Going a little less "Postal" (Page 2)

Forum guidelines BT super discount
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Going a little less "Postal" Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2009-06-18 9:48 AM
in reply to: #2226375

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
trigods - 2009-06-18 9:22 AM

There was a flat screen TV that showed facts about the USPS and one of them is that they employ over 700,000 people over the US. If we cut back to a 4 or 5 day delivery, are we going to cut those peoples income also?




Well, this cuts to the heart of a lot of issues going on in this country right now...


Is it good for the government to employ so many people when the private sector can provide the same service arguably more efficiently (I agree that this may not be the case for rural postal delivery, but again does it need to be provided so often)?

In an age when the US can literally not afford to keep doing business as usual, what can we reasonably give up?



2009-06-18 9:55 AM
in reply to: #2226468

User image

Elite
2768
20005001001002525
Raleigh
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"

scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 9:48 AM
trigods - 2009-06-18 9:22 AM

There was a flat screen TV that showed facts about the USPS and one of them is that they employ over 700,000 people over the US. If we cut back to a 4 or 5 day delivery, are we going to cut those peoples income also?

Well, this cuts to the heart of a lot of issues going on in this country right now... Is it good for the government to employ so many people when the private sector can provide the same service arguably more efficiently (I agree that this may not be the case for rural postal delivery, but again does it need to be provided so often)? In an age when the US can literally not afford to keep doing business as usual, what can we reasonably give up?

I do not know, I guess it depends if you are that widow that lives hand to mouth and are waiting on your social security check to come so you can buy some food and pay your electricity bill... Would a day later hurt her to go with out eating?

Or the inner city mother of 4 who is waiting on her WIC and food stamps to feed her crying children... would another day hurt her?

I realize that those are extreme cases but I am sure it happens more accross the US than we know. And besides... Here we are b!tchin about the Govt helping to pay for the USPS and a lot of you on here want us to go to a universal healthcare system that will drain billions from the government to pay for services that the above persons would be a part of.

you want to pay for their free healthcare but not for them to receive mail 6 days a week??? THat is funny

2009-06-18 10:02 AM
in reply to: #2226491

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
trigods - 2009-06-18 9:55 AM

scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 9:48 AM
trigods - 2009-06-18 9:22 AM

There was a flat screen TV that showed facts about the USPS and one of them is that they employ over 700,000 people over the US. If we cut back to a 4 or 5 day delivery, are we going to cut those peoples income also?

Well, this cuts to the heart of a lot of issues going on in this country right now... Is it good for the government to employ so many people when the private sector can provide the same service arguably more efficiently (I agree that this may not be the case for rural postal delivery, but again does it need to be provided so often)? In an age when the US can literally not afford to keep doing business as usual, what can we reasonably give up?

I do not know, I guess it depends if you are that widow that lives hand to mouth and are waiting on your social security check to come so you can buy some food and pay your electricity bill... Would a day later hurt her to go with out eating?

Or the inner city mother of 4 who is waiting on her WIC and food stamps to feed her crying children... would another day hurt her?

I realize that those are extreme cases but I am sure it happens more accross the US than we know. And besides... Here we are b!tchin about the Govt helping to pay for the USPS and a lot of you on here want us to go to a universal healthcare system that will drain billions from the government to pay for services that the above persons would be a part of.

you want to pay for their free healthcare but not for them to receive mail 6 days a week??? THat is funny




Uh, yeah, I'm not one of those people. I'm all for reducing the government and government assistance in most any way possible. But that's another thread...



2009-06-18 10:06 AM
in reply to: #2226468

User image

Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 10:48 AM

Is it good for the government to employ so many people when the private sector can provide the same service arguably more efficiently (I agree that this may not be the case for rural postal delivery, but again does it need to be provided so often)?


Considering there's only one person that works for the USPS that is a federal employee, that's a binary decision. Do you keep that employee or do you fire that employee. Singular.
TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105

§ 2105. Employee

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00002105...
(e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.
2009-06-18 10:07 AM
in reply to: #2226512

User image

Elite
2768
20005001001002525
Raleigh
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"

scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 10:02 AM
trigods - 2009-06-18 9:55 AM

scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 9:48 AM
trigods - 2009-06-18 9:22 AM

There was a flat screen TV that showed facts about the USPS and one of them is that they employ over 700,000 people over the US. If we cut back to a 4 or 5 day delivery, are we going to cut those peoples income also?

Well, this cuts to the heart of a lot of issues going on in this country right now... Is it good for the government to employ so many people when the private sector can provide the same service arguably more efficiently (I agree that this may not be the case for rural postal delivery, but again does it need to be provided so often)? In an age when the US can literally not afford to keep doing business as usual, what can we reasonably give up?

I do not know, I guess it depends if you are that widow that lives hand to mouth and are waiting on your social security check to come so you can buy some food and pay your electricity bill... Would a day later hurt her to go with out eating?

Or the inner city mother of 4 who is waiting on her WIC and food stamps to feed her crying children... would another day hurt her?

I realize that those are extreme cases but I am sure it happens more accross the US than we know. And besides... Here we are b!tchin about the Govt helping to pay for the USPS and a lot of you on here want us to go to a universal healthcare system that will drain billions from the government to pay for services that the above persons would be a part of.

you want to pay for their free healthcare but not for them to receive mail 6 days a week??? THat is funny

Uh, yeah, I'm not one of those people. I'm all for reducing the government and government assistance in most any way possible. But that's another thread...

well seems we stand in the same camp then...

2009-06-18 10:16 AM
in reply to: #2226524

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
DanielG - 2009-06-18 10:06 AM

scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 10:48 AM

Is it good for the government to employ so many people when the private sector can provide the same service arguably more efficiently (I agree that this may not be the case for rural postal delivery, but again does it need to be provided so often)?


Considering there's only one person that works for the USPS that is a federal employee, that's a binary decision. Do you keep that employee or do you fire that employee. Singular.
TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105

§ 2105. Employee

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00002105...
(e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.



It's all semantics.

If my tax dollars are subsidizing the postal service, then as far as I'm concerned they're federal employees. Same goes for GM now.




2009-06-18 3:36 PM
in reply to: #2226556

User image

Master
1485
1000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
It seems that I get mail every other day. I think my postal carrier has decided to deliver the mail only a few days a week. He must "save" the mail and just deliver it when he wants.
2009-06-18 3:52 PM
in reply to: #2225007

User image

MotoQueen
13195
5000500020001000100252525
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
BikerGrrrl - 2009-06-17 3:02 PM

I'd be thrilled.  It's all junk anyway, it would save the time I spend at the recycling bin. 


ditto!
2009-06-18 3:57 PM
in reply to: #2226556

User image

Extreme Veteran
606
500100
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 11:16 AM
DanielG - 2009-06-18 10:06 AM
scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 10:48 AM Is it good for the government to employ so many people when the private sector can provide the same service arguably more efficiently (I agree that this may not be the case for rural postal delivery, but again does it need to be provided so often)?
Considering there's only one person that works for the USPS that is a federal employee, that's a binary decision. Do you keep that employee or do you fire that employee. Singular. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105 § 2105. Employee http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00002105... (e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.
It's all semantics. If my tax dollars are subsidizing the postal service, then as far as I'm concerned they're federal employees. Same goes for GM now.


SO you think that the big agro farms and the Ethanol producers, and the bee keepers, and the coal industry.....are all federal employees??
2009-06-18 4:04 PM
in reply to: #2227605

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
JustTriDave - 2009-06-18 3:57 PM

scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 11:16 AM
DanielG - 2009-06-18 10:06 AM
scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 10:48 AM Is it good for the government to employ so many people when the private sector can provide the same service arguably more efficiently (I agree that this may not be the case for rural postal delivery, but again does it need to be provided so often)?
Considering there's only one person that works for the USPS that is a federal employee, that's a binary decision. Do you keep that employee or do you fire that employee. Singular. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105 § 2105. Employee http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00002105... (e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.
It's all semantics. If my tax dollars are subsidizing the postal service, then as far as I'm concerned they're federal employees. Same goes for GM now.


SO you think that the big agro farms and the Ethanol producers, and the bee keepers, and the coal industry.....are all federal employees??




Listen, it's as simple as this. If you want to use MY money to support your operation than I should have some say in how it's being spent. Judging from the reaction here, no one has much of a problem reducing the number of times per week mail is delivered if it helps save us all some money. So why shouldn't we put that out there as a possible cost-saving solution?

It's exactly this kind of idea that I would hope some of our leaders-- the stewards of our collective tax dollars-- would put forth on their own.

2009-06-18 4:05 PM
in reply to: #2227605

User image

Extreme Veteran
614
500100
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
So my mail will only get delivered to the vacant house next door (current ownership situation unclear) on two days a week instead of six? I'm all for it!

Postmaster: "Well all I can tell you, sir, is that it must have been a summer substitute carrier."
Me: "Why, do the summer substitutes you hire not know how to read 3-digit house numbers?"
<silence>

2009-06-18 4:12 PM
in reply to: #2227624

User image

Extreme Veteran
606
500100
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 5:04 PM
JustTriDave - 2009-06-18 3:57 PM
scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 11:16 AM
DanielG - 2009-06-18 10:06 AM
scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 10:48 AM Is it good for the government to employ so many people when the private sector can provide the same service arguably more efficiently (I agree that this may not be the case for rural postal delivery, but again does it need to be provided so often)?
Considering there's only one person that works for the USPS that is a federal employee, that's a binary decision. Do you keep that employee or do you fire that employee. Singular. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105 § 2105. Employee http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00002105... (e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.
It's all semantics. If my tax dollars are subsidizing the postal service, then as far as I'm concerned they're federal employees. Same goes for GM now.


SO you think that the big agro farms and the Ethanol producers, and the bee keepers, and the coal industry.....are all federal employees??
Listen, it's as simple as this. If you want to use MY money to support your operation than I should have some say in how it's being spent. Judging from the reaction here, no one has much of a problem reducing the number of times per week mail is delivered if it helps save us all some money. So why shouldn't we put that out there as a possible cost-saving solution? It's exactly this kind of idea that I would hope some of our leaders-- the stewards of our collective tax dollars-- would put forth on their own.


OH, I agree, but lets not just limit it to things like the postal service. lets reduce subsidies all across the board. If a company/industry cannot compete on their own accord, let them fail. But to single out the post office is like using a papercup to empty a swimming pool.
2009-06-18 4:16 PM
in reply to: #2227638

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
JustTriDave - 2009-06-18 4:12 PM

scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 5:04 PM
JustTriDave - 2009-06-18 3:57 PM
scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 11:16 AM
DanielG - 2009-06-18 10:06 AM
scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 10:48 AM Is it good for the government to employ so many people when the private sector can provide the same service arguably more efficiently (I agree that this may not be the case for rural postal delivery, but again does it need to be provided so often)?
Considering there's only one person that works for the USPS that is a federal employee, that's a binary decision. Do you keep that employee or do you fire that employee. Singular. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105 § 2105. Employee http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00002105... (e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.
It's all semantics. If my tax dollars are subsidizing the postal service, then as far as I'm concerned they're federal employees. Same goes for GM now.


SO you think that the big agro farms and the Ethanol producers, and the bee keepers, and the coal industry.....are all federal employees??
Listen, it's as simple as this. If you want to use MY money to support your operation than I should have some say in how it's being spent. Judging from the reaction here, no one has much of a problem reducing the number of times per week mail is delivered if it helps save us all some money. So why shouldn't we put that out there as a possible cost-saving solution? It's exactly this kind of idea that I would hope some of our leaders-- the stewards of our collective tax dollars-- would put forth on their own.


OH, I agree, but lets not just limit it to things like the postal service. lets reduce subsidies all across the board. If a company/industry cannot compete on their own accord, let them fail. But to single out the post office is like using a papercup to empty a swimming pool.



We are in complete agreement.

I only used the postal service as an example because it came up in a previous thread and is a very visible governmental organization we all come into contact with daily (or at least six times a week. )


2009-06-18 5:22 PM
in reply to: #2227624

User image

Pro
4311
20002000100100100
Texas
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 4:04 PM

JustTriDave - 2009-06-18 3:57 PM

scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 11:16 AM
DanielG - 2009-06-18 10:06 AM
scoobysdad - 2009-06-18 10:48 AM Is it good for the government to employ so many people when the private sector can provide the same service arguably more efficiently (I agree that this may not be the case for rural postal delivery, but again does it need to be provided so often)?
Considering there's only one person that works for the USPS that is a federal employee, that's a binary decision. Do you keep that employee or do you fire that employee. Singular. TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105 § 2105. Employee http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00002105... (e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.
It's all semantics. If my tax dollars are subsidizing the postal service, then as far as I'm concerned they're federal employees. Same goes for GM now.


SO you think that the big agro farms and the Ethanol producers, and the bee keepers, and the coal industry.....are all federal employees??




Listen, it's as simple as this. If you want to use MY money to support your operation than I should have some say in how it's being spent. Judging from the reaction here, no one has much of a problem reducing the number of times per week mail is delivered if it helps save us all some money. So why shouldn't we put that out there as a possible cost-saving solution?

It's exactly this kind of idea that I would hope some of our leaders-- the stewards of our collective tax dollars-- would put forth on their own.



So do you consider the agro farms, ethanol producers, bee keepers, & coal industry federal employees?
2009-06-19 2:53 AM
in reply to: #2224980

User image

Master
2665
20005001002525
The Whites, New Hampshire
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
I would love to completely eliminate junk mail...but then I'd be out of work. *sigh* Yes, yes, please don't lynch me, but I work at a press that prints all that cr@p you get in the mail (and produces a fair bit of it). Live in Northern New England and eastern NY (and some of WNY)? You get the cr@p we produce. You think it's bad to get it in your box? Try seeing three times at work (process, proof, proof) and THEN in your mailbox, at the grocery store, the auto dealer, doctor's office, restaurants, etc.

Still, the minute I get another job I'm lobbying for junk mail going the way of telemarketing calls.
2009-06-19 10:12 PM
in reply to: #2227587

User image

Delaware, OH
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
kns57 - 2009-06-18 4:52 PM
BikerGrrrl - 2009-06-17 3:02 PM

I'd be thrilled.  It's all junk anyway, it would save the time I spend at the recycling bin. 


ditto!


Opt out!!!!  It stops junk mail, unwanted credit card offers, unwanted insurance offers....the list is endless!

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/protect.shtm

2009-06-20 4:49 AM
in reply to: #2224980

User image

Expert
1058
10002525
Cambridge
Subject: RE: Going a little less "Postal"
Guys, from a brit, you dont realise how much you ue the post and how bad it can get until you lose it.
Post here is generally naff, used to get twice a day, now once a day, sometimes less (postmen are oerworked so they have to cover extra rounds and often miss days)
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Going a little less "Postal" Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2