Can Any Dem/lib Tell Us What Agency The Govt Has Run Efficiently?

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And the notion of 'efficient' is meaningless absent an agreed upon definition.

Moreover, it's a fallacy to attempt to compare public and private sectors, given their different roles, responsibilities, and restraints, just as it's a fallacy to say that 'all' government agencies are 'inefficient.'

So C Clayton Jones response is that he is uncertain what the word efficent actually means. Perhaps you need to pull out the Webster's dictionary there bub.

When you look at how government runs things, we have a Post Office that is getting further in the red while constantly having to raise it's stamps, there is social security which is always underfunded with it's projected path towards bankruptcy is a reoccurring issue, the debt surrounding government continues to grow as a result. If the private sector competitors of the USPS ran their business the same way, they'd already be bankrupt, as the USPS expects to look to the government as an unlimited resource to combat it's own financial issues.

Government and efficiency? That's an oximoron if I have ever heard one. What possible program has government EVER ran where taxpayers actually found a surplus in, and government found themselves needed to actually CUT funding because it was managed so well? I can't find one government program without a growing debt attached to it.

 

[candycorn]

Most of them.

Most government agencies couldn't find their backsides with both hands in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors.

Oftentimes staffed by dull, unimaginative, self-seeking bureaucratic and calendar-watching pension-sniffers, bellying-up to the trough for their unfair share of budget dollars, territorial, secretive, self-promoting, self-preserving, overlapping and wasteful, many of those same departments need a thorough housecleaning, mission and charter review, new performance indicators and outcomes evaluation, new and more visible and transparent public accountability, and, in some cases, closure, consolidation or downsizing.

Uh-huh.

Unlike the Private Sector, which are run by the cream of the crop.

frankly, I've seen more incompetence in the private sector than I've ever seen in the government.

My experience has been pretty much the reverse.

As have the experiences of a great many others, else the stereotyping of government agencies would never have gained such traction.

Private companies have a bottom-line indicator of success... their bottom line.

Government agencies can operate inefficiently (sometimes, grotesquely inefficiently) for decades on end, without fear of closure, because of a guaranteed revenue stream.

And a highly politicized and pro forma Performance Review process.

You know as well as I do that these fundamental differences between the public and private sectors contribute-to and sustain the inefficiency of a great many government agencies.

This is not to say that there are not legions of dedicated public servants within that sector who are largely devoted to their country and service to their countrymen.

But to ignore the grotesque inefficiencies and problematic operations of so many of these agencies is to ignore the 10-ton elephant in the room.

And there in lies the difference between conservative and liberal thought.

For conservatives, wealth is the one and only goal. With wealth, for a conservative, comes power and the ability to exert one's will over others.

For liberals, it is the advancement of civilization, as a whole that is the goal. If a civilization is effective in providing safety, scholarship and is sustainable for the future, that's success.

It's a vastly different mindset.

Newsflash, mine good colleague...

We are closer to being on the same page here than you appear to perceive...

My reference to private corporations and gauges for success is not an indicator that I (or anyone else) citing that gauge is not also in favor of the advancement of civilization.

It is merely an articulation of the hard-and-fast indicators available in the private sector, versus the need for better barometers and mission and charter and goals and outcomes measurement in the public sector.

Nowhere in my own meanderings here on the subject will you find a mindless advocacy that the private sector can do everything better than the public one.

I throw rocks at the public sector here as my own microscopic contribution to public airings of opining that we have much work yet to do on the public side of the fence.

Well heck.

I am a big advocate of finding out where a plan goes wrong..and fixing it.

Yes men are just as injurious to a process as people who want to tear it down.

Grats.

how would you fix our national debt of 17 trillion dollars?

Put a moratorium on Defense Spending for 2 years.

That would clean up about 16 trillion in debt.

How would Obama destroy ISIS as he said he wants to do? Would you lay off 100% of the military?

your statement is just plain stupid, not surprising coming from you.

HOW COME YOU DIDN'T POST YOUR CREDIT SCORE....YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO?

 

[Papageorgio]

So, 14 pages which agencies have been run efficiently?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"
We have the ultimate control over corporations. If we don't like them or what they are doing we stop buying their products and they go out of business." (Redfish)

Well, then, I guess that Comcast, Cox Cable, Verizon and AT&T will go out of business any day now.....

Those that manufactured 8 tracks, large floor tube televisions, beta tapes DAT tapes, and HD which failed in its battle with Blue Ray, each lost business without any influence and interference of government. I'd say the consumer market is doing quite well in deciding for ITSELF what's best for them WITHOUT the Federal Government involvement. Unfortunately for liberals, not everyone needs to take government by the hand when it comes to making their decisions.

 

[bripat9643]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

The post office is much more effective and efficient then either FEDEX or UPS.

The reason it's "losing" money is because conservatives in Congress are trying to kill it:

1. Through funding pensions in a manner no other business or public agency has to do.
2. Having no control over how to price services, so they are kept unusually low.

Sheesh..that was easy.

USPS more efficient than Fedex and UPS----------------------that is one of the all time stupid posts to ever appear on USMB.

Eyeah.

I am sure you use both all the time to mail stuff.

operating and operating efficiently are two very different things. Fedex and UPS do not lose money every quarter, USPS does.

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

It's against the law for them to deliver First Class mail. You've already been told this several times. IF the Post Office is so damn efficient, then why does it continue to lobby Congress to maintain its legally enforced monopoly on the delivery of First Class mail?

 

[bripat9643]

Sure the huge corporations can afford to send things via FEDX, I am sure fedx gives them a big discount, but for us individual shop owners that ship small packages....UPS and FEDX are out of reach.

Bull shit. I personally use FEDEX all the time.

 

[Sallow]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

The post office is much more effective and efficient then either FEDEX or UPS.

The reason it's "losing" money is because conservatives in Congress are trying to kill it:

1. Through funding pensions in a manner no other business or public agency has to do.
2. Having no control over how to price services, so they are kept unusually low.

Sheesh..that was easy.

USPS more efficient than Fedex and UPS----------------------that is one of the all time stupid posts to ever appear on USMB.

Eyeah.

I am sure you use both all the time to mail stuff.

operating and operating efficiently are two very different things. Fedex and UPS do not lose money every quarter, USPS does.

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

It's against the law for them to deliver First Class mail. You've already been told this several times. IF the Post Office is so damn efficient, then why does it continue to lobby Congress to maintain its legally enforced monopoly on the delivery of First Class mail?

Yeah..that Silly Constitution.

You really are in the wrong country.

Saudi Arabia might be more to your liking.

 

[bripat9643]

Both accounts are anecdotal and irrelevant.

And the notion of 'efficient' is meaningless absent an agreed upon definition.

Moreover, it's a fallacy to attempt to compare public and private sectors, given their different roles, responsibilities, and restraints, just as it's a fallacy to say that 'all' government agencies are 'inefficient.'

In fact it's extremist nonsense.

LOL. Nice try. Most of us live in the real world, been there done that. The fallacy is between your ears, sending packages via USPS and FedEx/UPS are generally not the same in efficiency. Performance rules the private sector, job security rules the public sector. And that IS the ******* point!

No one could afford to send letters at UPS's prices.

And honestly, what is wrong with a little job security. This insanity where we all change jobs every five years isn't really doing us very much good as a society.

ROFL! UPS is forced by law to charge a certain minimum price, so your whine about that is pure idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

The post office is much more effective and efficient then either FEDEX or UPS.

The reason it's "losing" money is because conservatives in Congress are trying to kill it:

1. Through funding pensions in a manner no other business or public agency has to do.
2. Having no control over how to price services, so they are kept unusually low.

Sheesh..that was easy.

USPS more efficient than Fedex and UPS----------------------that is one of the all time stupid posts to ever appear on USMB.

Eyeah.

I am sure you use both all the time to mail stuff.

operating and operating efficiently are two very different things. Fedex and UPS do not lose money every quarter, USPS does.

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

It's against the law for them to deliver First Class mail. You've already been told this several times. IF the Post Office is so damn efficient, then why does it continue to lobby Congress to maintain its legally enforced monopoly on the delivery of First Class mail?

Yeah..that Silly Constitution.

You really are in the wrong country.

Saudi Arabia might be more to your liking.

ROFL! Holding up the Constitution is your argument? Really? Now it's unpatriotic to criticize the Post Office?

Here's a clue for you, moron: The Constitution allows the federal government to run the Post Office. It doesn't require it to run the Post Office. It also doesn't require the federal government to grant a legal monopoly to the Post Office.

Even if the Constitution did require the federal government to run the Post Office, that doesn't make it a good idea.

BTW, Saudi Arabia has a government run Post Office, just like the USA.

Your argument couldn't be more wrong, irrelevant or downright stupid.

 

[Sallow]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

The post office is much more effective and efficient then either FEDEX or UPS.

The reason it's "losing" money is because conservatives in Congress are trying to kill it:

1. Through funding pensions in a manner no other business or public agency has to do.
2. Having no control over how to price services, so they are kept unusually low.

Sheesh..that was easy.

USPS more efficient than Fedex and UPS----------------------that is one of the all time stupid posts to ever appear on USMB.

Eyeah.

I am sure you use both all the time to mail stuff.

operating and operating efficiently are two very different things. Fedex and UPS do not lose money every quarter, USPS does.

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

It's against the law for them to deliver First Class mail. You've already been told this several times. IF the Post Office is so damn efficient, then why does it continue to lobby Congress to maintain its legally enforced monopoly on the delivery of First Class mail?

Yeah..that Silly Constitution.

You really are in the wrong country.

Saudi Arabia might be more to your liking.

ROFL! Holding up the Constitution is your argument? Really? Now it's unpatriotic to criticize the Post Office?

Here's a clue for you, moron: The Constitution allows the federal government to run the Post Office. It doesn't require it to run the Post Office. It also doesn't require the federal government to grant a legal monopoly to the Post Office.

Even if the Constitution did require the federal government to run the Post Office, that doesn't make it a good idea.

BTW, Saudi Arabia has a government run Post Office, just like the USA.

Your argument couldn't be more wrong, irrelevant or downright stupid.

Except Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.

Which is, to you, is a perfect government.

The rich rule there.

Everyone else? Is fucked.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

The post office is much more effective and efficient then either FEDEX or UPS.

The reason it's "losing" money is because conservatives in Congress are trying to kill it:

1. Through funding pensions in a manner no other business or public agency has to do.
2. Having no control over how to price services, so they are kept unusually low.

Sheesh..that was easy.

USPS more efficient than Fedex and UPS----------------------that is one of the all time stupid posts to ever appear on USMB.

Eyeah.

I am sure you use both all the time to mail stuff.

operating and operating efficiently are two very different things. Fedex and UPS do not lose money every quarter, USPS does.

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

It's against the law for them to deliver First Class mail. You've already been told this several times. IF the Post Office is so damn efficient, then why does it continue to lobby Congress to maintain its legally enforced monopoly on the delivery of First Class mail?

Yeah..that Silly Constitution.

You really are in the wrong country.

Saudi Arabia might be more to your liking.

ROFL! Holding up the Constitution is your argument? Really? Now it's unpatriotic to criticize the Post Office?

Here's a clue for you, moron: The Constitution allows the federal government to run the Post Office. It doesn't require it to run the Post Office. It also doesn't require the federal government to grant a legal monopoly to the Post Office.

Even if the Constitution did require the federal government to run the Post Office, that doesn't make it a good idea.

BTW, Saudi Arabia has a government run Post Office, just like the USA.

Your argument couldn't be more wrong, irrelevant or downright stupid.

I would argue that the federal government MUST operate the post office.


If you read the COTUS it lists certain powers of the federal government and then says all other powers belong to the states or the people. Meaning the POST OFFICE MUST remain with the federal government.

Of course if you read the COTUS that specifically, you must wonder how states are empowered to build roads at all, clearly postal roads are the responsibility of the federal government.

 

[Care4all]

Sure the huge corporations can afford to send things via FEDX, I am sure fedx gives them a big discount, but for us individual shop owners that ship small packages....UPS and FEDX are out of reach.

Bull shit. I personally use FEDEX all the time.

Then you and/or your customers must be rich!!!!

or your items must be very expensive that you are selling so the shipping costs don't seem so high to them....

But what I sell are lightweight items for the most part, outside of my bath rugs and even using the less expensive USPS, my customers still pay an additional 25%-50% of the bought item's price, for their shipping costs...that's a lot!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Sure the huge corporations can afford to send things via FEDX, I am sure fedx gives them a big discount, but for us individual shop owners that ship small packages....UPS and FEDX are out of reach.

Bull shit. I personally use FEDEX all the time.

Then you and/or your customers must be rich!!!!

or your items must be very expensive that you are selling so the shipping costs don't seem so high to them....

But what I sell are lightweight items for the most part, outside of my bath rugs and even using the less expensive USPS, my customers still pay an additional 25%-50% of the bought item's price, for their shipping costs...that's a lot!!!!!!!!!!

What? Then you are getting screwed.

 

[bripat9643]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

The post office is much more effective and efficient then either FEDEX or UPS.

The reason it's "losing" money is because conservatives in Congress are trying to kill it:

1. Through funding pensions in a manner no other business or public agency has to do.
2. Having no control over how to price services, so they are kept unusually low.

Sheesh..that was easy.

USPS more efficient than Fedex and UPS----------------------that is one of the all time stupid posts to ever appear on USMB.

Eyeah.

I am sure you use both all the time to mail stuff.

operating and operating efficiently are two very different things. Fedex and UPS do not lose money every quarter, USPS does.

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

It's against the law for them to deliver First Class mail. You've already been told this several times. IF the Post Office is so damn efficient, then why does it continue to lobby Congress to maintain its legally enforced monopoly on the delivery of First Class mail?

Yeah..that Silly Constitution.

You really are in the wrong country.

Saudi Arabia might be more to your liking.

ROFL! Holding up the Constitution is your argument? Really? Now it's unpatriotic to criticize the Post Office?

Here's a clue for you, moron: The Constitution allows the federal government to run the Post Office. It doesn't require it to run the Post Office. It also doesn't require the federal government to grant a legal monopoly to the Post Office.

Even if the Constitution did require the federal government to run the Post Office, that doesn't make it a good idea.

BTW, Saudi Arabia has a government run Post Office, just like the USA.

Your argument couldn't be more wrong, irrelevant or downright stupid.

I would argue that the federal government MUST operate the post office.


If you read the COTUS it lists certain powers of the federal government and then says all other powers belong to the states or the people. Meaning the POST OFFICE MUST remain with the federal government.

Of course if you read the COTUS that specifically, you must wonder how states are empowered to build roads at all, clearly postal roads are the responsibility of the federal government.

Nope. A "power" is the legal authority to do something. It's not a requirement to do anything.

 

[Care4all]

Sure the huge corporations can afford to send things via FEDX, I am sure fedx gives them a big discount, but for us individual shop owners that ship small packages....UPS and FEDX are out of reach.

Bull shit. I personally use FEDEX all the time.

Then you and/or your customers must be rich!!!!

or your items must be very expensive that you are selling so the shipping costs don't seem so high to them....

But what I sell are lightweight items for the most part, outside of my bath rugs and even using the less expensive USPS, my customers still pay an additional 25%-50% of the bought item's price, for their shipping costs...that's a lot!!!!!!!!!!

What? Then you are getting screwed.

how so, smarter than the average bear???

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

The post office is much more effective and efficient then either FEDEX or UPS.

The reason it's "losing" money is because conservatives in Congress are trying to kill it:

1. Through funding pensions in a manner no other business or public agency has to do.
2. Having no control over how to price services, so they are kept unusually low.

Sheesh..that was easy.

USPS more efficient than Fedex and UPS----------------------that is one of the all time stupid posts to ever appear on USMB.

Eyeah.

I am sure you use both all the time to mail stuff.

operating and operating efficiently are two very different things. Fedex and UPS do not lose money every quarter, USPS does.

Will either one deliver a letter door to door cross country for 49 cents?

It's against the law for them to deliver First Class mail. You've already been told this several times. IF the Post Office is so damn efficient, then why does it continue to lobby Congress to maintain its legally enforced monopoly on the delivery of First Class mail?

Yeah..that Silly Constitution.

You really are in the wrong country.

Saudi Arabia might be more to your liking.

ROFL! Holding up the Constitution is your argument? Really? Now it's unpatriotic to criticize the Post Office?

Here's a clue for you, moron: The Constitution allows the federal government to run the Post Office. It doesn't require it to run the Post Office. It also doesn't require the federal government to grant a legal monopoly to the Post Office.

Even if the Constitution did require the federal government to run the Post Office, that doesn't make it a good idea.

BTW, Saudi Arabia has a government run Post Office, just like the USA.

Your argument couldn't be more wrong, irrelevant or downright stupid.

I would argue that the federal government MUST operate the post office.


If you read the COTUS it lists certain powers of the federal government and then says all other powers belong to the states or the people. Meaning the POST OFFICE MUST remain with the federal government.

Of course if you read the COTUS that specifically, you must wonder how states are empowered to build roads at all, clearly postal roads are the responsibility of the federal government.

Nope. A "power" is the legal authority to do something. It's not a requirement to do anything.

Oh really? So if I were to say do a little digging around I wouldn't find any postings where you are bitching about Obama not doing anything to defend our southern border?

MMMM I think I would find that you HAVE been bitching about that.....

 

[francoHFW]

OP- I'll put the gov't up against the average big corporation as far as efficiency, and better as to greed.

BTW, hater dupe. ACA doesn't take over ANYTHING, just sets up transparent competition to bring down prices and minimum standards to end Pub/crony SCAMS. The fact it's the supposed Pub plan just shows the party first hypocrisy of the GOP.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! Holding up the Constitution is your argument? Really? Now it's unpatriotic to criticize the Post Office?

Here's a clue for you, moron: The Constitution allows the federal government to run the Post Office. It doesn't require it to run the Post Office. It also doesn't require the federal government to grant a legal monopoly to the Post Office.

Even if the Constitution did require the federal government to run the Post Office, that doesn't make it a good idea.

BTW, Saudi Arabia has a government run Post Office, just like the USA.

Your argument couldn't be more wrong, irrelevant or downright stupid.

I would argue that the federal government MUST operate the post office.


If you read the COTUS it lists certain powers of the federal government and then says all other powers belong to the states or the people. Meaning the POST OFFICE MUST remain with the federal government.

Of course if you read the COTUS that specifically, you must wonder how states are empowered to build roads at all, clearly postal roads are the responsibility of the federal government.

Nope. A "power" is the legal authority to do something. It's not a requirement to do anything.

Oh really? So if I were to say do a little digging around I wouldn't find any postings where you are bitching about Obama not doing anything to defend our southern border?

MMMM I think I would find that you HAVE been bitching about that.....

That's not a power. It's a legal requirement. Obama swore an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. That includes our immigration laws.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Sure the huge corporations can afford to send things via FEDX, I am sure fedx gives them a big discount, but for us individual shop owners that ship small packages....UPS and FEDX are out of reach.

Bull shit. I personally use FEDEX all the time.

Then you and/or your customers must be rich!!!!

or your items must be very expensive that you are selling so the shipping costs don't seem so high to them....

But what I sell are lightweight items for the most part, outside of my bath rugs and even using the less expensive USPS, my customers still pay an additional 25%-50% of the bought item's price, for their shipping costs...that's a lot!!!!!!!!!!

What? Then you are getting screwed.

how so, smarter than the average bear???

It just seems like if you are paying 25-50% of the cost of your item to ship, you're paying too much. Now if you have a bunch of small items, yes I believe the "if it fits it ships" from the USPS might be your best option.

But just for giggles I did some checking

FedEx Rates and Transit Times

The cheapest you can send a package, weighing .5 lbs in a legal sized envelope FedEx from LA to NYC is $22

From the post office, the same package would cost you $19.99

Postage Price Calculator

$3. I mean granted , over many shipments that adds up. But given how much more reliable FedEx is than the USPS, perhaps it's worth the $3.

 

[francoHFW]

Sure the huge corporations can afford to send things via FEDX, I am sure fedx gives them a big discount, but for us individual shop owners that ship small packages....UPS and FEDX are out of reach.

Bull shit. I personally use FEDEX all the time.

Then you and/or your customers must be rich!!!!

or your items must be very expensive that you are selling so the shipping costs don't seem so high to them....

But what I sell are lightweight items for the most part, outside of my bath rugs and even using the less expensive USPS, my customers still pay an additional 25%-50% of the bought item's price, for their shipping costs...that's a lot!!!!!!!!!!

What? Then you are getting screwed.

how so, smarter than the average bear???

Under Voodoo and Reaganist policy, defended to the death by Pubs, the little guy and small business are screwed every day, dupes. see sig. Big corps get the loopholes with all their lawyers and lobbyists, just like the mega rich, since the 80's. see sig. Big corps and the mega rich pay less in taxes than the little guys- killling infrastructure and the economy over time.