Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Postal Service Reports $1.9 Billion Quarterly loss. Ben Gibbard distraught   (nytimes.com) divider line 118
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

2410 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2014 at 10:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-10 01:36:55 AM  

ongbok: jaylectricity: Male is my right.

This I don't even.

Just checking the male, right?


I had nothing else, man. Just a stupid pun.
 
2014-05-10 01:43:21 AM  

People_are_Idiots: Superjew: Looks like the Republican plan to hand over more public services to their buddies at UPS and FedEx for massive profit is working out great.

Here's the rub: UPS and FedEx don't want it. They WANT the USPS to stay, so to keep their costs down. Yes folks, the USPS delivers mail for UPS and FedEx.


On top of that USPS is one of the biggest shippers on FedEx and UPS. We(I work at post office) go under and suddenly fedex and UPS need a lot more customer support to individually take care of packages instead of the bulk we do.
 
2014-05-10 01:52:00 AM  
What do you call it when you get a phone book in your mailbox? Shared Obsolescence. Embrace the digital age once and for all and dismantle the post office - we don't need it since we have email and internet. Save a few trees or some such. And holy hell people, don't ship your packages US Mail, unless you really don't care if it gets where it's going. I work for UPS, and I tell all my customers that I would much rather them use FedEx than US Mail.
 
2014-05-10 02:03:45 AM  

whatshisname: I can never understand why the US Postal Service still delivers on Saturday. Who the hell needs mail on Saturday?


Apparently people who buy cheap ass retro video games, because I guarantee you many of my customers are super happy to be getting their orders two days earlier. And frankly I'm happy they're getting them faster. I ship on Saturdays as well, most of the time.

Believe me, our postal service is pretty good compared to other countries. I send stuff out internationally and about 30% of the time the buyer has to wait a really long time to get their package due to 'Customs'. Sure. Customs. Riiiight.
 
2014-05-10 02:03:49 AM  
Being the Postal Service sucks.

You have zero autonomy.  You can't raise prices.  You can't streamline operations.  You can't reduce your unprofitable coverage areas.  You can't even cut costs or lay people off.  You can't do jack-all without Congressional approval, and Congress is run by people who refuse to help fix you because they want a dysfunctional government agency as a rhetorical foil to prove why government agencies don't work.

I'm not sure why anyone accepts a job as Postmaster General.
 
2014-05-10 02:20:27 AM  
Congress mandated that the Post Office forward fund future pension obligations for the future 75 years, for the employees that will (but not currently) hired. Or as somebody above said, even born today.

No other private or public organization suffers under such mandate.

It's partisan bullshiat at work.
 
2014-05-10 02:46:09 AM  

Revmachine21: Congress mandated that the Post Office forward fund future pension obligations for the future 75 years, for the employees that will (but not currently) hired. Or as somebody above said, even born today.

No other private or public organization suffers under such mandate.

It's partisan bullshiat at work.


They did that because the USPS hadn't funded their pensions properly and their plan of counting on an ever-expanding postal service to cover the spread in the future was flat-out not going to work.  Traditional pension programs used current employees to pay for current retirees.  That doesn't work if your total workforce is shrinking.

But it doesn't matter - the USPS hasn't made that payment in three years, and they are still losing money.  They have a larger issue than not just being able to cover their own promises to labor pensions, they are barely breaking even making payroll.

The liberal plan for the post office seems to be ignoring the pension problem until there has to be an unprecedented bailout, and the conservative plan seems to be to kill the USPS before they can make good on the pension plan.  Either strategy leaves the employees farked.  Postal rates need to be grossly adjusted upward just to cover existing promises, and the labor force still needs to shrink.
 
2014-05-10 03:49:19 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: fusillade762: Congress's plan to kill a constitutionally mandated service appears to be working. Why does Congress hate the Constitution?

The funny thing is they're doing it wrong (again).

If they wanted to be absolute pedantic constitutionalists, they'd support stripping the USPS of its package delivery aspect and only allowing "mail" in the smallest, most literal sense: 1st class letters.

The big companies don't want to have to deliver one phone bill to Uncle Jerry out on county road 900 north.


I believe it was UPS who offered to take over the letter delivery service and do it for less.  They were turned down.  Also, a long time ago Congress passed a law that forbids private letter service, so there is no competition.  The Boy Scouts had a holiday letter delivery service shut down because of that law.

I hardly pay attention to US mail.  I have a mail box I visit every few weeks, but all my bills are handled electronically, so there's really no need for it.
 
2014-05-10 05:06:51 AM  

kling_klang_bed: Applause to subby! PS, I'm one of the few who likes Postal Union better than Death Cab For cutie (loved 'Plans', farking hated the last two).


Dont you mean "The Postal Service"? And your not the only one.
 
2014-05-10 05:07:23 AM  

Lsherm: Revmachine21: Congress mandated that the Post Office forward fund future pension obligations for the future 75 years, for the employees that will (but not currently) hired. Or as somebody above said, even born today.

No other private or public organization suffers under such mandate.

It's partisan bullshiat at work.

They did that because the USPS hadn't funded their pensions properly and their plan of counting on an ever-expanding postal service to cover the spread in the future was flat-out not going to work.  Traditional pension programs used current employees to pay for current retirees.  That doesn't work if your total workforce is shrinking.

But it doesn't matter - the USPS hasn't made that payment in three years, and they are still losing money.  They have a larger issue than not just being able to cover their own promises to labor pensions, they are barely breaking even making payroll.

The liberal plan for the post office seems to be ignoring the pension problem until there has to be an unprecedented bailout, and the conservative plan seems to be to kill the USPS before they can make good on the pension plan.  Either strategy leaves the employees farked.  Postal rates need to be grossly adjusted upward just to cover existing promises, and the labor force still needs to shrink.


That's part truth but a heavy level of bullshiat as congress mandated the post office prefund for too many years ahead in too little time despite irrefutable evidence it would not work.

The want it to fail so they can pass a law giving the mail to UPS or Fed ex or both.
 
2014-05-10 05:36:45 AM  
You know what department I'd like to see mandated to pay for itself?  DoD.
 
2014-05-10 05:44:59 AM  
buzzcut73:Congress is also authorized, but not required, to fund an Army, but you never hear that argument applied to the Army.  The postal service is really a form of infrastructure. Every other civilized nation has one, there isn't any good reason to hand it all over to other providers that won't do what the USPS does.

Which is what - lose money?  Aside from selling stamps that make neat little collectibles for home bound single men, what does the USPS do that another provider either doesn't or can't do?
 
2014-05-10 06:17:27 AM  

BumpInTheNight: You know what department I'd like to see mandated to pay for itself?  DoD.


How? Looting? Advertising on uniforms? Odd jobs on furloughs?
 
2014-05-10 06:18:07 AM  

whatshisname: It's a make work program for the unemployable.


Yep. It's full of retirees from America's other work program for the unemployable, the Army.
 
2014-05-10 06:21:11 AM  

whatshisname: ongbok: whatshisname: I can never understand why the US Postal Service still delivers on Saturday. Who the hell needs mail on Saturday?

A lot of businesses depend on Saturday service.

Which ones?


Saturday Evening Post.
 
2014-05-10 06:27:43 AM  

inclemency: BumpInTheNight: You know what department I'd like to see mandated to pay for itself?  DoD.

How? Looting? Advertising on uniforms? Odd jobs on furloughs?


Exactly, some things just don't pay for themselves and it should be understood that they are useful despite being a cost center.  I think the USPS is one of them.
 
2014-05-10 06:28:36 AM  

Revmachine21: Congress mandated that the Post Office forward fund future pension obligations for the future 75 years, for the employees that will (but not currently) hired. Or as somebody above said, even born today.

No other private or public organization suffers under such mandate.

It's partisan bullshiat at work.


The logic behind prefunding pensions must be to assure postal employees that Grandma's $10 cash birthday card to little Jimmy need not be pilfered is necessary to self-fund a retirement.

/it's not working.

//those sticky-fingered USPS employees at the Atlanta sorting facility have opened every birthday card I ever received.
 
2014-05-10 06:37:16 AM  

whatshisname: It's a make work program for the unemployable.


I could say that about your job.
 
2014-05-10 08:06:22 AM  

whatshisname: TOSViolation: whatshisname: I am a farking idiot. can never understand why the US Postal Service still delivers on Saturday. Who the hell needs mail on Saturday?

ftfy

Thanks. That was a very well constructed argument.
/do you deliver mail?


There are plenty in this thread who made well-constructed arguments that you just ignored. Then you complain that this guy calls you a farking idiot, without addressing any of them.

So I'd say he was pretty right to call you a farking idiot.
 
2014-05-10 08:11:51 AM  

grimlock1972: Lsherm: Revmachine21: Congress mandated that the Post Office forward fund future pension obligations for the future 75 years, for the employees that will (but not currently) hired. Or as somebody above said, even born today.

No other private or public organization suffers under such mandate.

It's partisan bullshiat at work.

They did that because the USPS hadn't funded their pensions properly and their plan of counting on an ever-expanding postal service to cover the spread in the future was flat-out not going to work.  Traditional pension programs used current employees to pay for current retirees.  That doesn't work if your total workforce is shrinking.

But it doesn't matter - the USPS hasn't made that payment in three years, and they are still losing money.  They have a larger issue than not just being able to cover their own promises to labor pensions, they are barely breaking even making payroll.

The liberal plan for the post office seems to be ignoring the pension problem until there has to be an unprecedented bailout, and the conservative plan seems to be to kill the USPS before they can make good on the pension plan.  Either strategy leaves the employees farked.  Postal rates need to be grossly adjusted upward just to cover existing promises, and the labor force still needs to shrink.

That's part truth but a heavy level of bullshiat as congress mandated the post office prefund for too many years ahead in too little time despite irrefutable evidence it would not work.

The want it to fail so they can pass a law giving the mail to UPS or Fed ex or both.



http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-u-s-postal-serv ic e/11433/

Actually, it would cost something like 8.95 for UPS and FedEx to deliver letters. I heard a  rumor that UPS did a cost analysis, and it would be upwards of 15.00 for a single letter, just across the street.

Hell, i just did it for a .3 pound package, and the only service they will offer me is 2nd day air.  It was 16.95, for something .3 pounds.

what were you saying about them doing it for less?
 
SH
2014-05-10 08:41:27 AM  

oukewldave: Same here.  Everything except my sewer bill since those assholes refuse to get a website to pay online, and the only reason I have to have paper checks.  I always write in the suggestions "get a website to pay bills.  It is 2014".  Hasn't worked yet...



1. Get a bank that has an online bill pay
2. Set up a payment for your sewer payee
3. Pay your bill monthly
4. Don't Profit!

Is it really not obvious?
 
2014-05-10 08:46:17 AM  

King Something: Because a government service which is about as old as the country itself is not allowed to operate without a profit motive. This is why the Marines refused to take out the pirates at Tripoli and why the State Department doesn't have an embassy in Iceland.


FTA: the Postal Service owes $99.8 billion in benefit payments to its current and retired workers, including $16.7 billion of congressionally mandated payments into a future retiree health care fund. A 2006 law requires the service to fund its future retirees' health benefits, amounting to a $5 billion payment each year for 10 years.

That's why the Postal service posts annual losses these days; because Republicans in Congress have mandated it fully fund its future health benefits for employees in the present(defeating the entire purpose of amortization while also, conveniently, stuffing the Post Office full of Public Revenues to be looted when they finally manage to get the service privatized). If the Post Office were allowed to be run like any other Public Service or Semi-Public Entity(think your local transit service) it'd be doing the equivalent of turning a profit(public businesses rarely report making money, but this is a matter of politics rather than efficient management; If an agency doesn't use all of its budget and revenue for a year Legislatures often respond by cutting its budget and taking its revenue[usually to give it to some well connected shiatheel], so public agencies need to spend pretty much everything they make before the end of fiscal year just to keep their service level where it is), but the Republicans in Congress have literally made it illegal for them to do that because 1)they don't want the Post Office being a clear example that the Gov can run a large scale service well and 2)lots of Republican backers want to loot the service.

We see the same thing with Legislative meddling in Amtrack. They cut their maintenance budget to the bone to increase the likelihood of accidents then blame the agency when it happens; they appoint people they view as industry friendly apparatchiks to run it and then fight like devils to get rid of them with they don't play ball with dismantling it; and frequently require it to provide services no other transit business has to and which they believe can't possibly be profitable, only to get pissed off when Amtrak manages to fulfill those obligations and stay within budget.

Tl:dr: Republicans are bastards, and if a gov program has problems, it's probably because Republicans fought tooth and nail to create those problems in the first place.
 
2014-05-10 08:46:37 AM  
A few things the Post Office should really be allowed to do:

-stop overfunding pensions
-raise the price of first class letters to nearly reflect the actual cost of sending them
-do like postal services overseas by allowing post office to offer money making services like selling SIM cards/cell phone plans, and basic savings accounts.
 
2014-05-10 09:00:51 AM  
At a fed ex store the other day, people complained about price and they said go to the usps. Can't best them!
 
2014-05-10 09:01:41 AM  

skinink: A few things the Post Office should really be allowed to do:

-stop overfunding pensions
-raise the price of first class letters to nearly reflect the actual cost of sending them
-do like postal services overseas by allowing post office to offer money making services like selling SIM cards/cell phone plans, and basic savings accounts.


One other I'd add is be allowed to drop "door-to-door" (and suburban/rural "box-by-box") service in favor of much more efficient 'cluster boxes' or post office boxes.  This is something you see in any US neighborhood built in the last 25 years and Canada is going to nationwide.  For all the talk about 'Constitutional mandate', there was no to-the-address delivery in most US cities until the 1870s and most rural addresses until 1900 or so.
 
2014-05-10 09:09:11 AM  

kling_klang_bed: Applause to subby! PS, I'm one of the few who likes Postal Union better than Death Cab For cutie (loved 'Plans', farking hated the last two).


Yeah, but old-school Death Cab fans don't consider anything after 'Plans' (or even 'Transatlanticism,' or 'The Photo Album' if they're really douchy) relevant anyway, so.

Death Cab was a good band at their best, and I'm not going to compare a band with a 15+ year history to a one-off side project. But as someone who loved both 'Give Up' and 'Transatlanticism' ten years ago, I can't argue that the Postal Service album has held up better over time. I still listen to that one on a regular basis.

And I'll add another bravo for subby.
 
2014-05-10 09:12:37 AM  
No. It's not a loss. It's how much they spent providing a valuable service.

How much profit does the Marine Corps make? The fire department? How about the public school system?

Not everything needs to have a profit motive.
 
2014-05-10 09:18:40 AM  

Lsherm: Revmachine21: Congress mandated that the Post Office forward fund future pension obligations for the future 75 years, for the employees that will (but not currently) hired. Or as somebody above said, even born today.

No other private or public organization suffers under such mandate.

It's partisan bullshiat at work.

They did that because the USPS hadn't funded their pensions properly and their plan of counting on an ever-expanding postal service to cover the spread in the future was flat-out not going to work.  Traditional pension programs used current employees to pay for current retirees.  That doesn't work if your total workforce is shrinking.

But it doesn't matter - the USPS hasn't made that payment in three years, and they are still losing money.  They have a larger issue than not just being able to cover their own promises to labor pensions, they are barely breaking even making payroll.

The liberal plan for the post office seems to be ignoring the pension problem until there has to be an unprecedented bailout, and the conservative plan seems to be to kill the USPS before they can make good on the pension plan.  Either strategy leaves the employees farked.  Postal rates need to be grossly adjusted upward just to cover existing promises, and the labor force still needs to shrink.


Or we could just say that having a working postal service is in the national interest and that it doesn't have to operate at a profit or break-even.

/like Death Cab
//not a big fan of The Postal Service from what I've caught on Pandora
 
2014-05-10 09:22:50 AM  

hooligan sidekick: kling_klang_bed: Applause to subby! PS, I'm one of the few who likes Postal Union better than Death Cab For cutie (loved 'Plans', farking hated the last two).

Yeah, but old-school Death Cab fans don't consider anything after 'Plans' (or even 'Transatlanticism,' or 'The Photo Album' if they're really douchy) relevant anyway, so.

Death Cab was a good band at their best, and I'm not going to compare a band with a 15+ year history to a one-off side project. But as someone who loved both 'Give Up' and 'Transatlanticism' ten years ago, I can't argue that the Postal Service album has held up better over time. I still listen to that one on a regular basis.

And I'll add another bravo for subby.


I have to dig out my copy of 'Plans' as is. Damn, haven't listened to that in at least 5 years.
 
2014-05-10 09:35:45 AM  

jaerik: Being the Postal Service sucks.

You have zero autonomy.  You can't raise prices.  You can't streamline operations.  You can't reduce your unprofitable coverage areas.  You can't even cut costs or lay people off.  You can't do jack-all without Congressional approval, and Congress is run by people who refuse to help fix you because they want a dysfunctional government agency as a rhetorical foil to prove why government agencies don't work.

I'm not sure why anyone accepts a job as Postmaster General.


^This^

The USPS has proposed all sorts of plans to bring it in line with the realities of the 21st century only to be shot down continuously by congress thereby guaranteeing it will fail.   The post office where my parents live is a perfect example.  That post office originally served two towns....my parents' town and the next town over.  In the late seventies the volume of mail exceeded the capacity of that postal facility....the place was built in 1960.  The USPS built a new, much larger facility, in the next town and announced that the old facility would be closed.  The new PO was less than one mile from the old facility.  The geezers in my parents' town went berserk.  They screamed at the town council meeting that the new postal facility was too far for them, even though it was less than a mile away, and they all have cars.....I've never seen anyone actually walk to the old facility.    The mayor of the town contacted the the state representative, who in turn contacted the congressman for that district, who in turn got on the Post Office's ass about not closing that old PO location.

Bottom line:  The counter at the old PO has been open for 30 years now while the rest of the facilitate is a rotting hulk.  There is one postal clerk working that counter to serve 20 postal customers a day.   I can't even imagine how much money has been wasted on this thing over 30 years because some dessicated old crones didn't want to drive an extra 3 minutes to mail in the Kibbles 'n Bits $1 rebate form.
 
2014-05-10 09:38:52 AM  

fusillade762: Congress's plan to kill a constitutionally mandated service appears to be working. Why does Congress hate the Constitution?


The Post Office is not constitutionally mandated.  The Constitution states that Congress *has the authority* to establish a Post Office.  The two are mutually exclusive.
 
2014-05-10 09:39:15 AM  

OgreMagi: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: fusillade762: Congress's plan to kill a constitutionally mandated service appears to be working. Why does Congress hate the Constitution?

The funny thing is they're doing it wrong (again).

If they wanted to be absolute pedantic constitutionalists, they'd support stripping the USPS of its package delivery aspect and only allowing "mail" in the smallest, most literal sense: 1st class letters.

The big companies don't want to have to deliver one phone bill to Uncle Jerry out on county road 900 north.

I believe it was UPS who offered to take over the letter delivery service and do it for less.  They were turned down.  Also, a long time ago Congress passed a law that forbids private letter service, so there is no competition.  The Boy Scouts had a holiday letter delivery service shut down because of that law.


[citation needed]
 
2014-05-10 09:42:21 AM  

kling_klang_bed: Applause to subby! PS, I'm one of the few who likes Postal Union better than Death Cab For cutie (loved 'Plans', farking hated the last two).


You couldn't have liked them that much, considering they're called The Postal Service, not Postal Union...

/Plans and Transatlanticism were both quite excellent.
 
2014-05-10 09:45:07 AM  

Gary-L: fusillade762: Congress's plan to kill a constitutionally mandated service appears to be working. Why does Congress hate the Constitution?

The Post Office is not constitutionally mandated.  The Constitution states that Congress *has the authority* to establish a Post Office.  The two are mutually exclusive.


The courts have ruled on that.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause#Interpretation
 
2014-05-10 09:48:35 AM  
So its OK to blow $700b a year on a military, but supporting our economy in a hundred different ways by moving letters and goods around our country isnt worth $8b a year.

Got it.
 
2014-05-10 09:53:39 AM  

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: kling_klang_bed: Applause to subby! PS, I'm one of the few who likes Postal Union better than Death Cab For cutie (loved 'Plans', farking hated the last two).

You couldn't have liked them that much, considering they're called The Postal Service, not Postal Union...

/Plans and Transatlanticism were both quite excellent.


DOH! It's been years, and I'm tired. Sue Me. :-p
 
2014-05-10 09:59:34 AM  

Alonjar: So its OK to blow $700b a year on a military, but supporting our economy in a hundred different ways by moving letters and goods around our country isnt worth $8b a year.

Got it.


Why do you hate freedom?
 
2014-05-10 10:10:11 AM  
How much did the navy profit last year?

ffs.
 
2014-05-10 10:20:31 AM  

Fissile: Why do you hate freedom?


It just isnt as profitable.
 
2014-05-10 10:30:39 AM  

buzzcut73: Lsherm: fusillade762: Congress's plan to kill a constitutionally mandated service appears to be working. Why does Congress hate the Constitution?

The postal clause does not mandate a postal service.  It's an enumerated power of congress that they have the power to regulate the postal service, including defining mail routes and designating areas for post offices.  It does not have to be a public agency (it's not) and it could be shunted off to the back of 7-11's nationwide if congress so wished.

The postal clause authorizes the creation of a postal service, it does not mandate it.

Congress is also authorized, but not required, to fund an Army, but you never hear that argument applied to the Army.
The postal service is really a form of infrastructure. Every other civilized nation has one, there isn't any good reason to hand it all over to other providers that won't do what the USPS does.


Sure. Doesn't change the fact that there's no Constitutional requirement for a Post Office.
 
2014-05-10 10:32:38 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: simrobert2001: Meh. Thats been the rumor for ages. Its honestly due to a congressional requirement to pay 75 years worth of pentions ahead of time.
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/07/20/how-congress-is-kil li ng-the-post-office/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432

According to the National Association of Letter carriers, we're actually something along the lines of two BILLION above expenses a year.  Meaning, we aren't borrowing money from congress, we're simply not paying people who aren't born yet.

Nonsense. Shouldn't we record pension expenses when we promise them?


Your assertion is that we've promised things to people who haven't been born yet?
 
2014-05-10 10:37:42 AM  

peterquince: No. It's not a loss. It's how much they spent providing a valuable service.

How much profit does the Marine Corps make? The fire department? How about the public school system?

Not everything needs to have a profit motive.


But in the case of the Marine Corps and the fire department it's hard to charge people. You can only do it via taxes.

Why shouldn't people pay the full price for posting a letter? All you're actually doing by subsidising the postal service is subsidising post over more efficient forms of communication like email.
 
2014-05-10 10:41:18 AM  
Eliminate all government pensions.  Let the public vote it out.   Why in the fark am I paying taxes to support some dumbass letter carrier's retirement?

Sorry, just kidding...
 
2014-05-10 10:51:59 AM  
Let us remember who the real enemy is,,,
CONGRESS, not the Post Office.

Stay on Target, Grasshopper.
 
2014-05-10 11:16:39 AM  

whatshisname: I can never understand why the US Postal Service still delivers on Saturday. Who the hell needs mail on Saturday?


"I don't need it, so let's get rid of it!"

Some of us do need this service, mainly because our workweeks overlap the weekend and Saturdays are important delivery days.
Try thinking outside your own head.
 
2014-05-10 11:28:32 AM  

dugitman: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The big companies don't want to have to deliver one phone bill to Uncle Jerry out on county road 900 north.

I grew up on county road 900 north in Indiana so I'm getting a kick...


700s road in Lebanon, IN for me. At the time it didn't seem weird to have that as an address.
 
2014-05-10 11:53:13 AM  
All they need to do is charge their actual costs to the junk mailers.  Instead we're as a people subsidizing exactly what we don't want.  Expensive recycling bin fodder.

Remember, they do actually charge the junk mailers some small amount of money, it probably covers quite a bit of the cost.  So, on the whole, they spend probably 10 billion per quarter delivering junk mail and take in maybe 5 billion to do it.

They make a profit on important mail.  Overall they lose money because they want to give such a steep volume discount that they lose money on every "sale" (but they make it up in volume!!)
 
2014-05-10 12:16:10 PM  

lelio: dugitman: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The big companies don't want to have to deliver one phone bill to Uncle Jerry out on county road 900 north.

I grew up on county road 900 north in Indiana so I'm getting a kick...

700s road in Lebanon, IN for me. At the time it didn't seem weird to have that as an address.


Hilarious. You may know my buddy Jay Albertson. We're both Purdue '91 tho I think you're a bit younger.
 
2014-05-10 12:18:28 PM  

walkerhound: Aside from selling stamps that make neat little collectibles for home bound single men, what does the USPS do that another provider either doesn't or can't do?


How about deliver any size package, envelope or parcel to any place in the continental united states or its territories that has an address - even to people in homeless shelters - six days a week? FedEx and UPS won't/can't do that because it's not profitable enough for their shareholders, and if anything they get needs to be delivered to Mooseballs, Wyoming (pop 3) they... drop it in the US Mail. Even the farking Unabomber could get mail.
 
2014-05-10 12:22:02 PM  

simrobert2001: Meh. Thats been the rumor for ages. Its honestly due to a congressional requirement to pay 75 years worth of pentions ahead of time.
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/07/20/how-congress-is-kil li ng-the-post-office/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432

According to the National Association of Letter carriers, we're actually something along the lines of two BILLION above expenses a year.  Meaning, we aren't borrowing money from congress, we're simply not paying people who aren't born yet.


You can almost hear congress critters licking their lips at re-appropriating those funds to their district.

Breaking a government mandated system and then stealing the money; priceless.
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report