• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abolish the Postal Service

Should we abolish the postal service?

  • yes

    Votes: 9 24.3%
  • no

    Votes: 26 70.3%
  • other, explain

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Total voters
    37
I have no problem with the government having the USPS - it's one of the few semi-efficient government-generated things that a lot of us benefit greatly from.
If something happened to the branch in my town life would suddenly SUCK - because I mail things (not just routine mail) frequently.

This is under the assumption that the private sector wouldn't replace USPS. Which, seeing as there is profit potential, I believe it would definately be picked up fairly quickly. And the only way we could actually abolish now that it already exists would be to sell it to the private sector so that there is no break in service.
 
This is under the assumption that the private sector wouldn't replace USPS. Which, seeing as there is profit potential, I believe it would definately be picked up fairly quickly. And the only way we could actually abolish now that it already exists would be to sell it to the private sector so that there is no break in service.

And so you think that a privatized profit-focused corporate postal service would keep the cost low?
The moment corporate takes over is the moment crap because expensive and service sucks. . . government has *non profit* priorities, at least.
 
Post Office problems

1) some are technology based-emails, faxes, and competition from Fed Ex and UPS has hurt the post office. For example, I pay bills on line-saves postage stamps. People send E-Cards rather than mailing them. Many government agencies use Fed Ex for overnite deliveries

2) Unions-the Postal service has several unions-from the Mail Handlers, the NALC (letter carriers) and the APWU. They drive the cost of labor up and cost the service millions in both legitimate and bogus grievances.

3) Postal workers are paid higher in the service than equivalent workers in other areas-including the government. This has two effects-one obvious (cost of labor is too high for the postal service) and a second one that is not obvious to most people. Postal workers file thousands of lawsuits every year against the postal service and make millions of claims for workers compensation etc. If a postal worker is fired, and wins a lawsuit (Bush I idiotically signed a law allowing jury trials in these suits which sent the number and cost of these suits sky high) they get huge damages because they normally cannot mitigate their damages very well with work outside the service. In some districts, half of the cases handled by the civil division of the Department of Justice's US attorneys' offices involve Postal cases-employment discrimination cases often cooked up by unions and FTCA (federal tort claims)
 
And so you think that a privatized profit-focused corporate postal service would keep the cost low?
The moment corporate takes over is the moment crap because expensive and service sucks. . . government has *non profit* priorities, at least.

do you have any clue what a Letter Carrier makes compared to a UPS delivery driver?
 
I have a P.O. Box because it is so much easier to move in an area than having standard mail delivered to your home, with the potential of theft.

They should make the switch and eliminate home delivery altogether.
The fuel savings alone would be a giant boost.

true even though we would have to evaluate the fuel cost of millions of people driving to a post office versus postal LLV's delivering mail.
 
If the postal service is self-sufficient . . . and less people use it and everyone pays for what they do use . . . then it should require less people to run it, yeah?

Oh - but that only matters if the business which is netting *less* profit reduces their employment and extension services . . . which they are doing but too little too late, they've declared bankruptcy (haven't they - or is it still just being considered and not official yet)

do you have any clue what a Letter Carrier makes compared to a UPS delivery driver?

Nope - no clue.
But I imagine, going out on a limb here, that an employee of the USPS is paid more because they're government . . . and government is almost always paid more than their civilian equal.

Or am I wrong? I just don't know.

To me it would make more sense to pay the person with the more strenuous workload more money - thus - the package guy who hoists your boxes around all day should be paid more than the processor who directs lettersl through the system.
 
Last edited:
I am not too concerned about the private enterprise part, but I think way more paper mail is being sent than necessary. Less mail should be sent, period. There likely is not a need for so many post offices, if we only receive and send necessary mail. Much of the paper mail could be sent electronically.
 
If the postal service is self-sufficient . . . and less people use it and everyone pays for what they do use . . . then it should require less people to run it, yeah?

Oh - but that only matters if the business which is netting *less* profit reduces their employment and extension services . . . which they are doing but too little too late, they've declared bankruptcy (haven't they - or is it still just being considered and not official yet)



Nope - no clue.
But I imagine, going out on a limb here, that an employee of the USPS is paid more because they're government . . . and government is almost always paid more than their civilian equal.

Or am I wrong? I just don't know.

To me it would make more sense to pay the person with the more strenuous workload more money - thus - the package guy who hoists your boxes around all day should be paid more than the processor who directs lettersl through the system.

similarly situated Postal workers tend to make more than those working at UPS and Fed Ex. UPS is teamsters union where I live
 
Well, I changed my mind. I don't want to abolish the postal service any more because I went back to the post office, got a stamp, and mailed my bill. The clerk was a hot blonde chick and I got a glimpse of some real nice raw bra.:happy:

I guess I got up on the wrong side of the slab today and I feel better after my enema.:2dance:

So, in the words of Rosanadana, "Never mind". Saturday Night Live - Roseanne Rosanadana on Smoking - Video - NBC.com
 
similarly situated Postal workers tend to make more than those working at UPS and Fed Ex. UPS is teamsters union where I live

Yes, so, if it was privatized by a corporation . . . who's to say it won't fall victim to corporate greed - netting the worker's ****ty pay and too much pocket profit from the company?

Crap pay is why we tip waitresses and why many people loath the free-market.
 
Yes, so, if it was privatized by a corporation . . . who's to say it won't fall victim to corporate greed - netting the worker's ****ty pay and too much pocket profit from the company?

Crap pay is why we tip waitresses and why many people loath the free-market.

when corporations get greedy, some consumers are hurt but others start competing corporations figuring they can sell the same product for less money and still make a ton. See Fed Ex and UPS.

when the governmet gets greedy you get screwed because you cannot avoid dealing with the government and in extreme cases lots of people die
 
when corporations get greedy, some consumers are hurt but others start competing corporations figuring they can sell the same product for less money and still make a ton. See Fed Ex and UPS.

when the governmet gets greedy you get screwed because you cannot avoid dealing with the government and in extreme cases lots of people die

I did not realize you were anti-war. Peace out, dude.:peace
 
Yes, so, if it was privatized by a corporation . . . who's to say it won't fall victim to corporate greed - netting the worker's ****ty pay and too much pocket profit from the company?

Crap pay is why we tip waitresses and why many people loath the free-market.

people who loathe the free market are generally those too stupid or too untalented or lacking ambition to compete. I used to live with a waitress and the last thing she wanted was making a flat wage with no tips because she was an excellent waitress, with legs to die for and her personality, efficiency, mini skirt and tights were generally got her top tips the nights she worked:mrgreen:
 
I did not realize you were anti-war. Peace out, dude.:peace

I am anti government when the government acts badly. wars are properly like surgery or rectal exams--unpleasant but worse than the consequences of not doing them
 
when corporations get greedy, some consumers are hurt but others start competing corporations figuring they can sell the same product for less money and still make a ton. See Fed Ex and UPS.

when the governmet gets greedy you get screwed because you cannot avoid dealing with the government and in extreme cases lots of people die

So - how would it work if there were companies competing to deliver mail to my mailbox? The only way they could compete is by lowering rates . . . to whom?

The reason why there are less people using the postal service is because there are other, more efficient means of delivering the same things (bills, letters, etc) - the only thing I get in my mailbox are some bills and netflix . . . and junk mail.

There's no room for incentive, however, for me to receive *more* of these items by mail - and mailing letters is old and outdated and pointless.
If a system is failing because less people use it - then it's not just failing, it's become outdated and useless. . . and there's no way to revive something that is suffering from age.

so - how could they stay in business (government or privatized) - they'd have to expand their market-base by offering email and online bill pay of some nature. . . the things that are robbing them of snail-mail profit.

But how do you do that when your venues are already trumped by other providers?
 
So - how would it work if there were companies competing to deliver mail to my mailbox? The only way they could compete is by lowering rates . . . to whom?

The reason why there are less people using the postal service is because there are other, more efficient means of delivering the same things (bills, letters, etc) - the only thing I get in my mailbox are some bills and netflix . . . and junk mail.

There's no room for incentive, however, for me to receive *more* of these items by mail - and mailing letters is old and outdated and pointless.
If a system is failing because less people use it - then it's not just failing, it's become outdated and useless. . . and there's no way to revive something that is suffering from age.

so - how could they stay in business (government or privatized) - they'd have to expand their market-base by offering email and online bill pay of some nature. . . the things that are robbing them of snail-mail profit.

But how do you do that when your venues are already trumped by other providers?

no idea-If I had all the answers I would be Postmaster General rather than John E. Potter
 
This thread begs the question of whether the postal service should be a branch of government. Or, has it served its usefulness and should be turned over to private enterprise.

I don't think anyone can say that UPS and FedX aren't powerhouses when it comes to moving packages and letters. Yes, their costs are much higher right now, but still, if the post office can break even (there's some question about that, but it appears it does -- then, if history is an example, private enterprise could do the job much better and cheaper. Though I'm not sure better because in my entire life I've never had a lost letter. That old check's in the mail gig doesn't hold water at my house. :)

I know one thing I'd stop and that's the absolutely ridiculous practice of carrying mail to people's doors. What a waste of manpower. Mailboxes at the street - or, if cars are the street are a problem in a neighborhood because there are no driveways, mailboxes at the sidewalk. Honestly, how inefficient is walking a piece of mail up the stairs to someone's home? There's got to be a better way. You can bet that private enterprise would find it.
 
:ranton:postal worker have an attitude problem. There is too much featherbedding going on in the postal work force.

The post office near me does not even open until 10:00 AM. They don't even have a ****ing stamp machine in the lobby. They only take cash when a customer wants to buy stamps and they act like they are doing you a favor. I hate them.

I realize we need a constitutional amendment to rid ourselves of this out of date money eating monster. We could save billions by turning it over to private enterprise.

Thank you very much..:rantoff:

So because you have crappy postal service workers in your town you think that we should abolish the USPS entirely? :doh

As for it being out of date? It is still the most widely used form of sending letters and items in the US today....so it is hardly out of date.
 
In the far future, after the conservatives and tea-baggers burn themselves out, we may have socialism and it will be a far better world.
I think your 'lean' is out of date. For some reason it says 'independant'.
 
To me, it's not a matter of whether or not it is sustainable. But whether or not the government has the authority to create such a system. If they do, they take that away from the private sector. Another industry the government controls instead of a for-profit organization benefiting more citizens of the US. I believe it should be abolished only for the reason that it should have never existed.

Yeah, if the founding fathers wanted the government to run a post office, they would have put that into the Constitution or something!

Oh wait.... what's this in Article 1 Section 8?: "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads"

Those damned founding fathers! Always knew they were socialists!

EDIT: Sorry, should have read the entire thread first. Should have known someone would have made this point.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom