[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
-- Title: Trump Triples Down In Amazon Feud: "Deal With Post Office Will Be Changed" President Trump's obsession and escalating feud with Jeff Bezos, and bringing Amazon to heel before it destroys what's left of America's crumbling brick- and-mortar retail industry, was on display Saturday morning when he fired off a series of angry tweets claiming the Bezos-owned Washington Post should register as a lobbyist and that the Post Office should jack up its parcel rates to stick it to Amazon. "While we are on the subject, it is reported that the U.S. Post Office will lose $1.50 on average for each package it delivers for Amazon," Trump tweeted. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11. "...it is reported that the U.S. Post Office will lose $1.50 on average for each package it delivers for Amazon," Trump tweeted...' Per CBSNews Money Watch There is little to these claims. While the postal service is struggling, it's not because of Amazon. In fact, package delivery is one of the few lines of business that's growing.
The postal service has lost money for 11 straight years, mostly because of pension and health care costs. In 2017, the service lost $800 million on $69.7 billion operating revenue. Under a 2006 law, it must pre-fund 75 years' worth of retiree health benefits. Neither the government nor private companies are required to do that. (It has defaulted on those payments periodically, with the last one made in 2015).
A widely cited Citigroup analysis from last year holds that the "true" cost of shipping packages for the Postal Service is about 50 percent higher than what it currently charges. "It is as if every Amazon box comes with a dollar or two stapled to the packing slip -- a gift card from Uncle Sam," read the ensuing editorials.
But Citi arrived at that figure by re-allocating the Post Office's benefits costs -- not the costs specific to package delivery.
The 2006 law also mandated that each line of business within the postal service cover its attributable costs. In other words, for the postal service to lose money on package delivery would be against the law.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-contract-usps-fact-checking-trump-tweets- amazon-post-office-03-31-2018/
#4. To: Jameson (#3) While the postal service is struggling, it's not because of Amazon. In fact, package delivery is one of the few lines of business that's growing. Yep. The USPS has been a government monopolized L.I.F.E.R. cluster frack for decades - that ain't Amazon's fault. The USPS's L.I.F.E.Rs would still be collecting a paycheck for delivering junk mail regardless of whether Amazon was putting actually useful stuff into the USPS sewer pipe. Another economics 101 FAIL for Donny Dumbass.
#5. To: VxH (#4) The USPS has been a government monopolized L.I.F.E.R. cluster frack for decades ... I hate to step on your toes, but the USPS was written into the US Constitution.
#6. To: buckeroo (#5) I hate to step on your toes, but the USPS was written into the US Constitution. No. A federal mail service was. And it says nothing about what form that would take. The Founders never imagined nationwide mail delivery 6 days a week, for instance. We could save a lot of money by going to mail delivery twice or thrice per week. If people want it daily, they could pay for that as a special service. Very few people need daily mail any more (if they ever did).
#9. To: Tooconservative (#6) (Edited) Congress mandates the requirements of the "postal service." Clearly, daily delivery is silly; moreover, limiting service may not reduce operating costs as federal pension plans outstrip the daily operating costs. Congress has ALWAYS remedied the situation by supporting the non-profitable costs with taxpayer funding of the balance sheet. It won't be changed either.
#11. To: buckeroo (#9) Congress has ALWAYS remedied the situation by supporting the non-profitable costs with taxpayer funding of the balance sheet. It won't be changed either. Because every member of the House has a whole set of post offices and employees in it. And no one wants to lose their post office. Even the dinkiest villages are hardcore about keeping them in town and supplying a few jobs.
Replies to Comment # 11. #12. To: Tooconservative (#11) (Edited) Because every member of the House has a whole set of post offices and employees in it. And no one wants to lose their post office. Even the dinkiest villages are hardcore about keeping them in town and supplying a few jobs. Not even close, pal:
(1 Stat. 178), and March 3, 1791 (1 Stat. 218). The Act of February 20, 1792 (1 Stat. 232), continued the Post Office for another two years and formally admitted newspapers to the mails, gave Congress the power to establish post routes, and prohibited postal officials from opening letters. Later legislation enlarged the duties of the Post Office, strengthened and unified its organization, and provided rules for its development. The Act of May 8, 1794 (1 Stat. 354), continued the Post Office indefinitely.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|