“The Trump administration is mistaken about its claim that the postal service is losing money ‘every time they hand out a package for Amazon and other Internet companies,’” O’Rourke said. “The current agreement with Amazon, and presumably other online merchants, is, at the very least, a break-even arrangement. The reason the postal service is losing money is because of a congressionally mandated retirement healthcare funding program that no other government agency is required to observe. This creates a $6.5 billion annual shortfall that could easily be avoided.”
It is fair to say he may be mistaken - although I watch the post office operate daily. I can give you a few examples of government run "services". The DMV. The Post Office. Health Care.
Come wait in a line, sit for 2 hours waiting for your number to be called so you can get your license renewed, spend a month trying to see a doctor so that they will refuse to get blood work, or try to find your missing package. Then come back and tell me how efficient and cost effective they all are and how wrong Trump is.
Amazon Prime has become a scam. It's never almost never 2 days anymore. When they used UPS - like clockwork, sometimes it only took 1 day. When they got a sweet deal from the USPS - it became 2-4 days. Good luck complaining to someone. You'll get nothing and you'll like it.
Regardless of who it is, are you saying this is a good move or that it isnt?
I wasn't really saying it is right or wrong. What I am saying is that the liberals are raising a big fight over this, but to the same point you are making - if it was their guy they would be rallying behind it. Your point is valid - if it is our guy we don't make a big stink, and if it is your guy we do. But that goes for both sides and I am just pointing out that it shouldn't be based on who has the idea, but on how valid the idea is.
In other words, since liberals are raising a big stink about this when it is our guy - if the idea that this is wrong is truly valid, they should be raising the same stink about it if their guy was doing it too. It's OK to disagree on what's right or wrong, but it's not OK to change your idea of what is right or wrong based on the person doing the right or wrong.
Just like my point with Trump - if you want to say everything Trump is doing is so wrong and that he is a racist, womanizing, nepotistic scum bag - well fine. But why would you put the same thing up then and claim it is OK for your guy?
And I'm not using "you" toward you, Jiigzz, because you're pretty reasonable and I think you get this, but you're bringing up good points and I'm trying to play off those and using "you" as the general opposition.
i agree that the excuse of not having a ID is total bullshyt...you can't legitimately survive in society today without a ID, and if you aren't legit you shouldn't be voting.
There was a video of a guy going out on the street and asking a bunch of white people about requiring voter ID and getting a lot of, "It's a racist idea designed to prevent people from voting" responses. He then went and asked black people if they had a license and they looked at him like, "Of course." Do you know any other black people who don't have a license? "No, you need a license to live!" What about people who don't drive? "You still need a license to live." Do you know where the RMV is? "Yes, it's right around the corner on XX street." Is it hard for you to get to? "No."
The voter ID thing is a prime example of racists playing the race card for their own benefit.
Voting is a right; if you're going to require an ID then every citizen should be given a free ID prior to their 18th birthday.
This is a fair criticism. We obviously have to have some form of ID available and we also have to struggle with the fact that having a national form of identification can be a totalitarian idea. You could be right that it's easy to say we should require ID - which I think most people want because it will reduce voter fraud - but the implementation may have pitfalls to overcome. But on its face, most people have ID anyway and can get state-issued ID even if they don't drive and it seems like a simple solution.
The Post Office is outlined in the constitution if you want to get rid of it get an amendment ratified.
Another fair criticism. I actually do have an issue with the way the post office is run - although that doesn't mean I am against the idea of the post office. I think that Amazon is actually reaping huge benefits - which the liberals should be all over and aren't since they are the first to point out how Amazon doesn't pay taxes (even though it's all above board/legal and does make sense).
I've seen a lot of businesses go under with seemingly "profitable" deals. The big player comes in, makes an offer and the owner of the business thinks, "This is going to max out my capacity and I will be home free" and then they find out the big player takes up all the capacity in their business, pushing out other customers, and now the business is against a wall. The big player then makes demands and the business has to play along because if they lose this one big customer, they will lose everything they have left. And the big player now just has to skate the line where the business is barely viable.
This is clearly what Amazon has negotiated with the PO and it is the exact type of deal that Trump is fighting against with other countries with all of our agreements. It makes a lot of sense that he's against the way the USPS is run and the deals that are in place, etc.
Also, when my dad first retired he got a job delivering Amazon packages for the USPS on Sunday. It was ridiculous. It was near impossible to deliver the volume that was being given to him and he could be out 3-4 hours past his schedule. Think about that. Amazon is paying for an 8 hour workday and the USPS has to pay for a 12 hour workday. Tell me that is viable long term. It wasn't just my dad either, it was every driver - and the turnover for the job was tremendous, often monthly.
He also pointed out that the GPS system they used would have him on Street A, then drive 5 minutes to street B, 5 minutes to Street C, then 8 minutes back to Street A - and there was no way for him to deliver the packages out of order so that he could outsmart the GPS.
I use USPS almost every day. They typically do a great job IME. Customers complain about shipping fees non-stop. If I had to use UPS or FedEx it would be a big hit to my business.
Me too - when I get my mail. But like you, it is "almost" every day. Some days I just don't get it. Sometimes it's 2-3 days and then I suddenly get a pile with things that arrived in my post office 2 days earlier but my mail carrier just didn't feel like doing my part of the route for a day or 2.
And we've complained to the local post master - and when we've gone into the post office looking for packages that were missing and people asked for our address, other employees have rolled their eyes and made comments that our carrier can be "lazy" and is a problem. But nothing has changed in at least 5 years of this.
Have you read the transcript where Trump asks for foreign interference in the last election?
Why now is he above cheating?
Hint: he isnt, which is why he is defunding the post office lol
No I haven't read that transcript - I have read the spin though. Biden clearly used government resources to put pressure on the Ukraine to his own personal benefit (protecting his son) and the twist that he can't be investigated because it would benefit the president investigating him is preposterous. That isn't asking for foreign interference or even aid in an election.
I know all the liberals want to claim that Biden did nothing wrong and he wanted the AG fired because he "wasn't" investigating corruption. But other countries had suspicions of corruption in Burisma, the AG has stated he had an open case investigating the company, and the replacement AG did NOT investigate Burisma - which logically shows that Biden wasn't trying to increase investigations into corruption and if he was it was very ineffective because he effectively reduced them. But we should believe Biden because the ousted AG is obviously not credible, he was corrupt - because he got fired.