USPS Sucks Ass!!!!

Tom Kunich

Let's get something straight - apparently you are talking $3 billion of
losses and then telling us that this is due to the $10 million it costs to
support the team each year. I suggest you take some elementary arithmetic.


"Bob" <bob@home.com> wrote in message
news:vamdnYGqJdCXYurdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
>
> "Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:c58c8q$2p061j$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Bob wrote:
> > > Well, apparently you approve of the 3 BILLION dollar loss the USPS has
> > > had since 2000. You own stock in USPS whether you like it or not,
moron.
> >
> > Sigh. We go through this every couple of months. Here's a link to the
USPS
> > annual report:
> > http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt03/
>
> Try this link:
> http://www.postalwatch.org/news2004...evoir_lance.htm
> ...
> "The powers to be at the USPS not only cooked the books, but they also
deep
> fried, grilled and everything else known to man, in their accounting and
> reporting of their sponsorships of Lance Armstrong's Tour de France
cycling
> team since 1996," the newspapers said in a commentary last year.
> ...
> "Their diligence in pursuing Freedom of Information requests and trying to
> cut through the maze of the post office's sketchy cost accounting has been
a
> bright light for public scrutiny of wasteful spending," Merritt said.
> Merritt, a fighter against waste in government, had strong words on
hearing
> the news of the USPS pulling the plug on its sponsorship program.
>
> "Talk about a government boondoggle, the pro-cycling sponsorship
exemplifies
> just how delusional postal leadership can be," Merritt said.
> "They raised domestic monopoly rates three times while forcing captive
> ratepayers to pay more than $50 million to sponsor a European sporting
event
> and then, adding insult to injury, they achieved a negative result."
> ...
>
>

Faster Bordello

> Try this link:
> http://www.postalwatch.org/news2004...evoir_lance.htm

Yeah these folks have *ALL* the answers. The word bias rears it's ugly
head. Everyone has to have a windmill I guess.

ronde chumpion

"Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<c58c8q$2p061j$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Bob wrote:
> > Well, apparently you approve of the 3 BILLION dollar loss the USPS has
> > had since 2000. You own stock in USPS whether you like it or not, moron.
>
> Sigh. We go through this every couple of months. Here's a link to the USPS
> annual report:
> http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt03/

USPS MADE 4 Billion in FY 2003. Guess advertising works.

Carl Sundquist

"ronde chumpion" <rondechumpion@aol.com> wrote in message
news:62f26b38.0404100901.4a55532e@posting.google.com...
> "Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<c58c8q$2p061j$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > Bob wrote:
> > > Well, apparently you approve of the 3 BILLION dollar loss the USPS has
> > > had since 2000. You own stock in USPS whether you like it or not,
moron.
> >
> > Sigh. We go through this every couple of months. Here's a link to the
USPS
> > annual report:
> > http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt03/
>
> USPS MADE 4 Billion in FY 2003. Guess advertising works.

For clarification's sake, as I understand it, the USPS is a quasi-government
entity in that it is a government operation, but meant to be self sufficient
in terms of funding. OTOH, if it makes a profit, where does the profit go?
It is still a publicly owned agency; there are no dividends to be paid.
Would it go back into infrastructure, helping to pay down the national debt,
or pooled for future use for times ahead when the current fee structure no
longer meets the needs?

Robert Chung

Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> For clarification's sake, as I understand it, the USPS is a
> quasi-government entity in that it is a government operation, but meant
> to be self sufficient in terms of funding. OTOH, if it makes a profit,
> where does the profit go? It is still a publicly owned agency; there
> are no dividends to be paid. Would it go back into infrastructure,
> helping to pay down the national debt, or pooled for future use for
> times ahead when the current fee structure no longer meets the needs?

The latter.

Curtis L. Russell

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:25:42 -0500, "Carl Sundquist"
<carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote:

>OTOH, if it makes a profit, where does the profit go?
>It is still a publicly owned agency; there are no dividends to be paid.
>Would it go back into infrastructure, helping to pay down the national debt,
>or pooled for future use for times ahead when the current fee structure no
>longer meets the needs?

They would be allowed to keep any surplus to a level necessary to
maintain future operations and liquidity and to make any necessary
investments in infrastructure. Doubt that they have retired all
previous debt to the point that one year's profit is an issue yet.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

ronde chumpion

>
> They would be allowed to keep any surplus to a level necessary to
> maintain future operations and liquidity and to make any necessary
> investments in infrastructure. Doubt that they have retired all
> previous debt to the point that one year's profit is an issue yet.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...


They made 4 billion FY 2003, and in that same year paid down debt to
7 billion from 11 billion. Considering they paid only 300 million
interest on the debt, maybe 0 debt isn't required. Nice, though..

Many owe on their homes. That is considered good debt. Save money on
your income taxes by deducting interest, low interest now (under 6%),
and an appreciating asset.

ronde chumpion

Doubt that they have retired all
> previous debt to the point that one year's profit is an issue yet.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)


This from a total revenue of around 65 Billion annually.