> Why do you think the USPS shouldn’t be pre-funding pensions? Cleat me be clear, I never said that; nor, did I say, that this is some sort of black and white

> Why do you think the USPS shouldn’t be pre-funding pensions? Cleat me be clear, I never said that; nor, did I say, that this is some sort of black and white dichotomy between prepaying and not-prepaying for pensions. I said this instance is undo burden for ANY organization. What workforce in the world retires, and then lives for 75 years? That's the only way that would be reasonable. So people are retiring at 40 and living to be 115 so often it's a financial burden on the post office? Or wait they're retiring at 93 and then living to be 168 by the millions? > Maybe Congress rightfully saw that the USPS pension fund would be insolvent if they weren’t forced, by law, to properly fund it? Most public pensions in the US are insolvent. No. What you're doing is making up some shit; posing it as a relevant or equal when it fact you have no idea. Don't do that. Either go look up the fucking facts and post them here and pwn me with reality like an adult or keep it to yourself. Do not play devil's advocate for asinine shit. It is like you interjecting into a conversation on science to say, "well, maybe Newtown only gravity upside-down? Some photons are yellow." > People don’t seem to like it when we kick the financial can down the road. And people don’t seem to like it when we prepare. And concluding with "People don't seem to like it when science is right. And they don't seem to like when its wrong." I'm not trying to be rude, but it almost feels like your post was made by GPT3.