Usps

[☭proletarian☭]

Can anyone think of any reason to keep USPS in existence? It might have served a function at its inception, but I can't see any reason to keep it around in the modern age, with multiple private companies providing the same services.


'Postmaster General John Potter announced that the U.S. Postal Service is facing $238 billion in losses over the next 10 years' (source). Why are we continuing to subsidize this system? If it can't break even and the private sector provides plenty of alternatives, why should we continue to throw billions into it?

Do they deliver MAIL daily? I realize the private sector has delivering packages down to a T...but just regular mail? Can they be profitable delivering letters to the rural residences in America with transportation/oil costs being so volatile? They could perhaps try to increase their profits on packages, to compensate for the loss they would take on daily mail delivery?

What would a letter cost to mail? $2.00 each? $3.00 each?

a letter costs 55 cents to mail and no--2.00 is too damn much. That is why the private companies send packages and express mail at a premium! To send basic mail through the private corps is expensive not cheaper. Thus presenting a counter-example to the concept of "Privatization and competition makes goods cheaper".

I still don't see why I should pay 2oo billion dollars over the next decade to receive a bunch of junk mail.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I know, since I called out USPS, more threads are spawning.


Kinda like me staring the thread about liberals and IQ- and then people started copying it all over the board

YouTube - Copycat - Copycat (Eurovision Belgium 2009)

the other 2 threads were started days before this one.....do you like taking credit for starting things even though you did not?....

You seem to love the automobile I invented.


Now, get off my internet

 

[American Horse]

Can anyone think of any reason to keep USPS in existence? It might have served a function at its inception, but I can't see any reason to keep it around in the modern age, with multiple private companies providing the same services.


'Postmaster General John Potter announced that the U.S. Postal Service is facing $238 billion in losses over the next 10 years' (source). Why are we continuing to subsidize this system? If it can't break even and the private sector provides plenty of alternatives, why should we continue to throw billions into it?

The postal service is much better than reported. No one else delivers a hard copy document anywhere in the USA (or I presume elsewhere) for 44-cents for a customer, nor can they. I find the price cheap. I would pay more to keep it intact.

I have more than once mailed a letter off to the state capital city 60 miles away before noon on a week day, from the mailbox on my porch, and had a response in the next day's mail.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It doesn't cost 44 cents.


They'll come asking us all to pay the bills one day. I guarantee it.

 

[American Horse]

It doesn't cost 44 cents.


They'll come asking us all to pay the bills one day. I guarantee it.

I know that; that's why I said "for a customer;" maybe I should've said "to a customer." it's a service that should be supported (subsidized) by the government, and is mandated in the constitution.

If a person wants to mail an origianl document - and original documents are necessary in many legal cases - it might cost as much as $10 dollars or more to the mailer, to get the same point to point delivery in the same time frame.

And it won't be one day; it is an ongoing deficit that is rolled into the greater defecit, a lot of which is much less worthy to the average citizen.

 

[FA_Q2]

arm
Actually, I think there is a reason why they do not charge the appropriate amount for a letter after thinking about my situation. They would sink some businesses and force the rise in cost of services in others.

The more I think about this, the more I see a couple of corportists hands in this action. Come to think about it, the more I am not so upset about the USPS being 200 billion in the whole and forcing it on the tax paying populace. It sure make things easier for me--because you are helping to pay!!

That is just plain ridiculous. There are no corprists forcing the PO prices lower and that makes no sense. The part that is truly scary is that you see it as a plus that you do not have to pay for the cost of the service you are using because others are covering that for you. Entitlement mentality is a terrible thing. The PO needs to charge the proper amount, period. I don’t care what it would cost for that letter. If you want it sent you should pay for it.

horse
I know that; that's why I said "for a customer;" maybe I should've said "to a customer." it's a service that should be supported (subsidized) by the government, and is mandated in the constitution.

Give me one good reason why you should not have to pay the appropriate cost to send a letter. There is no need for subsidy, the PO should operate under it’s own weight.


On the same token, there is also no need for a monopoly. That should be stopped as there is NO constitutional backing for forcing a monopoly of the postal service, just the need to have a government one.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Maybe usps should just stick with daily mail and lrt other companies take the long distance deliveries.. Usps is having organizational problems, they have their fingers into too many things and can't handle it..

Sounds good, USPS should deliver only Legit Mail and packages, no more pounds of ads, flyers and other fishwraps. Let the magazine empires pay dearly for the USPS to deliver or have them set up their own magazine delivery program.

But somehow I think the USPS would still lose money, maybe we need those who think health care reform can be run successfully and efficient, run the Post Office.

 

[American Horse]

horse
I know that; that's why I said "for a customer;" maybe I should've said "to a customer." it's a service that should be supported (subsidized) by the government, and is mandated in the constitution.

Give me one good reason why you should not have to pay the appropriate cost to send a letter. There is no need for subsidy, the PO should operate under it’s own weight.


On the same token, there is also no need for a monopoly. That should be stopped as there is NO constitutional backing for forcing a monopoly of the postal service, just the need to have a government one.

For the same reason the founders also required the building and maintenance of "Post Roads" to make communications and travel available to the broad citizenry. The person who walks out onto an interstate highway or rides on it on their bicycle to get to a distant destination (across state lines) pays nothing directly to support the cost of the highway, but the highway is there in his or her moment of need. People living in rural areas, who may not be inclined to use the internet (or other pay by the package services) have need of communications by mail. Even Ancient Rome saw the need for a postal service and post roads: vital communications.

 

[FA_Q2]

horse
I know that; that's why I said "for a customer;" maybe I should've said "to a customer." it's a service that should be supported (subsidized) by the government, and is mandated in the constitution.

Give me one good reason why you should not have to pay the appropriate cost to send a letter. There is no need for subsidy, the PO should operate under it’s own weight.


On the same token, there is also no need for a monopoly. That should be stopped as there is NO constitutional backing for forcing a monopoly of the postal service, just the need to have a government one.

For the same reason the founders also required the building and maintenance of "Post Roads" to make communications and travel available to the broad citizenry. The person who walks out onto an interstate highway or rides on it on their bicycle to get to a distant destination (across state lines) pays nothing directly to support the cost of the highway, but the highway is there in his or her moment of need. People living in rural areas, who may not be inclined to use the internet (or other pay by the package services) have need of communications by mail. Even Ancient Rome saw the need for a postal service and post roads: vital communications.

well, you supported why there is need of a postal system. Now please address the statement. I did not say get rid of the post office. I said it should operate under its own weight and does not need monopoly rights. Give a good reason that it needs a monopoly and can’t survive through its own fees!