[–] beesmeesmonies 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
the postal service is swamped with subsaharan-african-cannibals as "employees" who are incompetent and steal, without purging subsaharan-cannibals the postal service will implode!!!
[–] [deleted] ago (edited ago)
They are so required to prefund those retirements. If they were prefunding at 50% (most companies prefund at 5-20%) they would be comfortably in the black.
[–] cyclops1771 ago
The Amazon deal is a great deal for the Post Office - the Sunday deliveries basically train all the part timers, and you can wean the shitty ones out before they become a drain on the system, and is extremely profitable due to utilizing and leveraging low cost delivery persons.
IN addition to this leveraging low cost delivery on Sundays, the Amazon deal is profitable. Chase's so-called "analysis" included all costs, fixed and variable when calculating the cost of the deal. It must have been bought and paid for, because no one counts fixed costs when evaluating a specific deal, you only use variable costs. This is Finance 101 people. Adding Amazon deliveries does not require the Post Office to hire every single full time and part time person. It does not require them to purchase and maintain an entire fleet of vehicles for delivery. It does not require them to open and maintain every single post office and sorting center, much less every clerk, postmaster and national and local HR, Admin and payroll, etc. The "analysis" took the entire cost of running the Post Office multiplied by the % of delivery that is Amazon, divided it by the number of Amazon packages and said, "WHAT A BAD DEAL! HURR DURR!" as if the Post Office was starting from scratch. I hate fucking dishonesty.
[–] JustbecauseIcan 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I hope you all realize this has been done before. My father was a postmaster and has a banking book from the early 1900s. Here's a link to more info. https://about.usps.com/publications/pub100/pub100_025.htm
[–] Pattern_Blind 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
Actually making banking a public utility like the Post Office is a great idea. Doesn’t mean it has to be the Post Office but this is actually a good idea. That would do two things, One, help break up jewish monopoly banking infrastructure, especially in credit card issuers. Two, make it illegal for kikes to ban people who name the kike from banking services.
It doesn’t have to be the only bank in town, but a government ran bank that isn’t able to discriminate based on political views is a good thing for everyone.
The reason the post office is loosing money is because it hires lots of people and does a service as cheaply as possible for a growing US population. You can’t add millions of new people and addresses a year and hand deliver them mail with out having rising costs. Oh and add in a inflationary money supply. Costs always go up and this sounds like a miss budgeting issue
No just go on with Ocosia said it, so it must be bad, theirs a turd in the punch bowl now and we can’t discuss this issue or move forward. Or help those white nationalists get banking...
[–] CulturalImperialist 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
The post office doesn't actually lose money. A few years back Congress passed a law requiing them to prefund retirements at 100%. That new line item is over 5 billion a year. Meanwhile since this is prefunding the money is going into the general treasury and the treasury just owes the Post Office that money. That money could be their capital for banking.
[–] RoundWheel 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Bingo. The USPO is the only entity in the US which is run like this. A large part of this scam was so their federal land would be sold off cheap to friends of Congress.
The USPO does not lose money. They did, however, make a bad deal with Amazon which loses money. It's just that everyone (USPO customers) are now paying for Amazon delivery.
[–] mostlyfriendly 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
... and exactly who do you think would be running this new bank? It would be the exact same people, but now they have the power of the gov't enforcement behind them. (More than they already have.)
... and, you don't think they will ban people / organizations they don't like? No different than the IRS 'banning' conservative political groups they don't like, etc.
.... and, you don't think so called 'political extremist' wouldn't be the first to be banned?
IMHO, it would be foolish to give any more power to the government.