act” (the NEED Act, HR 2990) reforms the present United States money system, and it resolves the current banking crisis. It has the necessary reforms indicated by decades of research and centuries of experience. The "Lost Science of Money," by Stephen Zarlenga, shows that our present system has been put together piecemeal mainly by banking interests for their own advantage, without enough regard to our nation’s needs."

http://www.monetary.org/the-need-for-monetary-reform/2009/09

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

That is an interesting article. After reading it, the first thing that came to mind was that in our current configuration, being until the articles suggestions are implemented, the Fed chairman's confirmation process is as important to the future of this country as who sits on the Supreme Court.

I believe the most compelling statement was that "[b]anking is not a proper function of government, but providing the nation’s money supply is a government prerogative!" I believe this fact is lost in today's debate. The argument usually centers on who creates jobs and who gets paid for those jobs, missing the fact that neither of the two have authority, as stated in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin..."

I have always had mixed feelings about the FED, whether people want to see it, there is a logic for its existence. For this important reason, it really matters who sits in the Fed chairman's seat. The ability of a non political entity determining where the money is spent seems wise on face value, but, than again, here we are, dealing with the blow back from the human element being applied to any good intention.

The only thing I find problematic with the proposal is, do we really want the regulation of money value to be a political debate? There are many pros, but probably as many cons exist as well.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

I agree there is logic for the FED's existence (WITHIN) the U.S. Government, Department of the Treasury, (not as a privately owned entity). The Federal Reserve on its own website defines itself as a private entity within the government, the very definition of a parasite.

As for subjecting our monetary system to political debate, I would like you to reflect upon the dire situation we are facing at the present time. Even the political class COULD NEVER have messed things to this extent !

Consider these quotations from men of much greater understanding:

"If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon." by:Robert Hemphil, Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga. Source:In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money (1935)

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson

… The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. -Thomas Jefferson

If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. -Andrew Jackson

The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln

Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands. – Theodore Roosevelt

http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/famous-quotations-on-banking/

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That begs the question, who should we allow to do the fettering?

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

The Constitution is IMHO the second greatest document in the world and if our nation followed our laws we would be spared a great deal of grief.

Now, because of the internet, many are awakening to the reality of our banking and monetary system.

“Over time, whoever controls the money system, controls the nation.” - Stephen Zarlenga, Director American Monetary Institute

"Private money creation through 'fractional reserve' banking fosters an unprecedented concentration of wealth which destroys the democratic process and ultimately promotes military imperialism. Less than 1% of the population now claims ownership of almost 50% of the wealth, but vital infrastructure is ignored. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives a D grade to our infrastructure and says it will soon be a D-; and estimates that $2.2 trillion is needed to bring it to safe levels over the next 5 years!

That fact alone shows the world’s dominant money system to be a major failure crying for reform.

Infrastructure repair would provide quality employment throughout the nation. There is a pretense that government must either borrow or tax to get the money for such projects. But it is well enough known that the government can directly create the money needed and spend it into circulation for such projects, without inflationary results. A reformed monetary/banking system can make this happen NOW!"

http://www.monetary.org/

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If you're interested here's another way to look at it.

MMT would do away with the FED as we know it and eliminate federal income tax............:) Giving us sovereign currency.

http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

Yes, certainly. I looked over the PDf quickly . . . will return . . .

"If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."

Robert Hemphill Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga.

Source: In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money (1935)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Here's another look at MMT ( modern monetary theory).

This time from Mosler.

http://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/soft-currency-economics/

You will begin to hear more about MMT, as others are starting to see it as way out of the mess.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

Thx shooz, I copied the article and link - not taking for granted the availability of websites anymore, since SCROOGLE.org went away,

but now am using

http://www.StartPage.com

  • goes through GOOGLE but doesn't retain IP address.
[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'm with Dennis 100%

The current state of employment is a national security concern.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

me too - you should check out the link - alot of great information there

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Will do.....Thanks......:)

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (28256) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

True.

Like they say ( and you have to be watchful of "they" ) there is no free lunch.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Actually, we the tax payer of these United States pay for all lunches.

Including the "tax deductable" business lunches for WallStreet.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (28256) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

$14.00 muffins $12.00 dollar brownies.

This small shit may be what finally pokes the Bear one to many times.

It's funny what will outrage a person.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Tax deductible $14 muffins.........:)

It's not like they eat Hostess on WallStreet.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (28256) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I suppose that would depend on the Hostess. You have heard about those WallStreet boys.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Cut it out..yer makin' me laugh.

All I could think of was Hostess ho hos!!!!

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (28256) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Stop it your just as bad. - ho hos

LOL

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Yes, on the money! Profit is good when it is equitably distributed; not concentrated with the 1%.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Surly profit is justified but the ability to acquire power (ie money) by the individual must be limited, if the nation is to remain free.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

money could be continuously supplied to the people

for the money gatherers to work

those that gather money will be taxed to maintain the flow of money from the people

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Money is the power to command the services of others, to allow such a king to threaten the will of all others, for fear of fundamental disruption, when few are affected by such limits is not reasonable governance.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Money is the power to command the services of others,

to allow such a king to threaten the will of all others,

for fear of fundamental disruption,

when few are affected by such limits

is not reasonable governance.

what limits? what disruption? what king

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

“for the money gatherers to work” (I don’t know much forum stuff)

Seemed to me you were saying that it would be wrong to interfere with the free flow of money, that’s where the part about being afraid of disruption.

The other parts stem from; given that money is the power to command others, and no limits at all such as death or progressive income taxes then the wealth will grow to a point when it threatens the freedom of all others, this leads to the king, as I see it this is how most kings are made.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

for them no tax or labor cost is too low.....no matter the true cost

[-] 0 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

That's the reason for NAFTAS and outsourcing. Obama whines, "We must create jobs," and he enables job loss with NAFTAS.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

As I recall even more Rs supported NAFTAS than D's so calling Obama out with pointing out that "free trade" is for the most part pushed by the Rs seems designed to mislead.

[-] 0 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Yes, exactly right.

[-] 0 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

And not only that, Chinese firms and Chinese workers have been hired to buil our infrastructure, which is against the law when an American firm will do it for the same price. American firms have stated that they would have met all the criteria but no one seems to follow the law in this plutocracy.

[-] 0 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Unconscionable, outsourcing to foreign labor on US infrastructure projects, when there are Americans out of work. Germany has laws against outsourcing; that's why it's Europe's powerhouse.

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

Exerpt from Ernst & Young's opinion for the audit of September 30, 2011 financials.

As discussed more fully in Note 2 to the financial statements, the United States Postal Service, an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, is dependent upon future actions of the Government to continue its operations in the ordinary course as a result of increasing operating losses and near term statutory funding requirements for employee benefit obligations. Losses in recent periods have increased primarily due to sustained declines in mail volume, and statutory and regulatory restrictions have constrained the ability of the Postal Service to implement strategies to improve efficiency, reduce costs and increase revenues. On September 30, 2011, legislation was enacted that changed the due date of a $5.5 billion payment required by Public Law 109-435, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, to not later than November 18, 2011. The Postal Service does not expect to have sufficient cash to meet this obligation and a related additional obligation due by September 30, 2012 for $5.6 billion. Accordingly, management expects, but no assurances can be given, that additional legislation will be enacted in fiscal year 2012 to address the short-term funding requirements of the United States Postal Service.

The post office has two different issues: 1) net operating losses and 2) liquidity (lack of liquidity).

As of September 30, 2011, the Post Office had current assets of $2.6 mil and current liabilities of $18.9 mil. In other words, the Post Office cannot pay their bills and given their losing trend for the last several years, they have no prospects of correcting the situation.

From the footnotes of their financials:

                  2011    2010    2009   2008   2007

Mail Pieces, Number 166,461 169,471 175,363 201,128 210,604

The accounting term funding is being used on this forum as if it was synonymous with expense (accruals) but the two are not the same. In other words, recognizing the expense is not the same as submitting the funds to an escrow account. Retirement benefits are recognized as an expense when the employee earns them via years of service while paying them into an escrow is governed by a different legal authority (the trust agreement).

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

The bottom line is they made $700 million in profits but the $5.5B is breaking them. Intentionally and descriminatorially designed to do so because NO OTHER business in the US has this requirement.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I think you have a really good action statement here. OWS should demand that all corporations meet the requirements that the USPS must meet, funding retirements for the full 75 year history would be better for all workers, just know you got one liberal on your side.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Postal workers will probably go the way of the horse drawn buggy salesman. There is less and less a need for sending mail each year. Other businesses like book stores, music stores, and video stores are on the way out as well.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

To a minor extent. 2011, 268 billion pieces of mail handled. Hardly extinct. USPS makes money except for the targeted congressional bill for them paying for their retirement for 75 years in the futuree which no other company has!

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Actually you are off by 100 billion. The number is 167.9 billionpieces processed in 2011 http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm

The usefulness diminishes every year. Post mail is a waste of paper. As for packages, why not let the private handlers do the job. We are no longer in the days of train robberies where we needed the US government to step in.

It is funny, I was making the argument to a friend about bookstores. He claimed people will always want to read from paper books. Less than a year later the nation's second largest bookstore "Borders" went out of business. Barnes and Noble is hanging on with the Nook but the stores are pretty empty..

I believe libraries will become outdated very soon as well. The are near the end of their existence as useful institutions.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Get Out the Vote this November!

If YOU don't Vote, YOU don't Count!!!

Support USPS!!

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Yes and call your congress person, they decide.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

While well meaning perhaps this is all wrong. The best thing that can happen now is to get rid of he Post Office & repeal the laws granting them an effective monopoly. Let the market provide efficient & lower cost alternatives to this lumbering dinosaur.

Time for the Mail Monopoly to Go There Is Much to Gain from Privatizing the Postal Service http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/time-for-the-mail-monopoly-to-go/

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

You are wiser than the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and called for a Mail service by the government? Privatization ALWAYS leads to higher rates and reduced service. NOT in the public interest, unless you sound a 1 %er.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

I don't worship anyone including the Founders. Competition leads to lower prices that's why it's important to end the make work project known as the USPS:

"The first substantial challenges to the legitimacy of the federal Postal Service occurred in 1839 when anger over high postage costs and patronage within the post office led businessmen to establish private postal ventures.3 Postal inspectors attempted to frighten away private mail carriers by prosecuting Adams & Company, a New York-based mail delivery service. Attempts at prosecution failed when Adams was acquitted in 1843, with the court ruling that the federal government’s postal monopoly did not extend to mail carried by the emergent technologies of the railroad and steamship.4 When prosecuting private mail carriers proved fruitless, the federal government, fearing challenges to the legality of the postal service such as those raised by Lysander Spooner’s American Letter Mail Company, sought other ways to stamp out private competition.5 Such efforts eventually proved successful; the federal government eliminated most private mail carriers by 1860 through a 50 percent reduction in the postage rate and extra-legal tactics (such as declaring all city streets “post roads”).6"

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/time-for-the-mail-monopoly-to-go/

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Bullshit. Ignore the most brilliant examples of the Enlightenment and those who devised the most successful democratic state in history in an era of absolute monarchies? America is in dire straights because fools don't heed the lessons and warnings of history. Try jumping off a rooftop. You can fly. Don't listen to people who say you can't. Ignore others who broke their neck in the past. It won't happen to you, Richard.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Maybe you think the US is "...the most successful democratic state in history" All the dead Indians, Iraqis, Filipinos, ad nauseum would disagree. By modelling their govt on the Roman republic the Founders got Roman results. It is very much as Patrick Henry warned when advocating against the constitution:

Shall Liberty or Empire Be Sought? http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Henry%27s_speech_in_the_Virginia_Ratifying_Convention

"But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, ... Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects."

"It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

You can't make up your mind: ignore the past or quote it. Selective amnesia?

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Nice 2 step on your part here, dancing around facts that refute your ideas. You ought to run for office. You'd fit in well with the politicians.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

You shed credibility when you discount the wisdom of the Founding fathers and lessons of history. Further arguments become pointless.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Last I checked Patrick Henry was one of the Founders. He also opposed the constitution.

Regardless, one should always think for oneself. Question everyone including the Founders. They had some good ideas but 200+ years later we see that they got a lot wring too.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

That's why America still works, we're the most powerful country in history and the Constitution, the product of the Founding fathers is a living document still governing us. You are in denial/dreamland and living in an unreal alternate FOX universe..

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Fox? LOL The neo cons hate libertarians. I'll leave you to your love of empire. Oh wait now there's a Fox news position if I've ever seen one!

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

postal workers = more stupid government workers that spent billions of dollars on automated mail delivery systems, (have you ever toured one of their facilities? they have probably a hundred automated facilities as big as disneyland, set up like tomorrow land).

When they go bankrupt those billion dollar machines will just sit there in giant multi-million dollar buildings collecting dust.

Uh, perhaps they could have spent millions (instead of billions) on people mail sorters and they would still be in business? Just a thought.

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Orders of magnitude more wasteful are the 1000+ US military bases around the world, and growing, preparing for the next Cold War attack that vanished over 20 years ago with the fall of Communism. Try trillions wasted on these. And new ICBMs, subs carriers, destroyers. For what? Who can conquer us? Cry about your tax dollars going to the fat military contractors. US spends as much as the rest ofthe world combined on military. Don't whine about a few bil. PO debt.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20901) 2 years ago

Do you not understand that the Postal Service is the ONLY organization in the country being required to fund its pensions for the next 75 years? In fact, most corporations are off the hook and barely fund their pensions to be current at all.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

most people dont even have a pension. just like most people dont have a portfolio, or a 401k. In fact, it was investigated and revealed that you could have thrown darts at a dart board to pick stocks and those random stocks would have out performed nearly every 401k plan, (especially from 2007-2008) because of the inherit hidden fees associated with them through hedge fund managers.

again, me and my entire family going back 3 generations never received a pension, now owned land since it was taken from us, and Im supposed to feel sorry for the white man's pension plan? Funny, I just dont.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20901) 2 years ago

So, then why should the post office be required to have the best damn funded pension in the U.S.? To bankrupt them. It's very plain and simple. It is a plan to bankrupt the post office.

And, as a thought to everything you say, which is all true, perhaps we should all be questioning what happened to our pension plans, especially the ones that were suddenly converted to 401(k)s. In other words, how many employees really understand the actuarial formulas that were used to convert those plans from defined benefit to defined contribution? Maybe this should be investigated.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28256) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep. Many pension plans are a scam that are never even close to being fully funded. That's the scam. Then when the business goes through bankruptcy restructuring - more often than not any funds there are are used illegally to satisfy debts.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20901) 2 years ago

Pension plans and their conversions from defined benefit (regular pension) to defined contribution (401k) should be investigated. I bet there's been a load of shenanigans in those conversions that benefited corporations.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28256) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

To say the least. Manipulation of uneducated workers to get them to freely (?) risk their money too.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20901) 2 years ago

Yup. But, how do they make those calculations to convert them in the first place? I've always wondered about that. I mean, I know they use actuaries based on age and rates of return but surely the calcs favor the employers and employees rarely even see those calcs let alone question them.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28256) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The really big built in break for the employer comes in a Federal Tax break that really covers their contribution to the program and more. They end up looking pretty when tax time rolls around.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20901) 2 years ago

20, 30 years from now when millions and millions of people try to retire on what they have in these defined contribution plans is going to be another crisis.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28256) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

If we let it get there. This is also why we are here.

Fighting greed and corruption is not a small or isolated task. We have only seen a glimpse of what came out of Pandora's Box.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

If those benefits are guaranteed, then isn't it a good idea to have the money set aside?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

For 75 years? What, are you crazy? No business has that ability. No business has ever done it. The law is an attack on the postal service workers, because if the postal service goes under (as this legislation was designed to make happen) the postal workers themselves would be out of work. And their union - the real target - would disband. SOME of those workers MIGHT find new jobs at UPS which pays a fraction of their current wages and has no defined pension plan. It is a naked assault by the 1% on the 99%. It is class warfare.

[-] 0 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

It's an assault of email. Have you heard of it? If so, let someone at the Post Office know. Government and change: I know the two don't mix, especially when a union is involved.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

An assault on a PROFITABLE concern. The USPS was operating in the BLACK before this legislation.

But don't let the facts get the the way of your mythology. They haven't so far.

[-] 0 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Email. Thankfully, this is one government entity that can't pile-up retirement promises to drop in the taxpayer's lap. They would if they could and the union would encourage it all the way.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Keep drinking the liberardian right wing cool aid. NO company has to pay for its retirement fund IN FULL FOR 75 YEARS! ZERO. NOT ONE. This law GUARANTEES that CURRENT retirees will have to settle for whatever fraction of their pensions the government decides will be paid out, since the law effectively destroys the Postal Service.

Fact-challenged idiot.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Email challenged Post Office. Congress for once saw something coming. Thank God for small miracles.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Keep ignoring the fact that the USPS was running a profit. You are allowed to believe your own lies. Just don't expect others to.

Do the Kocks pay you to swallow the shit from their assholes, or do you just volunteer?

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Read my reply to bklynsboy above, the USPS is a dying business with our without these payments.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The USPS was running a PROfIT before this legislation. Those numbers you posted can be correlated to anything, including the recession. Unless you know the causes, you can't say it was in long term trouble. But this legislation made SURE it would be insolvent.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

So you don't think that the advent of emails, text messaging, social networking, paperless billing, paperless payments, etc.. has had anything to do with decreased revenue? Come on man, be real. You can look back even further and you see first-class mail decreased about 25% just from 2001.

In case you don't believe me, this is straight from the USPS itself:

"Since 2006, First-Class Mail volume has rapidly declined, leaving a mail mix that generates far less revenue than it costs to sustain postal operations. The dramatic decline in mail volume has resulted in an enormous amount of excess capacity within the network, creating significant opportunity for consolidation."

http://about.usps.com/what-we-are-doing/our-future-network/welcome.htm

That is fancy business talk for "our product is no longer in demand."

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Considering that FedEx and UPS are still going strong, no. Sure , it had it's effects, but nothing pointing to insolvency, which this legislation GUARANTEED.

And because it is required to divert ALL of its funds to a workforce that WON'T EVEN EXIST 75 years from now, it can't reinvest any profits, update technology, or do ANY of the things that every other business can in order to stay competitive.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

FedEx and UPS are going strong because they ship things that can't be sent electronically and they do it cheaper and more efficiently than the USPS. They have effectively limited the USPS to being simply letter and junk mail carriers, and those are being used less and less every year. It is simple competition between businesses and FedEx and UPS have cornered the USPS into a little niche that is unfortunately dying. Nothing wrong with it, it is just business.

The Pony Express used to be a nice little operation. It become obsolete though. The same thing is happening to the USPS because less and less people and business are using paper-based communications. And that is actually a good thing for our environment.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

UPS can reinvest a good deal of its profits because it pays their workers slave wages. Despite that, the USPS was STILL profitable. It's just that the CEO wasn't making tens of millions of dollars.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

They sell a product that is going out of fashion. It is that simple. Nothing lasts forever. They could probably still remain profitable as long as they continue to downsize each year. That will only last so long though.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

They were put out of business by Congress for the sake of destroying the Union and hurting workers. They are being forced to downsize because their money was essentially stolen. If downsizing was necessary at some point in the future, that could have largely been accomplish through attrition, but that option has been stolen from them.

And you know all this. You simply hate public sector unions, and support this decision because it falls neatly in line with your own agenda. You are, and this isn't the first time, being dissembling and disingenuous.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I just don't like paying more for something than I have to. The USPS does not really offer anything to me. Most everything is electronic now and the things that cannot be sent electronically are handled more cheaply and efficiently by FedEx and UPS.

In your opinion, how much should they have to put towards their future pension and healthcare obligations instead of the $5.5 billion currently required?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

As many years as the average business does. The idea that any company, public or private, has to FULLY FUND all of its workers, at the current level of employment for 75 years is insane. It is an absolutely transparent ploy to kill the union. There is nothing remotely subtle about it. There are no nuances or gray areas. It is so outlandish that just a few years ago no one would have believed such a plan existed and would have called you nuts for suggesting it.

Yet here it is.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

The flip side, they have done so virtually without any competition and fully subsidized for years by the very people it served....

just like the federal government which employs, above the board and documented over 10% of the working citizens and at average wages/benefits that are MUCH HIGHER than private sector workers.

I have no sympathy for any of them.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Are you kidding me? The average government worker earns FAR less than his or her counterpart in the private sector. The documentation of that is through the roof.

But regarding Postal workers, some do indeed make more than slaves for UPS. I guess you'd rather see everyone living in poverty, though, with no health benefits or defined pensions, and hardly a living wage to begin with. What a shit-head.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

I was a UPS slave! They use the young like bubble-gum. Eat and spit.

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

trolls, repubnicons and conservatives have brain wiring problems where they ignore facts and vomit the Fox points.

[-] -2 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

I'd love to meet you in person and show you what a shit head really is, up close and very personal like.

I'd just bet that ass of yours can't back up that mouth and would waste zero time giving you a chance to prove otherwise.

The average Federal Government salary is 75K/year with benefits far exceeding those of the average private sector. That's an average for over 21 million federal employees, If the actual number of shadow employees was added in, the number would be much higher.

Would you next like to tell me the average wage in America is 75K?

I sure don't think even your fcuktard ass will try that.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The Federal government salary you're quoting includes senators, congressmen, lawyers, and the President.

The AVERAGE income in America if you factor in everybody, is about $135,000.00 per year. The MEAN average is far lower, about $50 -60,000.00

Your statement can be traced back to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and crudely (and distortedly) analyzed - largely by the Koch partners in CATO - by dividing total compensation (salary and benefits) by the number of current federal civilian employees.

Comparing such averages is intentionally misleading, for two reasons:

First, BEA says the figure is inflated by including compensation that is actually paid to benefit retirees, not just for current workers. The figure is at least several thousand dollars too high.

Second, the average federal civilian worker is better educated, (They have Bachelors degrees by a 2 to 1 margin over the private sector) more experienced and more likely to have management or professional responsibilities than the average private worker.

And the government has been transferring lower skill workers to the private sector for the last several years, and as a result there are fewer low wage, low skill workers in their ranks.

When comparing public and private workers with THE SAME education level performing similar work the government employees make FAR less; on average 33% less.

But lets not parse words. Instead of bemoaning the fact that government workers appear (by your erroneous estimate, culled from right wing propaganda machines) why not work to raise everyone's boat instead of trying to tear down theirs? You don't have a similar issue with the fact that 1% of the population owns 43% of the wealth, or that the top 400 people in the country have as much or more than the bottom 150,000,000!

If you are jealous of decent retirement benefits for government workers, why don't you go on union organizing drives to win those benefits for everyone?

Your double standards are showing; the Emperor has no clothes.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Oh you mean everybody like the 1% who own roughly half all the wealth in the USA?

There is zilch wrong with including congress and the president. They are very overpaid and then all hire expansive staff because it would seem all those jobs are far too much for them to handle without at least a staff of 100.

Even at that, their numbers are tiny compared to the 21,000,000 that the government overtly employs. I bet you have no idea how many shadow employees are indirectly on the government payroll.

I bet you even believe there are only 1 million in our nation's military. I bet you would argue that there aren't mere truck driver's, privatey contracting through Haliburton, et al, being paid roughly a million a year in the middle east, AND LOTS OF THEM. Other more qualified and specially skilled types are paid lots more. None of that is forthrightly disclosed in the corporate government's shell games.

Now run your trifling bitch ass along and see if you can't find the average salary of the lower 90, or even 99% and do not include any federal employees, then make your comparisons.

Federal employees are far too many in number and greatly overpaid. It would be different if all citizens could apply for the same benefits, healthcare and retirement packages they recieve, but, that ain't the case, toots.

I may not have any clothes, but, you are patently devoid sound logic or much in the way of brains. And you also seem to be one of those "more government and pay them lots more" types whose existences on this planet cannot remotely be justified.

Obama's staff of 450-ish (not counting his czars) cost tax payers 37 million a year, guess how much that elite handful will cost the citizens up until their projected deaths?

BTW... the AVERAGE federal employee costs citizens 4 million from starting date to death.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Wow, You understood absolutely nothing of my post. Congratulations. You are officially a moron.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Let's meet in person. Whatcha say, champ?

I bet you'd "yes sir" and "no sir" me like I was your daddy, and not the spineless pansy who obviously did his version of raising the useless and disrespectful idiot punk that you are.

I'd love seeing your lip tremble and your eyes water, if you didn't piss yourself first.

If you're not a man, my ol lady would gladly fill in for me, regardless of your gender.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Is that a sad attempt at a physical threat?

Fuck you, Nazi.

[-] -2 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

No punk, it's a cordial invitation to see if that mouth of yours works in person like it does anonymously, and an assurance that if it did, it wouldn't work that way very long.

When's the last time you had your ass proper stomped?

I know the answer, not recently enough.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to your post below:

Although I really have no wish to do violence to you as you have threatened me with, I must admit that I wouldn't mind hearing about you drowning in a pool of the bile and lies you spew.

You are here as a troll. You do not supprt OWS. You come to sow disortion and opposition. You are the interloper, fool.

Why don't you just stay with your maggot friends over at the Heritage Foundation. You'll find plenty of friends there. And no one from the Left stupid enough, inappropriate enough, psychotic enough to go there to troll.

Crawl back to the slimy bridge you live under and choke on your violence and puss-filled bile.

Have bad night. Bye! Don't let the door hit your ass (or is that your brain - hard to tell) on the way out.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Don't you hate when the reply button disappears before you're need to talk more trash has been never satiated?

I know you have no desire to stand face to face with any of the people you talk your trash too, you're a coward. If you ever found yourself in such a position, you'd quickly be begging to polish my ass kicking boots.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"When's the last time you had your ass proper stomped"

That's not a lame attempt at a physical threat? You don't even know the truth of you very own words.

Considering your cognitive challenges, it is amazing that you can type, though. Much appreciation for your case worker or therapist.

Now if only they can turn you into an actual human being......

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

So you have no interest in standing face to face with ANY of the people, on this forum, to which you talk your chicken shit trash?

Yeah punk, I'm telling you I'd love to meet you and see if that's how you are in person. I'm also telling you it won't work out well for you if you're truly as foolish in person as you are while hiding behind a keyboard.

I've read plenty of your posts to plenty of people here, and I know you are nothing more than a pimply faced punk.

Like I told you earlier, I seriously doubt your ass can cash the checks that mouth writes.

I think it would be great FOR YOU to get out amongst actual human beings and find out just how many have zero tolerance for punk ass bitches like you. Easy way or hard way matters not to me, although I'm pretty sure the hard way would be a better learned lesson for you, kiddo.

Something for you to think about and possibly allow such a reality to heavily influence what you say and to whom. You may just find out you're not nearly as anonymous as you'd like to believe. ;-)

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You're correct. I have no desire to stand in front of gorilla-brained fascist trolls. They smell too much.

Byeeeee.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

I am correct, you are a mouthy punk and a coward.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to post below,

I am very respectful to humans. I am simply not respectful to you, as you don't qualify. (Unless Neanderthal is considered human.)

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Oh contraire amigo, you talk trash to many people as standard operating procedure.

I've read you do it many times and sat back watching while thinking, I'd like to go stomp the living shit out of this maggot just for the sport of it. I really would too and would hope you aren't some scrawny busted up worm so you'd have a chance.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to your post below: And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why the right wing fucktards are so loved and respected. They have no integrity or ideas, but damned if they can't threaten. Might makes right, huh, asshole?

Learn that while daddy was tarring your hide and abusing your sister?

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Ha ha ha......... more insight to the past and current personal abuse that makes you tick!

Oh, I tossed out a fine idea and I bet people would pay money to see us "meet".

Come on, we'll donate the proceeds to charity. First one down and done is out and the other gets to pick the charity.

Seriously, I owe it to you to teach you to be respectful when you speak to other humans, even if you disagree with them.

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

R E A D the post: the $5 billion a year is what's damaging. It's exclusively designed to kill the postal service. No other business in the us has this.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Lets look at the USPS revenue from its mailing services, straight from their 10-K:

2007: $66.9B 2008: $66.5B 2009: $59.8B 2010: $58.6B 2011: $56.7B

Those numbers, combined with things like increasing fuel costs and the yearly raises given to employees, are signs of a dying business. $5 billion payment or not, the USPS is a dying business.

I really don't think it should surprise anyone though. Emails and social networking have all but eliminated personal letters and lots of inter/intra-business communications. And I, like millions of other Americans, get paperless bills and also pay electronically. Less and less people have a need for the USPS.

I am actually a member of the Atlanta Postal Credit Union, and have my car loan through them, because my father was a rural letter carrier. I definitely have nothing against them. But the numbers don't lie - the USPS is a dying business.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

What part of : The USPS has $700 MILLION profit a year, EXCEPT for the $5 Billion congress-mandated pension payment, don't you understand? The ONLY business in the US required to pay this to fund pensions 75 YEARS IN THE FUTURE? Designed to bankrupt the USPS only by repugnicons.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

How much, in your opinion, should they have to put towards future pension and healthcare benefits instead of the $5.5 billion they are now required to?

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Whatever the standard accepted practice is, in line with peer industries.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

So you think that if they did that, they would still manage to turn a profit and have a sustainable business model going forward? Even if it is only 15% of what they currently pay it still eats up all of that $700 million. And the only reason they manage to not take huge losses is by making massive cuts to make up for the declining revenue. You can't make big cuts indefinitely.

I just don't think anyone can look at the USPS as a business, and considering the sharply declining demand for their product, and think it is going to successful in the long run.

So yes, you are correct that they should not have to fund themselves 75 in advance, simply because there likely won't be a USPS anymore at that point.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

You are unqualified to claim 15%. All experts state it is SOLELY the $5.5B/year payment that is breaking them. A sum designed to specifically target the PO. Also, their service is desperately needed in rural and urban areas that privates won't serve.

[-] -1 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

Fed EX does it better

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Not cheaper, more conveniently or offers as many services.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Call 'em and see how far you can ship a chicken.

Ask them how much they want to go door to door in every neighborhood in America.

USPS does it much better............:) and they do it for less.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

Dude call a fufillment center and you'll find they only do it cheaper. I've talked to fufillment center after fufillment center if you start a mail order business someday you'll see you'll use FED EX.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

As usual, you didn't answer the question.

Besides, if I need that kind of carrier, I prefer UPS.

When I worked for a publisher, I took lots of stuff to the post office every single day.

USPS rocks!!!

FedEx sucks.

[-] -2 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

I suppose you like big govt too what do you think is gonna happen to the police state you protest agtainst in minneapolis.I understand your anger I'm angry too but don't let it blind you and question where your going.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Do you ever answer a question?

No wonder you hate teachers.

[-] -1 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

LOL I don't hate teachers I don't even hate thier union what I can't stand and what I'm here to discuss is ows alliance with Unions and how that alliance has ruined a great thing potentially for this country. Sorry about not answering the question but if this is an interrogationI want a lawyer.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Another confused statement.

Do you get your info from CATO, or Heritage?

[-] -1 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

I noticed you like to avoid the issue of unions and ows with barages of insults. This behavior only furthers my belief that you are corrupted by these same unions. Get real speak the truth. The 99 are not dumb.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You can't answer a simple question. So don't wonder why you aren't being treated as well as you might like.

Your first thread was posted to poke at people, so don't complain about being poked back. As I said in my first response, this issue has been dealt with umpteen times.

It's incumbent on you to do the research within this forum, if you are going to repeat Heritage Foundation crap.

What's next from you? defense of Limbaugh?

[-] -3 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

Nope. How was that? Asked and aswered. Now my question to you. Can you see the hypocrysy within OWS for its alliance with Unions?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

How in the world is an alliance with organizations that share many of the aims of OWS, some form of hypocrisy?

You're just chasing ghosts.

[-] -1 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

You don't see how money has corrupted our entire political system?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You didn't answer the question, again.

Why, oh why, do they never answer the question, and then demand answers to theirs?

[-] -2 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

By allying with Unions OWS is promoting the further corruption of our political system through campaign contributions on the part of Unions. You said OWS is about fighting corruption. Thus we have hypocrasy within the movement. Furthermore how will you ever accomplish anything for the 99 without getting the money out of politics first? And how can you get the money out while allied with unions?

[-] -1 points by onepercentguy (294) 2 years ago

this is why no one takes OWS seriously. you people want to pour money into an agency that is dying due to precipitous declines in mail volume on one end and politically-imposed high legacy costs on the other end. the business model is a failure.

i hope they cut the work staff in half and reduce mail delivery to three days a week. privatize package mail, etc.

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

You are the poster child of the non-comprehension problem of Fox inhalers: the PO turns a profit except for the $5.5B 75 year pension requirement your buddies passed to break it and the union that terrorizes them. boo hoo.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

actually it's government requiring them to operate their business in a fashion not expected of any other company in that industry. A law made for just one company. The technical term for such a practice I believe is fascism.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/18/is-benefits-law-dragging-down-the-postal-service/

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 2 years ago

YOU can support the Postal Union Workers. And here is how. All YOU need to do is turn OFF your computer. Go to the post office and purchase stamps. There you go. If the Postal Service and the Union workers are saved it is because you did this. If they fail,,, it's because you really dont give a CRAP about union workers. GO for it.

[-] 4 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

It's not a complex post: the PO runs a profit except for the $5B annual payment, designed to kill it. Emails etc don't hurt it. Read it slowly.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

I love it. I bet more than half of this group spends jack shite zilch with the post office. I have shipped thousands of packages with them over the last ten years alone. I ship with them when it makes good dollars and sense.

However, I know damned good and well they could be even more competitive if their employees weren't vulgarly overpaid, especially at the upper levels.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

The Post Office needs to fess up to email. Change: Something government handles poorly.

The Post Office and the union would've love to mount the retirement promises and delay reform. Thankfully, Congress showed some rare foresight and stopped the scam in its tracks.

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Your post is meaningless and incoherent. You have zero responce to the FACTS. Watch FOX much?

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Volumes are collapsing because of email. The Post Office is only now talking about adjustments. That's government and that's unions. Together, they're even more toxic.

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Your inability to understand the written word amazes.

[-] -1 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Yeah, just like the Post Office's inability to understand the implications of email. LOL.