3 ms·

Indeed. The key Point here though is the post office was set up to fail by the rate changes. The greater point is the management failures and abuse has are all

Indeed. The key Point here though is the post office was set up to fail by the rate changes. The greater point is the management failures and abuse has are all about promoting private interests, not about running the post office as intended and necessary. And we the people suffer for all of that because we're seeing a great thing he created unnecessarily so that others can profit out of hand.

SilasX 5y ago
No? If the pensions etc liabilities weren’t on their books, they were already insolvent, they just didn’t recognize it. Forcing the funding just prevented a future rude awakening to this fact.
- ddingus 5y ago
  They were no where near insolvent. And, again pay attention: The pre pay requirement was no problem given the existing rate structure. Combining that pre pay with a forced too low, giveaway to big publishing and contract delivery, rate schedule caused the problem. And, it could all be fixed right now too. Just let the Post adjust the rates and they will be fine, and that adjustment will still be well below what the private carriers can manage, and it will still serve everyone while taking great care of its people. They were forced by Congress to adopt a rate structure setup to fail, to create the conversation you are trying to have about it today. Doing that was unnecessary.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    I checked back and can't believe you sill debated this point. If they weren't insolvent, then filling the gap wouldn't have been a burden! You can't have it both ways -- scream bloody murder that were hobbled by this requirement, but then also insist that they had the means to satisfy this requirement. You're right that maybe with a new rate structure they would have become solvent, but "solvency" is a "right now" question, not a "hypothetical post-restructure" question. Lots of orgs could become solvent if they could shuck off or restructure debt, but they still get called insolvent.

SilasX 5y ago

No? If the pensions etc liabilities weren’t on their books, they were already insolvent, they just didn’t recognize it. Forcing the funding just prevented a future rude awakening to this fact.

ddingus 5y ago
They were no where near insolvent. And, again pay attention: The pre pay requirement was no problem given the existing rate structure. Combining that pre pay with a forced too low, giveaway to big publishing and contract delivery, rate schedule caused the problem. And, it could all be fixed right now too. Just let the Post adjust the rates and they will be fine, and that adjustment will still be well below what the private carriers can manage, and it will still serve everyone while taking great care of its people. They were forced by Congress to adopt a rate structure setup to fail, to create the conversation you are trying to have about it today. Doing that was unnecessary.
- SilasX 5y ago
  I checked back and can't believe you sill debated this point. If they weren't insolvent, then filling the gap wouldn't have been a burden! You can't have it both ways -- scream bloody murder that were hobbled by this requirement, but then also insist that they had the means to satisfy this requirement. You're right that maybe with a new rate structure they would have become solvent, but "solvency" is a "right now" question, not a "hypothetical post-restructure" question. Lots of orgs could become solvent if they could shuck off or restructure debt, but they still get called insolvent.