Discussion:
Do We Need A Post Office?
Add Reply
El Castor
2020-07-24 23:19:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
People don't write letters anymore. 90% of what fills the mail box is
useless garbage -- advertising and contribute to this or that. The
occasional bill, statement, and greeting card could be delivered once
or twice a week. Amazon, FedEx, and UPS take care of the important
stuff, so why not cut way back -- at the very least?

PS -- The politicians would never buy it -- might cost them votes.
islander
2020-07-24 23:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
People don't write letters anymore. 90% of what fills the mail box is
useless garbage -- advertising and contribute to this or that. The
occasional bill, statement, and greeting card could be delivered once
or twice a week. Amazon, FedEx, and UPS take care of the important
stuff, so why not cut way back -- at the very least?
PS -- The politicians would never buy it -- might cost them votes.
You have got to be kidding! Where else can you get something delivered
anywhere in the US for 50 cents with a very high probability that it
will arrive within a few days? In addition, there are a large variety
of legal requirements that are met through postal delivery. Finally,
the USPS is not paid for by the taxpayer if you are thinking it is. It
receives no tax dollars for operating expenses. If you want to save
money, you might consider removing Congressional authority over the Post
Office. It is not obvious that they do anything to improve service or
reduce costs.
El Castor
2020-07-25 00:37:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
People don't write letters anymore. 90% of what fills the mail box is
useless garbage -- advertising and contribute to this or that. The
occasional bill, statement, and greeting card could be delivered once
or twice a week. Amazon, FedEx, and UPS take care of the important
stuff, so why not cut way back -- at the very least?
PS -- The politicians would never buy it -- might cost them votes.
You have got to be kidding! Where else can you get something delivered
anywhere in the US for 50 cents with a very high probability that it
will arrive within a few days?
Email, texting, and photos are delivered instantly for free, and you
may not know any millenials, but many (most?) are unable to read
handwriting -- they print.
Post by islander
In addition, there are a large variety
of legal requirements that are met through postal delivery.
So deliver once a week, and ask the junk mailers to pay the true cost
of the crap that fills the postal trucks.
Post by islander
Finally,
the USPS is not paid for by the taxpayer if you are thinking it is.
Oh?

"USPS Has Received Over $45 Billion from Taxpayers to Reduce the Cost
of Junk Mail, Killing Billions of Trees
100 million trees and $178 billion worth of time could be saved every
year by not subsidizing junk mail"
https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/usps-uses-18-billion-in-taxpayer-subsidies-to-subsidize-junk-mail-killing-100-million-trees-and-irritating-millions/

"American taxpayers give an $18 billion gift to the post office every
year"
https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/
Post by islander
It
receives no tax dollars for operating expenses. If you want to save
money, you might consider removing Congressional authority over the Post
Office. It is not obvious that they do anything to improve service or
reduce costs.
"The Postal Service needs a bailout. Congress is partly to blame.
A 2006 law set the stage to burden the agency with $160 billion in
debt"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/15/postal-service-bailout-congress/

95% of the mail we receive goes directly to the recycle bin. The Post
Office is a mess -- yet another example of the ineffective hopeless
inefficiency of government enterprise.
islander
2020-07-25 14:56:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
People don't write letters anymore. 90% of what fills the mail box is
useless garbage -- advertising and contribute to this or that. The
occasional bill, statement, and greeting card could be delivered once
or twice a week. Amazon, FedEx, and UPS take care of the important
stuff, so why not cut way back -- at the very least?
PS -- The politicians would never buy it -- might cost them votes.
You have got to be kidding! Where else can you get something delivered
anywhere in the US for 50 cents with a very high probability that it
will arrive within a few days?
Email, texting, and photos are delivered instantly for free, and you
may not know any millenials, but many (most?) are unable to read
handwriting -- they print.
Post by islander
In addition, there are a large variety
of legal requirements that are met through postal delivery.
So deliver once a week, and ask the junk mailers to pay the true cost
of the crap that fills the postal trucks.
Post by islander
Finally,
the USPS is not paid for by the taxpayer if you are thinking it is.
Oh?
"USPS Has Received Over $45 Billion from Taxpayers to Reduce the Cost
of Junk Mail, Killing Billions of Trees
100 million trees and $178 billion worth of time could be saved every
year by not subsidizing junk mail"
https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/usps-uses-18-billion-in-taxpayer-subsidies-to-subsidize-junk-mail-killing-100-million-trees-and-irritating-millions/
"American taxpayers give an $18 billion gift to the post office every
year"
https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/
Post by islander
It
receives no tax dollars for operating expenses. If you want to save
money, you might consider removing Congressional authority over the Post
Office. It is not obvious that they do anything to improve service or
reduce costs.
"The Postal Service needs a bailout. Congress is partly to blame.
A 2006 law set the stage to burden the agency with $160 billion in
debt"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/15/postal-service-bailout-congress/
95% of the mail we receive goes directly to the recycle bin. The Post
Office is a mess -- yet another example of the ineffective hopeless
inefficiency of government enterprise.
Strange and somewhat naive material in your citations. Presumably the
$18B comes from an assumption that if the Post Office charged first
class rates instead of bulk mail rates, didn't get tax exemptions, and
didn't have economy of scale advantages, somehow the $18B would not be
born indirectly by everyone who uses USPS. So, money saved would
somehow be interpreted as a tax savings to the taxpayer. That is pretty
convoluted and fundamentally dishonest. One could try to make the same
arguments about any corporation providing a service and you would
probably quickly point out the fallacies.

The articles also go into the old issues of retirement benefits and what
constitutes sufficient reserves to cover obligations. Frankly, if the
Congress didn't require higher reserves and if it denied investment in
Treasuries as a way to cover those reserves, most of existing retirement
programs in the private sector would not be able to comply. This is one
of the reasons that defined benefit programs in the private sector are
nearly gone.

Nobody likes junk mail, but like spam and robocalls, no one seems to be
willing to eliminate it. By default, the market defines what is allowed
to pester us and that is unlikely to be changed by Congress.

Over the past 25 years I have witnessed the private sector drive to
impose push marketing onto Internet platforms and they are winning. So
much for the early goals of making the Internet a place where users
could get the information that they wanted instead of having to deal
with all the junk that some marketing genius thinks can be justified on
the margin.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-25 20:00:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Maybe if the average salary of postal workers was less than 61k a year, there would'nt be such a huge deficit? And if you work for usps for 40 years, the retirement benefit is 46k a year, plus medical, dental and all the stuff. If I had it to do again, I would definitely get a government job and the taxpayers can kiss my ass.
El Castor
2020-07-26 01:50:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Maybe if the average salary of postal workers was less than 61k a year, there would'nt be such a huge deficit? And if you work for usps for 40 years, the retirement benefit is 46k a year, plus medical, dental and all the stuff. If I had it to do again, I would definitely get a government job and the taxpayers can kiss my ass.
My BIL is a retired fireman -- retired on a 114K pension, and free
medical care. When I scratch my head over that he just reminds me that
I should have gotten into government work. (-8
El Castor
2020-07-26 01:46:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
People don't write letters anymore. 90% of what fills the mail box is
useless garbage -- advertising and contribute to this or that. The
occasional bill, statement, and greeting card could be delivered once
or twice a week. Amazon, FedEx, and UPS take care of the important
stuff, so why not cut way back -- at the very least?
PS -- The politicians would never buy it -- might cost them votes.
You have got to be kidding! Where else can you get something delivered
anywhere in the US for 50 cents with a very high probability that it
will arrive within a few days?
Email, texting, and photos are delivered instantly for free, and you
may not know any millenials, but many (most?) are unable to read
handwriting -- they print.
Post by islander
In addition, there are a large variety
of legal requirements that are met through postal delivery.
So deliver once a week, and ask the junk mailers to pay the true cost
of the crap that fills the postal trucks.
Post by islander
Finally,
the USPS is not paid for by the taxpayer if you are thinking it is.
Oh?
"USPS Has Received Over $45 Billion from Taxpayers to Reduce the Cost
of Junk Mail, Killing Billions of Trees
100 million trees and $178 billion worth of time could be saved every
year by not subsidizing junk mail"
https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/usps-uses-18-billion-in-taxpayer-subsidies-to-subsidize-junk-mail-killing-100-million-trees-and-irritating-millions/
"American taxpayers give an $18 billion gift to the post office every
year"
https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/
Post by islander
It
receives no tax dollars for operating expenses. If you want to save
money, you might consider removing Congressional authority over the Post
Office. It is not obvious that they do anything to improve service or
reduce costs.
"The Postal Service needs a bailout. Congress is partly to blame.
A 2006 law set the stage to burden the agency with $160 billion in
debt"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/15/postal-service-bailout-congress/
95% of the mail we receive goes directly to the recycle bin. The Post
Office is a mess -- yet another example of the ineffective hopeless
inefficiency of government enterprise.
Strange and somewhat naive material in your citations.
My cites included the Wasington Post. But here is something from
Quora, a site you have spoken well of:

"Will Wister
The USPS is losing money every year, as shown in its financial
statements.
The cumulative losses from 2016 to 2018 comfortably exceed 10
billion dollars. [1]
The cumulative losses including prior years exceed 60 billion
dollars.[2]
If you are losing money every year how do you make up the difference?
Well the USPS does it in two ways:
It borrows cheaply from the Federal Government.
It borrows from its own retirees’ pension funds and its retiree’s
health benefits fund."
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-USPS-subsidized-by-the-U-S-government

Bottom line, the USPS loses billions every year and covers its losses
by borrowing from the federal government AND the retirement funds of
its own employees! You know as well as I do that when the time comes
to pay the piper the federal government will be left holding the bag.

It's time we realized that the times have changed. There is no need to
subsidize junk mail, or clutter our mailboxes with it 6 days a week.
Post by islander
Presumably the
$18B comes from an assumption that if the Post Office charged first
class rates instead of bulk mail rates, didn't get tax exemptions, and
didn't have economy of scale advantages, somehow the $18B would not be
born indirectly by everyone who uses USPS. So, money saved would
somehow be interpreted as a tax savings to the taxpayer. That is pretty
convoluted and fundamentally dishonest. One could try to make the same
arguments about any corporation providing a service and you would
probably quickly point out the fallacies.
The articles also go into the old issues of retirement benefits and what
constitutes sufficient reserves to cover obligations. Frankly, if the
Congress didn't require higher reserves and if it denied investment in
Treasuries as a way to cover those reserves, most of existing retirement
programs in the private sector would not be able to comply. This is one
of the reasons that defined benefit programs in the private sector are
nearly gone.
Nobody likes junk mail, but like spam and robocalls, no one seems to be
willing to eliminate it. By default, the market defines what is allowed
to pester us and that is unlikely to be changed by Congress.
Over the past 25 years I have witnessed the private sector drive to
impose push marketing onto Internet platforms and they are winning. So
much for the early goals of making the Internet a place where users
could get the information that they wanted instead of having to deal
with all the junk that some marketing genius thinks can be justified on
the margin.
islander
2020-07-26 15:04:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
My cites included the Wasington Post. But here is something from
I like WaPo because they usually demand balanced reporting, especially
on their editorial pages. The article that you cited blamed the current
deficits on the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA).
It also points out what was going on in 2006. At the time, the Postal
Service was profitable and the Bush administration couldn't have that!
So they increased the reserve that is required for retirement benefits,
another attempt to reduce the power of the postal union, one of your
favorite whipping boys. The timing of this is important because with
the rule changes incorporated in the PAEA, the postal service was in
trouble (like many private corporations) as the bottom fell out of the
economy in the Great Recession. If you look back at the balance sheet
for the USPS, you will see that most of the debt that conservatives
complain about happened then, not only due to the changed rules
governing reserves, but also due to the early retirements, placing
additional strain on their balance sheet. If you recall, the same thing
happened in the California retirement system which was doing well in
2006, but which got into trouble in the Great Recession when income
declined.

Yes, the USPS has benefited from low interest government loans, just as
many other large private sector corporations have. Complaining about
that deserves a fair share of comparisons with what was going on in the
private sector economy.

As to Quora, I like it because it has a wide diversity of opinion among
participants. If you look at participation in the particular citation
that you used, you will find counter arguments. You should try some of
your arguments on Quora. You will find some who will agree with you,
but you will also get other perspectives from people who are well
prepared to support their positions.

It is a shame that soc.retirement is reduced to only a few posts worth
reading, much less to respond to. I would suggest that Quora is a good
replacement - much larger participation and includes a lot of features
that I like, including the ability to include graphics. Their rules
also tend to discourage trolls and other people who resort to uncivil
correspondence.
El Castor
2020-07-26 20:59:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
My cites included the Wasington Post. But here is something from
I like WaPo because they usually demand balanced reporting, especially
on their editorial pages. The article that you cited blamed the current
deficits on the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA).
It also points out what was going on in 2006. At the time, the Postal
Service was profitable and the Bush administration couldn't have that!
So they increased the reserve that is required for retirement benefits,
another attempt to reduce the power of the postal union, one of your
favorite whipping boys. The timing of this is important because with
the rule changes incorporated in the PAEA, the postal service was in
trouble (like many private corporations) as the bottom fell out of the
economy in the Great Recession. If you look back at the balance sheet
for the USPS, you will see that most of the debt that conservatives
complain about happened then, not only due to the changed rules
governing reserves, but also due to the early retirements, placing
additional strain on their balance sheet. If you recall, the same thing
happened in the California retirement system which was doing well in
2006, but which got into trouble in the Great Recession when income
declined.
Yes, the USPS has benefited from low interest government loans, just as
many other large private sector corporations have. Complaining about
that deserves a fair share of comparisons with what was going on in the
private sector economy.
As to Quora, I like it because it has a wide diversity of opinion among
participants. If you look at participation in the particular citation
that you used, you will find counter arguments. You should try some of
your arguments on Quora. You will find some who will agree with you,
but you will also get other perspectives from people who are well
prepared to support their positions.
It is a shame that soc.retirement is reduced to only a few posts worth
reading, much less to respond to. I would suggest that Quora is a good
replacement - much larger participation and includes a lot of features
that I like, including the ability to include graphics. Their rules
also tend to discourage trolls and other people who resort to uncivil
correspondence.
USENET as a discussion forum is dying, and with it soc.retirement.
Most activity these days is in the binary groups.

Getting back to the Post Office ...

ABC:
"Some progressive reports have tried to make out the funding
requirement as a poisoned pill pushed by small government Republicans
intended on bankrupting the Postal Service, but two of the three
co-sponsors were Democrats, including Henry Waxman of Los Angeles. And
that year his biggest financial supporters included the Postal Workers
Union, the National Association of Postmasters and the National Rural
Letter Carriers Association."
https://abc7news.com/archive/9012963/

I'd add that Democrats had eight years of Obama to do something. Here
is Obama on the subject ...
"President Barack Obama's not-so-subtle dig at the U.S. Postal
Service—"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office
that's always having problems"—has sent his cheerful relations with
America's postal unions to the dead letter office."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/08/18/usps-goes-postal-on-obama-after-post-office-crack

Bottom line -- Technology has left the Post Office in the dust of
history.
islander
2020-07-26 23:08:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
My cites included the Wasington Post. But here is something from
I like WaPo because they usually demand balanced reporting, especially
on their editorial pages. The article that you cited blamed the current
deficits on the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA).
It also points out what was going on in 2006. At the time, the Postal
Service was profitable and the Bush administration couldn't have that!
So they increased the reserve that is required for retirement benefits,
another attempt to reduce the power of the postal union, one of your
favorite whipping boys. The timing of this is important because with
the rule changes incorporated in the PAEA, the postal service was in
trouble (like many private corporations) as the bottom fell out of the
economy in the Great Recession. If you look back at the balance sheet
for the USPS, you will see that most of the debt that conservatives
complain about happened then, not only due to the changed rules
governing reserves, but also due to the early retirements, placing
additional strain on their balance sheet. If you recall, the same thing
happened in the California retirement system which was doing well in
2006, but which got into trouble in the Great Recession when income
declined.
Yes, the USPS has benefited from low interest government loans, just as
many other large private sector corporations have. Complaining about
that deserves a fair share of comparisons with what was going on in the
private sector economy.
As to Quora, I like it because it has a wide diversity of opinion among
participants. If you look at participation in the particular citation
that you used, you will find counter arguments. You should try some of
your arguments on Quora. You will find some who will agree with you,
but you will also get other perspectives from people who are well
prepared to support their positions.
It is a shame that soc.retirement is reduced to only a few posts worth
reading, much less to respond to. I would suggest that Quora is a good
replacement - much larger participation and includes a lot of features
that I like, including the ability to include graphics. Their rules
also tend to discourage trolls and other people who resort to uncivil
correspondence.
USENET as a discussion forum is dying, and with it soc.retirement.
Most activity these days is in the binary groups.
Getting back to the Post Office ...
"Some progressive reports have tried to make out the funding
requirement as a poisoned pill pushed by small government Republicans
intended on bankrupting the Postal Service, but two of the three
co-sponsors were Democrats, including Henry Waxman of Los Angeles. And
that year his biggest financial supporters included the Postal Workers
Union, the National Association of Postmasters and the National Rural
Letter Carriers Association."
https://abc7news.com/archive/9012963/
I'd add that Democrats had eight years of Obama to do something. Here
is Obama on the subject ...
"President Barack Obama's not-so-subtle dig at the U.S. Postal
Service—"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office
that's always having problems"—has sent his cheerful relations with
America's postal unions to the dead letter office."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/08/18/usps-goes-postal-on-obama-after-post-office-crack
Bottom line -- Technology has left the Post Office in the dust of
history.
Perhaps, but the Republicans have been trying to eliminate the Post
Office for decades. Is it a coincidence that this is in the news again
when Trump is claiming that mail-in ballots are an invitation for voter
fraud? Here in WA, we have been using all mail-in ballots with no hint
of fraud and OR has been using them even longer.

Or perhaps Trump is still pissed that he didn't get the Post Office to
increase rates for Amazon?

Did you know that the Post Office handles last mile delivery for both
FedEx and UPS in rural areas?
El Castor
2020-07-27 00:47:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
My cites included the Wasington Post. But here is something from
I like WaPo because they usually demand balanced reporting, especially
on their editorial pages. The article that you cited blamed the current
deficits on the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA).
It also points out what was going on in 2006. At the time, the Postal
Service was profitable and the Bush administration couldn't have that!
So they increased the reserve that is required for retirement benefits,
another attempt to reduce the power of the postal union, one of your
favorite whipping boys. The timing of this is important because with
the rule changes incorporated in the PAEA, the postal service was in
trouble (like many private corporations) as the bottom fell out of the
economy in the Great Recession. If you look back at the balance sheet
for the USPS, you will see that most of the debt that conservatives
complain about happened then, not only due to the changed rules
governing reserves, but also due to the early retirements, placing
additional strain on their balance sheet. If you recall, the same thing
happened in the California retirement system which was doing well in
2006, but which got into trouble in the Great Recession when income
declined.
Yes, the USPS has benefited from low interest government loans, just as
many other large private sector corporations have. Complaining about
that deserves a fair share of comparisons with what was going on in the
private sector economy.
As to Quora, I like it because it has a wide diversity of opinion among
participants. If you look at participation in the particular citation
that you used, you will find counter arguments. You should try some of
your arguments on Quora. You will find some who will agree with you,
but you will also get other perspectives from people who are well
prepared to support their positions.
It is a shame that soc.retirement is reduced to only a few posts worth
reading, much less to respond to. I would suggest that Quora is a good
replacement - much larger participation and includes a lot of features
that I like, including the ability to include graphics. Their rules
also tend to discourage trolls and other people who resort to uncivil
correspondence.
USENET as a discussion forum is dying, and with it soc.retirement.
Most activity these days is in the binary groups.
Getting back to the Post Office ...
"Some progressive reports have tried to make out the funding
requirement as a poisoned pill pushed by small government Republicans
intended on bankrupting the Postal Service, but two of the three
co-sponsors were Democrats, including Henry Waxman of Los Angeles. And
that year his biggest financial supporters included the Postal Workers
Union, the National Association of Postmasters and the National Rural
Letter Carriers Association."
https://abc7news.com/archive/9012963/
I'd add that Democrats had eight years of Obama to do something. Here
is Obama on the subject ...
"President Barack Obama's not-so-subtle dig at the U.S. Postal
Service—"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office
that's always having problems"—has sent his cheerful relations with
America's postal unions to the dead letter office."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/08/18/usps-goes-postal-on-obama-after-post-office-crack
Bottom line -- Technology has left the Post Office in the dust of
history.
Perhaps, but the Republicans have been trying to eliminate the Post
Office for decades. Is it a coincidence that this is in the news again
when Trump is claiming that mail-in ballots are an invitation for voter
fraud? Here in WA, we have been using all mail-in ballots with no hint
of fraud and OR has been using them even longer.
Whatever you say, but I assure you my motivation is purely personal.
The Post Office is an enormous money loser and annoys me with all the
junk mail crap. What turned me on in this case was a USPS stamp
catalog we got in the mail -- loaded with a zillion different stamps
bearing the postal art. Those stamps were never intended to find their
way to an envelope, just the books of collectors who never would use
them. Is marketing collectors items really an appropriate role of
government?
Post by islander
Or perhaps Trump is still pissed that he didn't get the Post Office to
increase rates for Amazon?
Trump would just like to see the USPS profitable, as would I, but it
clearly is never going to happen. Barack Obama would apparently agree.
Post by islander
Did you know that the Post Office handles last mile delivery for both
FedEx and UPS in rural areas?
I'm sure UPS and FedEx could and would do it more efficiently.

islander
2020-07-26 23:32:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
My cites included the Wasington Post. But here is something from
I like WaPo because they usually demand balanced reporting, especially
on their editorial pages. The article that you cited blamed the current
deficits on the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA).
It also points out what was going on in 2006. At the time, the Postal
Service was profitable and the Bush administration couldn't have that!
So they increased the reserve that is required for retirement benefits,
another attempt to reduce the power of the postal union, one of your
favorite whipping boys. The timing of this is important because with
the rule changes incorporated in the PAEA, the postal service was in
trouble (like many private corporations) as the bottom fell out of the
economy in the Great Recession. If you look back at the balance sheet
for the USPS, you will see that most of the debt that conservatives
complain about happened then, not only due to the changed rules
governing reserves, but also due to the early retirements, placing
additional strain on their balance sheet. If you recall, the same thing
happened in the California retirement system which was doing well in
2006, but which got into trouble in the Great Recession when income
declined.
Yes, the USPS has benefited from low interest government loans, just as
many other large private sector corporations have. Complaining about
that deserves a fair share of comparisons with what was going on in the
private sector economy.
As to Quora, I like it because it has a wide diversity of opinion among
participants. If you look at participation in the particular citation
that you used, you will find counter arguments. You should try some of
your arguments on Quora. You will find some who will agree with you,
but you will also get other perspectives from people who are well
prepared to support their positions.
It is a shame that soc.retirement is reduced to only a few posts worth
reading, much less to respond to. I would suggest that Quora is a good
replacement - much larger participation and includes a lot of features
that I like, including the ability to include graphics. Their rules
also tend to discourage trolls and other people who resort to uncivil
correspondence.
USENET as a discussion forum is dying, and with it soc.retirement.
Most activity these days is in the binary groups.
Getting back to the Post Office ...
"Some progressive reports have tried to make out the funding
requirement as a poisoned pill pushed by small government Republicans
intended on bankrupting the Postal Service, but two of the three
co-sponsors were Democrats, including Henry Waxman of Los Angeles. And
that year his biggest financial supporters included the Postal Workers
Union, the National Association of Postmasters and the National Rural
Letter Carriers Association."
https://abc7news.com/archive/9012963/
I'd add that Democrats had eight years of Obama to do something. Here
is Obama on the subject ...
"President Barack Obama's not-so-subtle dig at the U.S. Postal
Service—"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office
that's always having problems"—has sent his cheerful relations with
America's postal unions to the dead letter office."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/08/18/usps-goes-postal-on-obama-after-post-office-crack
Bottom line -- Technology has left the Post Office in the dust of
history.
Perhaps, but the Republicans have been trying to eliminate the Post
Office for decades. Is it a coincidence that this is in the news again
when Trump is claiming that mail-in ballots are an invitation for voter
fraud? Here in WA, we have been using all mail-in ballots with no hint
of fraud and OR has been using them even longer.

Or perhaps Trump is still pissed that he didn't get the Post Office to
increase rates for Amazon?

Did you know that the Post Office handles last mile delivery for both
FedEx and UPS in rural areas?
Loading...