Department of Government Efficiency - DOGE

#6,101
#6,101
volkyries said:
Easy to be profitable when you are charging $14 a letter (FedEx) to ship it. Are you advocating USPS charge $14 a letter or to get out of providing a public service as it was intended? Others mailers are so profitable because they get to pick and choose (by pricing) their customers and loads.
Click to expand...
You're getting delivery in bulk, which wouldn't necessarily fit into any of the current carriers model but that can change. In theory, you could possibly reduce the cost of their normal delivery.
 
#6,102
#6,102
LSU-SIU said:
You're getting delivery in bulk, which wouldn't necessarily fit into any of the current carriers model but that can change. In theory, you could possibly reduce the cost of their normal delivery.
Click to expand...
Everything can change and in theory, everything works so I am not sure you have much of a point here.

My point is, you are comparing apples and oranges. The USPS started as a public service to deliver mail to everybody/everywhere and private companies serve those they choose to serve (not sure if they currently deliver everywhere now or not, but they previously didn't) and how much they are willing to charge to deliver to the farthest reaching places (definitely charge more for rural or residential addresses).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#6,103
#6,103
volkyries said:
Easy to be profitable when you are charging $14 a letter (FedEx) to ship it. Are you advocating USPS charge $14 a letter or to get out of providing a public service as it was intended? Others mailers are so profitable because they get to pick and choose (by pricing) their customers and loads.
Click to expand...
The reply was really to bring to light that a "service" business isn't equivalent to a business which doesn't make money or profit but only incurs cost.

Your construct of choices is limited and artificially narrow. If others charge $14 for a letter and people pay it, why shouldn't the USPS charge market price for it, too? To expand that notion a bit, why do we use FedEx and other courier services when the USPS is far cheaper? What does that say about the confidence or efficiency of the service USPS provides? And since we are talking about price for delivery, why does a letter I drop of at the post office require a stamp to be placed inside a PO box in that same post office???

In my rural area in TN, the postal workers could move away from a delivery every day expectation to a delivery every 3 or 4 days with zero impact on my life. If the workers could rotate between 3 or 4 service routes then several employees could be let go and the USPS could take a step towards better financial security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, Orange_Crush and hog88
#6,104
#6,104
Orange. said:
You’re so fake. Presented yourself as some kind of military “expert,” and now you make it vivid that you are just a party hack.

You don’t give a damn about budget deficits. You wage war on any and every expenditure cut, as if your pay depends on it.

Everyone sees through you.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha for real?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange. and InVOLuntary
#6,105
#6,105
Orange. said:
You big mad. I’m just laughing at you. I never said any such thing about the GOP. You are slinging your sad-sack party-hack lines indiscriminately. Whatever the media tells you is today’s propaganda take of the day. You’re shook.

You are much more propagandistic than RT. 😂
Click to expand...
1740587920451.png
 
#6,106
#6,106
volkyries said:
Everything can change and in theory, everything works so I am not sure you have much of a point here.

My point is, you are comparing apples and oranges. The USPS started as a public service to deliver mail to everybody/everywhere and private companies serve those they choose to serve (not sure if they currently deliver everywhere now or not, but they previously didn't) and how much they are willing to charge to deliver to the farthest reaching places (definitely charge more for rural or residential addresses).
Click to expand...

Delivery is not needed everyday, also this can be implemented with existing air/ground deliveries. I trust most of the delivery services more than postal service and I love our post office people. Its completely about management, they have no idea what they are doing and have no idea how to execute. The local post office in our case simply isn't the problem, a third party at scale can do it probably much cheaper and better.

For the record, we like our local post office people... we know them all for miles and miles. The problems with post office would be better solved by replacement as either a full replacement or at least to centralized locations.

Just my take.
 
#6,107
#6,107
volkyries said:
Easy to be profitable when you are charging $14 a letter (FedEx) to ship it. Are you advocating USPS charge $14 a letter or to get out of providing a public service as it was intended? Others mailers are so profitable because they get to pick and choose (by pricing) their customers and loads.
Click to expand...

USPS could raise rates and limit routes. Do we really need 6 day a week mail delivery?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL, SpaceCoastVol, Orangeslice13 and 2 others
#6,112
#6,112
LSU-SIU said:
Delivery is not needed everyday, also this can be implemented with existing air/ground deliveries. I trust most of the delivery services more than postal service and I love our post office people. Its completely about management, they have no idea what they are doing and have no idea how to execute. The local post office in our case simply isn't the problem, a third party at scale can do it probably much cheaper and better.

For the record, we like our local post office people... we know them all for miles and miles. The problems with post office would be better solved by replacement as either a full replacement or at least to centralized locations.

Just my take.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. I misunderstood your bulk delivery comment. Less delivery per week would definitely help and would have little effect on most people. I know I don't even check my mail for a couple of days at a time unless I know there is something "important" in there. I am all for changes, just getting them approved would be difficult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and LSU-SIU
#6,115
#6,115
McDad said:
The reply was really to bring to light that a "service" business isn't equivalent to a business which doesn't make money or profit but only incurs cost.

Your construct of choices is limited and artificially narrow. If others charge $14 for a letter and people pay it, why shouldn't the USPS charge market price for it, too? To expand that notion a bit, why do we use FedEx and other courier services when the USPS is far cheaper? What does that say about the confidence or efficiency of the service USPS provides? And since we are talking about price for delivery, why does a letter I drop of at the post office require a stamp to be placed inside a PO box in that same post office???

In my rural area in TN, the postal workers could move away from a delivery every day expectation to a delivery every 3 or 4 days with zero impact on my life. If the workers could rotate between 3 or 4 service routes then several employees could be let go and the USPS could take a step towards better financial security.
Click to expand...

People pay $14 for "exceptional" service and most of the time the people paying FedEx to ship letters are using other people's money (corporations, lawyers billing clients, etc.). The $14 service works because everyone is not using it. FedEx would not be able to afford such guarantees on their service is they were handling 100 or 1,000s of times more volume like USPS does. Why do people eat at McDonalds or even Texas Roadhouse instead of Ruth Chris? Because that's all they can afford or they don't feel the luxury is worth the costs. Same with USPS vs private shippers.

That said, yes, there is room (with the political will) for price increases for USPS and changes to their delivery times/# of deliveries per week and I agree we should be doing some of those actions (specifically decreased delivery frequency). I don't agree with privatizing the postal service though, since I think in the long run it would be more expensive and in order to reach areas no one wanted to deliver to we would have laws/regulations forcing additional charges for "Universal service charges" (similar to the old charges on phone bills, cable, internet, etc.).

Your letter cost you since you used the service and the price is an average for the service. My letter from TN to CA thanks you for sharing its cost. if To bad it was a PO Box or you could have just hand delivered the letter yourself and avoided the PO all together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#6,118
#6,118
Seems like everyone agrees on mail being reformed. Who is fighting that ?

Got to be the mass mail companies, the ones that do ads and coupon or bulk mailers.
 
#6,119
#6,119
lawgator1 said:
Seems like everyone agrees on mail being reformed. Who is fighting that ?

Got to be the mass mail companies, the ones that do ads and coupon or bulk mailers.
Click to expand...
I would guess those companies and the older generation that still use mail. Also, FedEx and UPS use it to cover a lot of their delivers through SurePost and SmartPost programs.
 
#6,121
#6,121
hog88 said:
Agreed and it will be the albatross around their neck in the midterms.
Click to expand...
From what I’ve understood the debt ceiling isn’t an entirety of what’s actually owed. That’s what been spent in excess of budgets and the US has other financial obligations and debts that exceed that number. They’ve still been able to spend more than they have in official debt. So the ceiling always has to be raised. Whatever the ceiling currently is. Just say 36.5 trillion for giggles. If they did not extend the debt ceiling they would default correct? I’d expect another debt ceiling increase since that’s not inclusive of all debt obligations facing the current admin. What I’d hope, but highly skeptical, is that the current admin would work to reduce spending so another debt ceiling increase won’t be needed in 2-4 years. You can’t unwind 25 years of sh**** spending in the first budget.

Sure I’d love for the debt to not go up but I’m trying to be realistic.
 
#6,122
#6,122
TheDeeble said:
From what I’ve understood the debt ceiling isn’t an entirety of what’s actually owed. That’s what been spent in excess of budgets and the US has other financial obligations and debts that exceed that number. They’ve still been able to spend more than they have in official debt. So the ceiling always has to be raised. Whatever the ceiling currently is. Just say 36.5 trillion for giggles. If they did not extend the debt ceiling they would default correct? I’d expect another debt ceiling increase since that’s not inclusive of all debt obligations facing the current admin. What I’d hope, but highly skeptical, is that the current admin would work to reduce spending so another debt ceiling increase won’t be needed in 2-4 years. You can’t unwind 25 years of sh**** spending in the first budget.

Sure I’d love for the debt to not go up but I’m trying to be realistic.
Click to expand...

The 4 billion is what's needed to get through 2026 elections...

This is the 5th budget, not 1st...
 
#6,123
#6,123
BigOrangeMojo said:
The 4 billion is what's needed to get through 2026 elections...

This is the 5th budget, not 1st...
Click to expand...
First proposal under the current admin.

Okay so 4 trillion to the 2026 midterms. I’d be looking at how the spending goes this year and next. Has deficit spending been significantly reduced. Are they at least approaching something revenue neutral. Like I said I doubt any of this would actually happen. It’s just saying they failed because they want to extend the debt ceiling now imo isn’t an immediate failure. The fed govt spends so that the debt ceiling will always have to be increased when it gets to that point. We need an admin that takes that new ceiling and reduces spending so that another increase isn’t needed in the future.
 
#6,124
#6,124
McDad said:
The reply was really to bring to light that a "service" business isn't equivalent to a business which doesn't make money or profit but only incurs cost.

Your construct of choices is limited and artificially narrow. If others charge $14 for a letter and people pay it, why shouldn't the USPS charge market price for it, too? To expand that notion a bit, why do we use FedEx and other courier services when the USPS is far cheaper? What does that say about the confidence or efficiency of the service USPS provides? And since we are talking about price for delivery, why does a letter I drop of at the post office require a stamp to be placed inside a PO box in that same post office???

In my rural area in TN, the postal workers could move away from a delivery every day expectation to a delivery every 3 or 4 days with zero impact on my life. If the workers could rotate between 3 or 4 service routes then several employees could be let go and the USPS could take a step towards better financial security.
Click to expand...
That's what should happen. Letter mail will never be profitable, so a post office will always be needed, but they could be a lot more efficient. I worked at a contracted site years ago. I was a Pitney Bose employee, but we were contracted by the post office to handle the mail. We were not union employees, so we easily handled bulk mail at a much greater volume. In the federal governments infinite wisdom, they shut us down and sent all that mail to Atlanta to be handled so the union would quit b!tching. The USPS could easily contract out some of their bulk mail handling again to save money, but the gotta get the union out of the way first.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top