Big LIE Postal Union commercial.. Post office does use Tax payer money!!!

[WillowTree]

True. But if those employees choose to organize to protect them from being fired to make room for political appointees then they should have that right. It also helps keep experienced people in these jobs to provide the best service that the taxpayers expect.

as long as they fund themselves and leave the taxpayers out of it they may in fact collectively bargain and I won't give a darn.

They do so don't.

So they don't need any money from Congress?

 

[rdean]

Why is the republican party trying to KILL the post office?

the founders wanted it and were willing to pay for it

Because the workers make too much.

How much do they make?

 

[Truthmatters]

If they did the founders didnt mind it did they?

Now do you think the founders had a reason?

 

[Truthmatters]

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

section 8

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

THe founders were willing to pay for post service.

why do you think they were ?

 

[WillowTree]

If they did the founders didnt mind it did they?

Now do you think the founders had a reason?

did the founders have e mail?

 

[Truthmatters]

what does that matter?

 

[Truthmatters]

I thought the right was all about the founders and the constitution?

when did that change?

 

[daveman]

Money paid in union dues have been earned and belong to the workers that earn it. Once it is paid to the workers what they choose to do with it is no longer a concern of yours.

But it's your concern what the wealthy do with their money?

Because he's not wealthy and thinks he is entitled to everything you have.

Boy, is he gonna be disappointed.

 

[DaGoose]

I thought the right was all about the founders and the constitution?

when did that change?

It changes every time something they disagree with is declared Constitutional. Even those pesky Civil Rights get in their way.

 

[daveman]

Money paid in union dues have been earned and belong to the workers that earn it. Once it is paid to the workers what they choose to do with it is no longer a concern of yours.

But it's your concern what the wealthy do with their money?

Nope. Not after they earn it.

See? Unlike you guys I'm not hypocritical about it.

You might want to enlighten your fellow lefties.

 

[DaGoose]

But it's your concern what the wealthy do with their money?

Nope. Not after they earn it.

See? Unlike you guys I'm not hypocritical about it.

You might want to enlighten your fellow lefties.

Give me some examples where any "lefties" said that anyone can't do what they want with their money after it's earned.

 

[WillowTree]

Nope. Not after they earn it.

See? Unlike you guys I'm not hypocritical about it.

You might want to enlighten your fellow lefties.

Give me some examples where any "lefties" said that anyone can't do what they want with their money after it's earned.

you mean AFTER the lefties have taxed the bejesus out of it? like you might get to keep a paltry 30%

 

[Londoner]

Alas Dear HealthMyths,

There is a silver lining.

Your screed implies that the Democrats are living large off union donations. You make it sound like 1945, when the machine was well oiled and bulldozing through elections like nothing.

Clinton realized in the 1990s that the Left could not compete with the Republicans without donations from the sworn enemy of unions: big business. Why? Because Reagan & the centrist Left successfully destroyed unions, reducing their percentages from over 50% to below 15%. This is why Clinton left Unions at the alter when passing NAFTA. Ever since the Left has paid it's elections bills not with Union money, but Wall Street - the very group which does not want high labor costs dragging down stock values.

Yes, the Left still gets all the union money, but let's not confuse 2012 with the postwar years. Unions have been fading for decades. They are becoming irrelevant. They are a few election cycles from becoming a non-issu, especially because the Left cannot win elections without taking money from the enemies of unions.

Man-up dear friend - your side has won. The great postwar union wage that allowed the father to support the family so that the mother could stay home and raise the kids is dead. Now, both parents have to work, leaving latchkey kids to be raised by MTV and the vagaries of the market. The 50s was the heyday of Conservatism because of the union wage model, which gave parents the time to raise their own children. Your side destroyed this model, freeing capital to go in search of cheaper 3rd world labor.

Don't fix the betting with hysterical overblown demons. Unions are dying . . .and the Left can no longer take them nearly as seriously. (Which is why they don't)

Wall Street owns the country dear boy. Wake up.

 

[midcan5]

More wingnut whining, crying, and ringing of hands over living in an orderly society in which the post office even carries their constant crying magazines etc. When you guys cry into your Wingnut news, do you ruin the paper? If a wingnut is sedated do they still cry over Unions?

If you want to whine wingnuts, whine over the trillion wasted in Iraq creating a government none of us would want to live under.

Or whine over Reagan's Star Wars deployment which never worked still doesn't. Billions wasted there.

Or whine over government subsidies to bankers given by republicans and democrats.

If you guys like crying so much, cry over something that actually cost money, real money. Meanwhile I'll send my granddaughter postcards and pay the freight - you guys continue your whining, it's all you do.

Here, whine over this: The Conservative Nanny State

"The conservative framing of issues is so deeply embedded that it has been widely accepted by ostensibly neutral actors, such as policy professionals or the news media that report on national politics. For example, news reports routinely refer to bilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA or CAFTA, as “free trade” agreements. This is in spite of the fact that one of the main purposes of these agreements is to increase patent protection in developing countries, effectively increasing the length and force of government-imposed monopolies. Whether or not increasing patent protection is desirable policy, it clearly is not “free trade.”

It is clever policy for proponents of these agreements to label them as “free trade” agreements (everyone likes freedom), but that is not an excuse for neutral commentators to accept this definition. Back in the 1980s, President Reagan named the controversial MX missile system the “Peacekeeper” to make it more palatable to the public. Thankfully, the media continued to use the neutral “MX” name to describe the missile system. However, when it comes to trade agreements, the media have been every bit as anxious to use the term “peacekeeper” as the proponents of the agreements, using the expression “free trade” almost exclusively to describe these agreements. (In using this term, reporters disregard their normal concern about saving space, since “trade agreement” takes less space than “free-trade agreement.”)"

 

[daveman]

Nope. Not after they earn it.

See? Unlike you guys I'm not hypocritical about it.

You might want to enlighten your fellow lefties.

Give me some examples where any "lefties" said that anyone can't do what they want with their money after it's earned.

You're kidding, right?

RealClearPolitics - Video - Moore On Wealthy People's Money: "That's Not Theirs, That's A National Resource, It's Ours"

Video: Why can’t we balance the budget by confiscating super-rich people’s money? « Hot Air

Let’s Solve Income Inequality by Confiscating Wealth from the Rich

 

[Ernie S.]

They want mail to be ONLY in the hands of private companies.

WHY???????

No. Even though privatizing the USPS would likely be more efficient, what we really want is a reasonable product for a reasonable price.
The letter carriers' union has no incentive to reduce costs and management has no incentive to run an efficient business.
These guys have a fantastic pension plan. A friend of mine is pulling down about $3,500/month in pension for his 40 years in both the Navy and the USPS, plus he just started collecting Social Security when he turned 62 in June.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP is a lie. The Post Office is not costing the taxpayers money by having a line of credit with the Federal Financing Bank.

But, of course, since the rightwing nut crowd likes the lie better than the truth, they pretend it's the truth.

 

[DaGoose]

You might want to enlighten your fellow lefties.

Give me some examples where any "lefties" said that anyone can't do what they want with their money after it's earned.

You're kidding, right?

RealClearPolitics - Video - Moore On Wealthy People's Money: "That's Not Theirs, That's A National Resource, It's Ours"

Video: Why can’t we balance the budget by confiscating super-rich people’s money? « Hot Air

Let’s Solve Income Inequality by Confiscating Wealth from the Rich

Nope, not kidding. You failed to give me any examples. All you did was whine about letting the Bush TEMPORARY Tax Cuts expire (which they should). Not a word about how the rich should spend their money.

Obviously you're attempting to rebut my contention that if workers wish to pay union dues out of money they earn then it's none of yours, Willowtree's or my business. And, of course, you failed.

Now if you're figuring that the rich (or anyone) should have a CHOICE on whether or not to pay any taxes then come right out and say it. But, as usual, you're deflecting since that's not along the line of this conversation.

 

[daveman]

Give me some examples where any "lefties" said that anyone can't do what they want with their money after it's earned.

You're kidding, right?

RealClearPolitics - Video - Moore On Wealthy People's Money: "That's Not Theirs, That's A National Resource, It's Ours"

Video: Why can’t we balance the budget by confiscating super-rich people’s money? « Hot Air

Let’s Solve Income Inequality by Confiscating Wealth from the Rich

Nope, not kidding. You failed to give me any examples. All you did was whine about letting the Bush TEMPORARY Tax Cuts expire (which they should). Not a word about how the rich should spend their money.

Obviously you're attempting to rebut my contention that if workers wish to pay union dues out of money they earn then it's none of yours, Willowtree's or my business. And, of course, you failed.

Now if you're figuring that the rich (or anyone) should have a CHOICE on whether or not to pay any taxes then come right out and say it. But, as usual, you're deflecting since that's not along the line of this conversation.

Sooo...saying we should take rich people's money away from them is NOT deciding how they should spend their money?

Hint: They can't spend it if someone takes it away from them.

You fail. I proved my point.

 

[JoeB131]

I think this debate centers on whether the Post Office should be run as a public service or a business.

if it's a business, it runs horribly. Or at the very best, it's business model no longer works.

If it's a service that the rest of us are being asked to subsizide, then it should be run more efficiently.

if it's a "make work" program to keep thousands of union thugs employed, then you are kind of missing the point.