NDL Forum

ELI5.. the whole post office fiasco that’s going on

- Post office hasn't optimized for their business changes over the years
- Post office is behind on the funding for guaranteed retirement benefits
- 2-3 years ago, Trump says the post office needs to do better
- June 2020, the former postmaster general ends her 5yr term, new postmaster general from a logistics company (after stops with the RNC), takes the role
- New guy makes changes, people don't like it
- Trump goes on about mail-in voting being bad
- Dems try to slip $10b to cover mail-in voting into the COVID bill ($80B is roughly a full year of operating expenses for the post office)
- Trump says no way
- Dems blame Trump for sabotaging the post office by blocking the money and sending in his guy to F it all up

I think that covers it.

The_Niddler wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:30 pm Personally, I have felt that the post office should have been privatized years ago.
They should be allowed to make a profit and such and become a much better ran organization which I feel they would be much better if they were privatized.

Not quite as relevant to what we're talking about, but I was discussing some other stuff with him and his comments were kind of inline... side note, based on a lot of previous conversations with him, "lobbied" most likely means "handed check," "handed briefcase of cash" or "received account number." My guess is the speaking was kept to a minimum.

"I was there when Donahue was a Post Master. I lobbied in Washington DC both Congressmen and Senators over the 5 day work week. There was NO problem with the Post Office retirement plan until Congress stripped it of MILLIONS of dollars in the 70’s.
There was no problem with finances until Congress took away the parcel business and let it be handled by UPS.

Congress is responsible for the short falling of the post offices finances. If they returned the money they took from the retirement system everything would be fine. Anytime government gets involved it becomes a mess."

I almost joined the post office when I was younger cause my uncles were in it. But then I spoke to someone around 2010 who said that half of all ppl hired after 2000 would eventually be laid off.

ReignOnU wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:10 pm

Crowes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:02 am Trump just said the post office loses money delivering packages for Amazon. From everything I've read it is illegal as set forth by congress for the postal service to charge less then what it costs them to deliver a package. So that's just a outright lie that he continues to say.

Do you have something specific that proves that it's an outright lie?

If the USPS signed a contract to do the work for X and their estimate proved it to be profitable, they could have entered into the contract under thate pretense. It's certainly possible that they miscalculated and ended up in a raw deal. If I had to place a bet on who I thought would make a better deal, the USPS or Amazon... I'm going with Amazon.

The specifics of the deals are sealed so there is no direct way for you or I to see the numbers for profit or loss. I have no doubt Amazon got a good deal when comparing what a deal would have looked like with other carriers but we do know for a fact that in the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act it made it illegal for the post office to set parcel delivery prices below their cost.

So unless the board of governors for the post office just flat out ignored their obligations from congress with isn't likey one could come to the conclusion it is an outright lie. Seems like if there was any evidence to Trump's accusations the government could terminate the contract that breaks the law.

Crowes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:42 pm

ReignOnU wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:10 pm

Crowes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:02 am Trump just said the post office loses money delivering packages for Amazon. From everything I've read it is illegal as set forth by congress for the postal service to charge less then what it costs them to deliver a package. So that's just a outright lie that he continues to say.

Do you have something specific that proves that it's an outright lie?

If the USPS signed a contract to do the work for X and their estimate proved it to be profitable, they could have entered into the contract under thate pretense. It's certainly possible that they miscalculated and ended up in a raw deal. If I had to place a bet on who I thought would make a better deal, the USPS or Amazon... I'm going with Amazon.

The specifics of the deals are sealed so there is no direct way for you or I to see the numbers for profit or loss. I have no doubt Amazon got a good deal when comparing what a deal would have looked like with other carriers but we do know for a fact that in the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act it made it illegal for the post office to set parcel delivery prices below their cost.

So unless the board of governors for the post office just flat out ignored their obligations from congress with isn't likey one could come to the conclusion it is an outright lie. Seems like if there was any evidence to Trump's accusations the government could terminate the contract that breaks the law.

This is only true if you know for a fact that they didn't F up their internal pro forma. It's absolutely possible that they did this. It happens all of the time in the business world. They could have entered into the contract based on a pro forma that shows X profit, which clears the 2006 act. Then results come in worse than expected... there's no recourse unless there's an out written in the contract.

ReignOnU wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:29 pm

Crowes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:42 pm

ReignOnU wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:10 pm

Crowes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:02 am Trump just said the post office loses money delivering packages for Amazon. From everything I've read it is illegal as set forth by congress for the postal service to charge less then what it costs them to deliver a package. So that's just a outright lie that he continues to say.

Do you have something specific that proves that it's an outright lie?

If the USPS signed a contract to do the work for X and their estimate proved it to be profitable, they could have entered into the contract under thate pretense. It's certainly possible that they miscalculated and ended up in a raw deal. If I had to place a bet on who I thought would make a better deal, the USPS or Amazon... I'm going with Amazon.

The specifics of the deals are sealed so there is no direct way for you or I to see the numbers for profit or loss. I have no doubt Amazon got a good deal when comparing what a deal would have looked like with other carriers but we do know for a fact that in the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act it made it illegal for the post office to set parcel delivery prices below their cost.

So unless the board of governors for the post office just flat out ignored their obligations from congress with isn't likey one could come to the conclusion it is an outright lie. Seems like if there was any evidence to Trump's accusations the government could terminate the contract that breaks the law.

This is only true if you know for a fact that they didn't F up their internal pro forma. It's absolutely possible that they did this. It happens all of the time in the business world. They could have entered into the contract based on a pro forma that shows X profit, which clears the 2006 act. Then results come in worse than expected... there's no recourse unless there's an out written in the contract.

Is breaking a law not an out in a contract? Between two private business yes your logic is solid but right or wrong that ain't the post office right?

Crowes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 1:18 pm

ReignOnU wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:29 pm This is only true if you know for a fact that they didn't F up their internal pro forma. It's absolutely possible that they did this. It happens all of the time in the business world. They could have entered into the contract based on a pro forma that shows X profit, which clears the 2006 act. Then results come in worse than expected... there's no recourse unless there's an out written in the contract.

Is breaking a law not an out in a contract? Between two private business yes your logic is solid but right or wrong that ain't the post office right?

There's a lot wrong with what you're asking.
1.) No one is breaking a law.
2.) No, the post office doesn't get special rights to break contracts.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-con ... -bill/6407

The bill outlines what the post office can/can't do. The only threshold that has to be met is that they performed due diligence that showed that they were entering into a profitable contract. If the end result is that the work is not profitable, that's not breaking a law, that's either shitty analysis or shitty luck.

The only possible recourse they'd have is if the contract was entered into fraudulently... someone cooked the books in their internal documents to make it seem like it was going to be profitable, while knowing that it wasn't.

It still amazes me that as shitty as Trump is and has been, the best the other side could trot out is this:




I see absolutely no reason to cast a vote for either guy. It just makes zero sense how many people think either guy is such a great candidate.


ETA: Why is it so hard to embed YouTube clips in here nowadays?

This should've have told Dem voters all they need to know:
- Biden is where he is because of Obama.
- Obama endorsed Clinton over Biden.

shel311 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:09 pm It still amazes me that as shitty as Trump is and has been, the best the other side could trot out is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOradie8WzI&app=desktop


I see absolutely no reason to cast a vote for either guy. It just makes zero sense how many people think either guy is such a great candidate.


ETA: Why is it so hard to embed YouTube clips in here nowadays?

Delete everything from & on and also use YouTube not URL

nick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:18 pm Delete everything from & on and also use YouTube not URL

Good work!

Testing

how can you do it from mobile site? Links don't look like that.

ReignOnU wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:17 pm This should've have told Dem voters all they need to know:
- Biden is where he is because of Obama.
- Obama endorsed Clinton over Biden.

When were Clinton and Biden running in the same year?

dakshdar wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:11 pm

ReignOnU wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:17 pm This should've have told Dem voters all they need to know:
- Biden is where he is because of Obama.
- Obama endorsed Clinton over Biden.

When were Clinton and Biden running in the same year?

Biden bailed on the '16 election before running. Obama encouraged him not to run. He ended up using some other reason (Hunter did something dumb or it may have been when his other son passed) as to why he wasn't doing it. Some have said Obama did it because he owed a favor, because the Dems didn't want Biden/Clinton to split the vote and let Bernie slip in, because Obama knew he's a moron prone to screwing stuff up, and so on.

Holy shit, did Michelle Obama actually say this yesterday?

MICHELLE OBAMA, on Americans: “They watch in horror as children are torn from their families and thrown into cages."

That can't be real.

shel311 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:17 pm Holy shit, did Michelle Obama actually say this yesterday?

MICHELLE OBAMA, on Americans: “They watch in horror as children are torn from their families and thrown into cages."

That can't be real.

Why can't it be real?

You didnt watch the news for the first few years of trumpers presidency?