Another one bites the dust. Now, if this administration would only get rid of Freddie and Fannie and AmTrak and the US Postal Service. Oh please, two more years left. Let’s do something about these dinosaurs and get some tax revenue heading to national and state coffers. Yippee!
Another one bites the dust. Now, if this administration would only get rid of Freddie and Fannie and AmTrak and the US Postal Service. Oh please, two more years left. Let’s do something about these dinosaurs and get some tax revenue heading to national and state coffers. Yippee!
nytimes.com/2007/04/16/busin … ref=slogin[/quote]
Yeah…clearly the private sector has shown how well it manages sub-prime lending - which is a lot of what Sallie Mae does (which is why it is guaranteed)
In any case - how does this administration claim credit for a process that has been in motion since the mid-to-late 90’s?
Oh…and when was the last time one of these deals based upon scale & efficiencies actually able to deliver? No worries - they’ll be back looking for a hand-out on the guaranteed loans once the private loans implode.
The US Post Office is profitable, Fred. Anyways, every other country seems to be able to have a government post office, and yet, they seem to be doing fine. No disasters there. So why can’t the US?
Privatisation is not always the answer.
That said, I have my misgivings about certain “aid” programs in the US.
As usual, JB, your command of the facts is questionable…
usps.com/communications/news … elcome.htm
nationalreview.com/comment/r … 070740.asp
Wanna go for double or nothing?
Apparently, you are in the minority view on that… See above for European governments and their approach. You like them. Remember. They are worried about global warming and have endorsed Kyoto.
What “aid” programs? Hope you have some facts do go with your feelings this time.
Another one bites the dust. Now, if this administration would only get rid of Freddie and Fannie and AmTrak and the US Postal Service. Oh please, two more years left. Let’s do something about these dinosaurs and get some tax revenue heading to national and state coffers. Yippee!
nytimes.com/2007/04/16/busin … ref=slogin[/quote]
While we’re at it, let’s get rid of public libraries, public parks, public highways, police and fire departments, and the US military. 
why not just get rid of all the people? then we would not need any govt. the republican dream…
Imagine there’s no people,
it’s easy if you try,
above us only bombers, in the global warming sky,
Imagine no education, no science and no arts,
Just a bunch of crusty republicans, cutting stinky farts.
You may say that I’m a neocon, but I’m not the only one,
too bad you can’t come and join us,
because the world will soon be gone. . .
[quote]Quote:
Furthermore, declining mail volume, brought on by the e-mail revolution, has resulted in more than $4.5 billion in lost USPS revenue since 2000. And a long-term volume decline is just a small piece of the problem. Few Americans realize that the USPS already has accumulated over $70 billion in unfunded liabilities — mostly money promised to employees in retirement and health benefits. The USPS doesn’t have that money. Nobody knows how on earth it’s going to meet these liabilities.
[/quote]
No worries…let’s do what private industry does…hand it iver to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation - oh wait - that’s government isn’t it?
Who here has suggested doing so? Anyone? Why should America keep a government owned postal service when even socialist Europe is privatizing its? Got an answer for that? No? Surprise. surprise.
uhh, Fred, your posts didn’t actually say the Post Office was unprofitable. You bolded some statement about an accounting practice of allocating 3 billion in escrow, and then something about less revenue, but nothing about profitability.
sheesh, why don’t you just join the Chinese eat babies in China thread. That’s more to your calibre I believe.
Okay. It is profitable, but needs to go to Congress every year to get more money. If that is profitable to you, then you must vote Democrat…
Right…
There are a lot of people in the United States who borrowed money in college, but did not take into consideration their loans before making new purchases. The marketing engine is not required by law to post a disclaimer saying:
*please be sure you are up-to-date with your loan payments before making new purchases
Maybe it’s time Big Brother get busy requiring advertising firms to add such a disclaimer now that He’s got all necessary lines of information tapped?
Okay. It is profitable, but needs to go to Congress every year to get more money. If that is profitable to you, then you must vote Democrat…
[/quote]
If that’s the best response you can come up with… maybe I was right about your calibre.
What?
I love the What? game. Who wants to go next?
Who? Huh? What?
My dear friend, I’m quite afraid that you simply do not know how to play the What? game. Please do refrain from further embarassing yourself, although if you would like to play the fool, I will not stop you.
That said, we seem to be getting off topic. Let’s go back to the question of whether the US Post Office in recent years is in fact profitable or not. Or whether it would be better off in the hands of the private sector.
Just imagine, we can have our postman being sponsored by Pepsi, GM, Donald Trump, CNN, and Girls Gone Wild. Why, they could come by with samples, they could sell products and drop off thousands of leaflets of ads, they could market the ab flex directly at our doorstep all the while delivering our trusted and private communications. What a delightful idea.
Why?
How delightful. I see we are in a new game. But might I suggest starting a new thread as I would not want to take this further off-topic than is necessary. With that in mind,
Warum? Welcher?
Is it?