USPS posts $586M net lost for 3rd quarter of FY15 (an improvement over the same period last year). No more tax dollars.

libtard detector wrote:

So the cost for longer distances isn't much but distance based postal rates would "hammer the middle of the country".

Clueless? Partisan? Or both?

Clearly as a conservative you lack the intellectual capacity to understand basic concepts like math and probability, but hey, somebody's got to be the stupid ones and conservatives fit that role nicely. Remember, even one of your own presidential candidates has said you're dumb as a box of rocks.

In any case smart people can figure out that the coasts have ample opportunity to obtain goods locally or regionally, where the sparsely populated regions mainly in the midwest would not. So those near heavily populated areas would see little or no impact, maybe even a slight reduction, and all the increased burden out be outstate areas, primarily in the center of the country. If you went pure cost-recovery based then things like sectional centers in lesser populated areas would be more expensive on a per-unit basis because the equipment would process less volume.

So yes, they would hammered by any distance based rates because the probability is they'd be the only ones affected to any degree. It would be more technically accurate to say "outstate areas" instead of "center of the country", but even you figured out who I was talking about. They mostly vote conservative anyway, so fuck 'em. Go for it.

Your sputtering of hatred shows that I was right. But you even said private companies won't set distance based rates because of market forces. So explain, deer libtard, why anyone at all would be affected by denationalizing the USPS. Try to control your anger when answering.

USPS DOESN'T RECIEVE TAX DOLLARS

All you libtards, repubtards, and other non-descripttards don't need to worry further about the state of the USPS. Very soon, all your junk mail will be funded by Lance Armstrong when he repays all that sponsorship money that he received through fraudulent means.

You are welcome.

libtard detector wrote:

Your sputtering of hatred shows that I was right. But you even said private companies won't set distance based rates because of market forces. So explain, deer libtard, why anyone at all would be affected by denationalizing the USPS. Try to control your anger when answering.

Again, your lack of comprehension is amazing, condescension isn't hatred. It's not hatred to be condescending towards lesser peoples, in fact it's a lot of fun. I'm not angry, but I am laughing my a[\i]ss off at your ignorance. If we want to talk partisan, everything you and your cohorts have said is nothing conservative tom-foolery based on ignorance how both markets, and business, operates. You may be willing to bend over and let the Koch's of the world blow smoke up your behind without even the benefit of a reach around, but I prefer to actually think about this type of thing instead of receiving predigested BS.

So I'll try typing really slowly so maybe your tiny little conservative brain can comprehend. Smart people know that the market forces operate rationally where there is volume. USPS offers fixed rates for most items AND is required to service everyone. If you eliminate USPS and/or the requirement that they offer universal service, then we're back to the same thing we had with telephone and electrical service last century. Not enough volume, so private companies simply won't offer it or offer it at a price no-one can afford.

Private companies offer the fixed rates to skim the cream off the top of the USPS traffic. Take out the USPS and the market collapses, private companies still make money off the cream, and the expensive to serve areas take it in the shorts. Private companies have zero desire to service every door, in fact some of them are hiring the USPS to do it for them.

Smart people that pay attention understand that, but conservatives don't.

Uh, did you say private companies, like FedEx, won't ship packages or letters to small markets? Really?

Fred Smith wrote:

Uh, did you say private companies, like FedEx, won't ship packages or letters to small markets? Really?

I doubt they will because they don't receive taxpayer dollars like USPS does. If FedEx gets a buck from the state, they'll deliver anywhere, I'm sure.

fsddfsa wrote:

Fred Smith wrote:

Uh, did you say private companies, like FedEx, won't ship packages or letters to small markets? Really?

I doubt they will because they don't receive taxpayer dollars like USPS does. If FedEx gets a buck from the state, they'll deliver anywhere, I'm sure.

How can you doubt that a company would be willing to provide a service that they have already been providing for years? FedEx currently delivers packages to small markets without subsidy.

Doesn't USPS deliver FedEx and UPS parcels to the far-out, less-than-savory destinations?

I didn't say anything about distance, so I'm not sure what you're ranting about.

It makes economic sense for people to bear the costs associated with their decisions. If I want to live in Manhattan, I will pay higher rent. If you want to live in a tent in Montana, you pay more to ship things. Certain things about choosing to live in the middle of the country are expensive. Why subsidize inefficiency instead of letting people decide for themselves if the actual cost is worth whatever benefit they gain from living in a particular location?

From an environmental perspective, people will continue to over-consume resources as long as it is subsidized. We have made it artificially cheap for people to choose to consume massive amounts of land and drive 50+ miles per day just to go to work. If someone wants to live this lifestyle, fine. But I don't see any benefit in encouraging it.

454554 wrote:

Doesn't USPS deliver FedEx and UPS parcels to the far-out, less-than-savory destinations?

Yes.

Our local USPS also delivers Sunday parcels ONLY for Amazon.com, which I find interesting.

Fred Smith wrote:

Uh, did you say private companies, like FedEx, won't ship packages or letters to small markets? Really?

Happens today. While you can ship TO small markets (although you'll find they won't have the same services level) it's very difficult to ship FROM.

There's significant history in this, and it's why many telephone and electrical systems in rural areas are (or were) cooperatives that are often government subsidized. The same situation exists for internet service.

A commercial operation is going to expect margin on top of the operational expenses, a co-op (or USPS) is not, so the former is going to say "not worth the trouble". That in an of itself puts outstate areas at a huge disadvantage of you take the co-op or USPS off the table, or make the individual services too expensive to afford.

Sure, you can say "don't like it, move" or "use the internet", but that's not going to endear you to about 1/3 of the country. As I noted earlier they mostly vote conservative anyway so maybe it's time they pay some consequences for their actions.

I visited my local USPS office this week. I wanted to mail a couple letters. Handed the clerk a $20 bill. Her reply: "YOU AIN'T GOT NUTHIN' SMALLER THAN THAT?!" Me...thinking maybe I'd handed her a $100 bill: Um....no, sorry....it's a $20, not a $100, right? WELL, I JUST GOT HERE AND I AIN'T HAD A CHANCE TO GET NO CHANGE!

When I visit this office in summer months, it's so cold inside that people actually complain about it - even when it's 90 outside. The employees wear sweaters.

fsddfsa wrote:

I doubt they will because they don't receive taxpayer dollars like USPS does. If FedEx gets a buck from the state, they'll deliver anywhere, I'm sure.

T-H-E

U-S

P-O-S-T-A-L

S-E-R-V-I-C-E

H-A-S

N-O-T

R-E-C-E-I-V-E-D

A

T-A-X

D-O-L-L-A-R

S-I-N-C-E

1-9-8-2

LEONARD SMALLS wrote:

I visited my local USPS office this week. I wanted to mail a couple letters. Handed the clerk a $20 bill. Her reply: "YOU AIN'T GOT NUTHIN' SMALLER THAN THAT?!" Me...thinking maybe I'd handed her a $100 bill: Um....no, sorry....it's a $20, not a $100, right? WELL, I JUST GOT HERE AND I AIN'T HAD A CHANCE TO GET NO CHANGE!

When I visit this office in summer months, it's so cold inside that people actually complain about it - even when it's 90 outside. The employees wear sweaters.

If they weren't receiving tax $, I doubt they'd have the A/C running so much.

My mom worked for the Post Office for 35 years. One of the reasons that they're struggling financially is because our dear Congress authorized FedEx and UPS to directly compete with them. I tried to look up the year that this happened, but couldn't find anything online. I'll contact my mom and post an update.

She used to run the bulk mailing unit at our regional P.O. For a previous poster complaining about the junk mail filling up your mailbox, well that's the only way that the P.O. is staying afloat. The revenue from first class mail isn't enough to pay the bills.

Every time the Post Office proposes a change to their operations to address the problem of losing money - such as closing low volume branches, eliminating Saturday delivery, adding new services - Congress nixes it.

So it's not their fault. This is the USPS that Congress wants, this is the USPS Congress gets.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fsddfsa wrote:

Even though their financials have improved a bit, I don't think our tax dollars should go toward this dinosaur.

How about the military? Did they post a profit in the 3rd quarter of FY15?