Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[lemonlime 5503]

Just now, ChiTownDoc said:

Lol you’re reading too much into my grammar.  The far left and far right are all bozos.   Happy?

I should have been more clear that my response really wasn't to you per se.  I just genuinely don't know how we have a real debate on policy right now, when you have one side that is varying degrees of left, and a "right" that is entirely batshit crazy.  The debates have to come after kicking the crazy out.  Anything else right now, at least with respect to AOC, is just feeding the trolls who think that she had a nickname is somehow a giant scandal, but say nothing about their orange god imprisoning brown kids.

[F250 29177]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

My personal finances are great, thanks for asking. Do you seriously attempt to breakdown what particular source of money is going to pay for your lunch every day or expect your lunch to be revenue neutral? 

 

Technically I do consider the source of funding for my lunches, corporate AmEx or personal.

Your post implied that you do not set a monthly budget for expenses but just spend money and figure it out later. "I don't ask where the specific funds are going to come from to pay for my food this month." A lot of people do that but it's probably not a good example to use in a discussion about fiscal responsibility.

 

 

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Perfect is the enemy of good, folks.

Falling into the Republican manufactured and media driven garbage of holding everyone BUT Trump’s feet to the fire is exactly how we ended up with the current shitshow.

Some of y’all are literally expecting more from a congresswomen whose been in office two days than you expect from the president.

And as much as I love Anderson Cooper, he and the rest of the media are too concerned about not being accused of being “LIBERAL FAKE NEWS”.

I’m beginning to think it’s not the Democrats who are going to fuck up 2020; it’s going to be the media and the voters so against Trump.

They’re going to overthink and over analyze and nitpick everything to death and fuck everything up.

[Celery Man 21076]

i know that people can't be expected to chew bubble gum and walk but it may be worth clarifying that these are two different things which do not necessarily have any connection

1) pointing out that most people demanding these answers from AOC are largely hypocrites or at least guilty of applying a double standard

2) supporting AOC as the new voice of America who is flawless and should be in charge of all of the things

[CO Horn 172]

4 hours ago, Brew said:

If that’s her plan she brought up on TV what does that impact, 10k-12k taxpayers that pay somewhere around 20% of total tax collections already. They will tax plan their way right around that issue. Let’s adjust capital gains and qualified dividend  rates back to something reasonable where all in that group are paying equitably first. Do away with this stupid pass through deduction too and force people to go to C corps if they want lower rates where it is more expensive to get the money out.

Put out a plan that has a shot and makes sense. When tax collections and budget numbers come out for 18/19, someone needs to be ready for a plan to turn this because I don’t see any way it isn’t way worse than projections. Add a recession to the backside of it later this year and next year and we’re f-ed.

Could not agree more. It's going to be ugly.

[Dahobbs 18192]

19 minutes ago, F250 said:

Technically I do consider the source of funding for my lunches, corporate AmEx or personal.

Your post implied that you do not set a monthly budget for expenses but just spend money and figure it out later. "I don't ask where the specific funds are going to come from to pay for my food this month." A lot of people do that but it's probably not a good example to use in a discussion about fiscal responsibility.

 

 

 

 

I didn't imply that at all. I said I don't consider what specific source is paying for my food because I don't. I have a pool of money. That pool of money comes from a variety of sources, wages, interest, dividends, and other business revenue. I haven't for instance allocated my dividend income to food. I just know it is coming out of my general pool of money. I don't see how that is any different than AOC's answer of "like we pay for everything else."

On the other hand, the question of should we pay for it is different than the specific source of funding.  "Should we pay for it" and "how much should we pay for it" involve looking at the costs and benefits of the item. If the benefits exceeds the costs, then it is probably worth getting even if it means going into debt. This is especially true for a government that prints its own money, and is very different from how the typical household needs to approach the issue. The household has to consider whether it is even possible to pay for the item. The government doesn't. It can pay for it. The only real question is if it should.  

Edited January 7, 2019 by Dahobbs

[F250 29177]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I didn't imply that at all. I said I don't consider what specific source is paying for my food because I don't. I have a pool of money. That pool of money comes from a variety of sources, wages, interest, dividends, and other business revenue. I haven't for instance allocated my dividend income to food. I just know it is coming out of my general pool of money. I don't see how that is any different than AOC's answer of "like we pay for everything else."

On the other hand, the question of should we pay for it is different than the specific source of funding.  "Should we pay for it" and "how much should we pay for it" involve looking at the costs and benefits of the item. If the benefits exceeds the costs, then it is probably worth getting even if it means going into debt. This is especially true for a government that prints its own money, and is very different from how the typical household needs to approach the issue. The household has to consider whether it is even possible to pay for the item. The government doesn't. It can pay for it. The only real question is if it should.  

My budget comment was typical Surly tongue in cheek. I didn't mean to really offend so I apologize if it came across as offensive.

As far as AOC's answer to Anderson Cooper, it was a terrible answer. She could have provided a simple answer that addressed the question. Several posters have already given examples that would have sounded fine. Hell, she could have said something similar to what you just posted and that would have worked.

My criticism of her answer is the what about Space Force retort. She had the opportunity to move the conversation forward but she went with the whataboutism.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Sometimes I try to imagine an America where the US Postal System never existed and then imagine a contemporary politician pitching the idea of the post office.

How do you think that would go? 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sometimes I try to imagine an America where the US Postal System never existed and then imagine a contemporary politician pitching the idea of the post office.

 How do you think that would go? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

More of a rhetorical question.

[Dahobbs 18192]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sometimes I try to imagine an America where the US Postal System never existed and then imagine a contemporary politician pitching the idea of the post office.

How do you think that would go? 

Exactly. People look at the post office and see there was a budget shortage of a couple billion dollars one year and complain about it. They somehow miss that the post office is possibly the most efficient business in existence, delivering mail all over the country at less than .50 cents per item in total cost. That is and has been a huge benefit to the country that far exceeds the 2 billion shortfall or the ~70 billion a year in total cost (revenue of USPS + shortfall). 

And to relate it to the discussion of how we pay: would it make any practical difference if the USPS was mostly funded by taxes rather than by postal fees? No, of course it wouldn't. The country and the tax payers would pay for it all the same at like $50 per capita per year. How we pay is the least important question for a government. Should we do it. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Those are the questions we should be focusing on. 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Guest Lobo]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sometimes I try to imagine an America where the US Postal System never existed and then imagine a contemporary politician pitching the idea of the post office.

How do you think that would go? 

It's an interesting point.  You may be too young to remember but a favorite example of the pro-big Government left for a long time was the idea that you can put a stamp on a letter in Bangor, Maine and it would reach Fairbanks, Alaska just for that 25 cents.  

[lemonlime 5503]

3 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

This thread tells me Biden and Beto are fucked in the upcoming Dem primary.  I hope I’m wrong on that.  But clearly the appetite is for someone who vents voter frustration on the left, triggers the pubs and causes right wing tears, and “says what we are all thinking”, not the boring person who still acts like decorum matters and things should be grounded in some semblance of reality.  Even Bernie isn’t going to do it for them because he’s not combative enough.

I still won’t vote for Trump, but it’s depressing.  Oh well.

I don't want pub tears.  I want reasonable governance.  I don't know how to debate what reasonable governance is in the setting of one side that supports WALL! and SPACE FORCE! and acts like a toddler who just ate 10 pounds of gummy worms chased by 2 liters of Mountain Dew.  A pretend argument in a thread about AOC with the screaming toddler is the problem.    We need reasonable adults who have a basic understanding of reality in control before debating the fine points of health care or tax policy.

 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32544]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sometimes I try to imagine an America where the US Postal System never existed and then imagine a contemporary politician pitching the idea of the post office.

How do you think that would go? 

Or an Interstate System.

Or putting a man on the moon in less than 8 years.

 

[Guest Lobo]

Rep. O'Rourke, Sen. Sanders, Vice President Biden, Sen. Warren.  

Titles matter on old school ballots where your nickname doesn't matter anymore.  Ask Astronauts Jose Hernandez and Michael Gray.   

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

Nobody wants right wing tears. We want to strip them from power then completely ignore their complaints. 

 

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

This thread tells me Biden and Beto are fucked in the upcoming Dem primary.  I hope I’m wrong on that.  But clearly the appetite is for someone who vents voter frustration on the left, triggers the pubs and causes right wing tears, and “says what we are all thinking”, not the boring person who still acts like decorum matters and things should be grounded in some semblance of reality.  Even Bernie isn’t going to do it for them because he’s not combative enough.

I still won’t vote for Trump, but it’s depressing.  Oh well.

Glad you’re coming around to this depressing conclusion.  It’s what happens when a ruling party completely abandons reality and facts.  

The only response is to remove them from power with extreme prejudice.

[Fozzz 152]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

How can a AOC supporter like you attempt to degrade literally the most well respected left leaning think tank in all the country?   If you don’t like me, fine.  But how does somebody like you, with your ideology, turn your back and insult Brookings?   They’re the cornerstone of most of your agenda.  

If you consider Brookings "left" leaning then you don't know what that word means.  

[Guest Lobo]

The NY Times, most of Think Tank Row, the U.S. government, and my own visiting fellowship on Massachusetts Avenue, all point to Brookings being left-leaning.  Don't get me wrong-they are not wildly liberal, heavy-left.  But literally other than you and your pub quiz group, there aren't many honorably entities on the face of this planet that consider Brookings anything but centrist, center-left (again not hard left, but nothing right of center other than the occasional AEI collaboration).  Even if you think they are dead center, or center-right, you insulted them in a previous post and even you would have to acknowledge they are the most oft-cited think thank in the Western Hemisphere.  .  

[Brew 3049]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

i know that people can't be expected to chew bubble gum and walk but it may be worth clarifying that these are two different things which do not necessarily have any connection

1) pointing out that most people demanding these answers from AOC are largely hypocrites or at least guilty of applying a double standard

2) supporting AOC as the new voice of America who is flawless and should be in charge of all of the things

Or we’re applying the same standard to both sides rather than ride or dieing on a message we like. I don’t support Trump, I’ve never supported Trump, I don’t support all of his tax package although I do support components of it, I don’t support lowering taxes although it provided me significant personal benefit, etc. Trying to pigeon hole everyone into an us versus them is stupid and gets us nowhere.

[Fozzz 152]

I don't care if they are oft-cited.  They may be more liberal than AEI, but I wouldn't use "left" to describe them.  Their existence, like AEI's and all the other big think tanks is bad for our democracy.  A lot of policy making has been given over to them and they are not open and transparent institutions, including Brookings.  Brookings is a cesspit of corruption.  

 

[wildcat09 29559]

38 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sometimes I try to imagine an America where the US Postal System never existed and then imagine a contemporary politician pitching the idea of the post office.

How do you think that would go? 

Try this but with public libraries.

[Brew 3049]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

every prediction that the debt was going to force the nation into insolvency and we'd all be hocked to foreign creditors has been wrong for 300+ years, but i'm sure it's right this time.

How deep are you willing to ride that roller coaster? The thought process in this thread has gone nuts and will do nothing but empower the fake Republican conservatives to rail on Democrat spending. Now the argument is “we don’t mind deficit spending and new programs if it’s for what we agree with and the rich have to pay more.” How about we get our house back in order and not pay for things the way we always have and be realistic about tax collection projections and tax law and take on new spending and new measures as part of an overall plan?

Edited January 7, 2019 by Brew

[Guest Lobo]

Fozzz--

That they are too influential on our legislative and administrative states, that's certainly fair.  My point was that a lot of serious critics and reporters of that world put them to the center-left, not "leftist", but left of center.  You're literally the first person beside Bernie Sanders, Pol Pot, and Hugo Stiglitz to contend otherwise.  But yes, another thread for another time-the influence they and AEI and others like them have on D.C. is far beyond what most Americans could possible fathom.  Interesting topic for another time, kind of a Sixth Estate.  

Edited January 7, 2019 by Lobo

[Celery Man 21076]

3 minutes ago, Brew said:

Or we’re applying the same standard to both sides rather than ride or dieing on a message we like. I don’t support Trump, I’ve never supported Trump, I don’t support all of his tax package although I do support components of it, I don’t support lowering taxes although it provided me significant personal benefit, etc. Trying to pigeon hole everyone into an us versus them is stupid and gets us nowhere.

obviously I'm not talking about you specifically because I don't know what you post or what all of your opinions are.  But if we're on the topic, why are you in a panic on this specifically now in this thread?

[Fozzz 152]

One thing the left loves is being paid to write glorified press releases for Chinese megacorps.

Quote

In October 2017, the Brookings Institution, one of Washington’s most prestigious think tanks, published a report entitled “Benefits and Best Practices of Safe City Innovation.” The report included a case study praising the Kenyan capital Nairobi and the Chinese city of Lijiang for implementing new technology in policing.

What the report failed to mention is that the controversial Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei provided the technology for both cities, or that Huawei is one of the world’s leading sellers of Safe City equipment, which the company describes as “cutting-edge” security to improve policing and oversight. The Brookings report did, at least, disclose who provided support for the research: “Support for this publication was generously provided by Huawei.” In other words, Brookings praised Huawei’s technology in a report sponsored by Huawei.

Brookings, AEI, Heritage, etc., should all be shuttered. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/08/chinese-companys-surprising-ties-brookings-institution/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d0bdefaf6f7c

[jimmyjazz 46979]

2 minutes ago, Brew said:

How deep are you willing to ride that roller coaster? The thought process in this thread has gone nuts and will do nothing but empower the fake Republican conservatives to rail on Democrat spending. Now the argument is “we don’t mind deficit spending and new programs if it’s for what we agree with and the rich have to pay more.” How about we get our house back in order and not pay for things the way we always have and be realistic about tax collection projections and tax law and take on new spending and new measures as part of an overall plan?

She never said the funding for her ideas would come from added taxes.  I don't know what her expectations are -- I would hope her position is that everything she advocates would be funded by budget cuts in defense, etc. -- but this collective freakout over a high-level comment with no teeth is hilarious, especially in light of the utter butt-fucking the right has given us for quite a while now.

[ChiTownDoc 21325]

57 minutes ago, F250 said:

My budget comment was typical Surly tongue in cheek. I didn't mean to really offend so I apologize if it came across as offensive.

As far as AOC's answer to Anderson Cooper, it was a terrible answer. She could have provided a simple answer that addressed the question. Several posters have already given examples that would have sounded fine. Hell, she could have said something similar to what you just posted and that would have worked.

My criticism of her answer is the what about Space Force retort. She had the opportunity to move the conversation forward but she went with the whataboutism.

Fucking A.  This is all I’m saying but any criticism of the princess is frowned upon heavily by SOME in her cabal.  Sound familiar?

[ChiTownDoc 21325]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Perfect is the enemy of good, folks.

Falling into the Republican manufactured and media driven garbage of holding everyone BUT Trump’s feet to the fire is exactly how we ended up with the current shitshow.

Some of y’all are literally expecting more from a congresswomen whose been in office two days than you expect from the president.

This is fucked up.  Have you seen my criticisms of OrangeDufus?  They’re all over this board.  Why can’t I look at this lady critically?  I’m not doing any double standard bullshit.  

[GSU&UT 1799]

This seems relevant given the talk in here yesterday about the value of a college degree in 2019.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

This is fucked up.  Have you seen my criticisms of OrangeDufus?  They’re all over this board.  Why can’t I look at this lady critically?  I’m not doing any double standard bullshit.  

Can't go off the reservation or the script or you're an enemy.  She has lots of very compassionate ideas, let's see how the reality of Congress, budgets, and action affects those ideas.

[RomaVicta 30501]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

And to be fair, I can live w far left bozos if I had to choose a side.  The R ones will get us all killed.  

Far right bozos:

 

Far left bozos:

 

 

[hayden_horn 11401]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Perfect is the enemy of good, folks.

Falling into the Republican manufactured and media driven garbage of holding everyone BUT Trump’s feet to the fire is exactly how we ended up with the current shitshow.

Some of y’all are literally expecting more from a congresswomen whose been in office two days than you expect from the president.

And as much as I love Anderson Cooper, he and the rest of the media are too concerned about not being accused of being “LIBERAL FAKE NEWS”.

I’m beginning to think it’s not the Democrats who are going to fuck up 2020; it’s going to be the media and the voters so against Trump.

They’re going to overthink and over analyze and nitpick everything to death and fuck everything up.

yeah, but statements like this don't do anyone any favors. this is exactly what we've been putting up with in the oval office:

Quote

Cooper: One of the criticisms of you is that— that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios—
Ocasio-Cortez: Oh my goodness—
Cooper: —for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending?
Ocasio-Cortez: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.
Cooper: But being factually correct is important—
Ocasio-Cortez: It's absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "OK, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the President lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.

i actually want her and the democrats in the house to act as a successful check against the moron in chief we have in office right now. but let's try and go about it the right way and simply own it. don't deflect. "i made a mistake on that actual number, but i still believe in the overarching point" is an okay thing to say out loud. it would be refreshing.

[wildcat09 29559]

8 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

This seems relevant given the talk in here yesterday about the value of a college degree in 2019.

 

The amount of stupid bullshit at least 70% of the country fell for in the wake of the great recession is really astonishing. 

[wildcat09 29559]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

yeah, but statements like this don't do anyone any favors. this is exactly what we've been putting up with in the oval office:

i actually want her and the democrats in the house to act as a successful check against the moron in chief we have in office right now. but let's try and go about it the right way and simply own it. don't deflect. "i made a mistake on that actual number, but i still believe in the overarching point" is an okay thing to say out loud. it would be refreshing.

Isn't that what she says in the immediately following sentence?

[hayden_horn 11401]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Isn't that what she says in the immediately following sentence?

yes, but my point is that she should lead with that, not try and deflect with a technicality. 

it's okay, she's new at this. i just want fewer unforced errors. 

everyone is going to make mistakes. 

[Celery Man 21076]

everyone is going to have bad days

[hayden_horn 11401]

1 minute ago, Celery Man said:

everyone is going to have bad days

not everybody's the perfect person in the world. i mean, everyone kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me, whatever.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

Jesus this thread is a beating. Some of y’all are wasting a ton of headspace on a NY congresswoman. I guess the right needs a new boogeyman now that Hillary is gone and there’s only so many times you can bring up Elizabeth Warren in a 3 hr AM radio talk show

[Celery Man 21076]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

not everybody's the perfect person in the world. i mean, everyone kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me, whatever.

 

[jimmyjazz 46979]

11 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, but statements like this don't do anyone any favors. this is exactly what we've been putting up with in the oval office:

i actually want her and the democrats in the house to act as a successful check against the moron in chief we have in office right now. but let's try and go about it the right way and simply own it. don't deflect. "i made a mistake on that actual number, but i still believe in the overarching point" is an okay thing to say out loud. it would be refreshing.

Yet the pushback on AOC has been tenfold what it is for the average mushmouth on Capitol Hill.  Let's not confuse things here -- it's because she's young, relatively hot, loudmouthed and (mostly) brown.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13708]

I don't know if 70% is the right number but it's silly that we tax all income over 500K at the same rate.    And even then it's only a 2% bump from income over 200K.    

The main arguments against more and higher tax brackets are:

1. It's confusing and complicated to have 10+ tax brackets.  The answer is, of course, is that it's not confusing to anyone with half a brain.  Besides people either use software or an accountant so very very few people use the manual tax tables any more.   

2. Higher taxes on the highly compensated will someone stifle economic growth.  This is a legitimate concern but I've never see any proof that the highly compensated actually produce much economic growth.  I'm sure the number is >0 but I don't think they move the needle much other than with certain luxury goods.   

3. Higher tax encourage some to stop working.  This is definitely true at some rates.  If you were taxed 95% for >$1M, you have little incentive to work once you've earned 1m.   for the next million, you would basically take home 50K.     And perhaps 70% is too high but treating all income above 500K the same is also a joke.  

And as is often mentioned on tax or wealth inequality threads, the wealthy/highly compensated should either voluntary accept higher taxes or they eventually find even higher taxes forced upon them.

 

[hayden_horn 11401]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Yet the pushback on AOC has been tenfold what it is for the average mushmouth on Capitol Hill.  Let's not confuse things here -- it's because she's young, relatively hot, loudmouthed and (mostly) brown.

well, not my pushback. 

she's also been annointed sort of a figurehead of a very real millennial movement into government, as well as the vanguard of the female representative revolution that happened in november. 

i understand that the republicans are freaking out about her. however, just because they are doesn't mean she's immune to criticism overall. 

like i said, it's all water under the bridge now, and we'll see how well she governs moving forward. i'm rather optimistic, but then, i have a fortune taped to my work monitor that says "a cynic is only a frustrated optimist," which is one of the truest things i've read.

[ChiTownDoc 21325]

25 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Far right bozos:

 

Far left bozos:

 

 

This is EXACTLY what I’m getting at.  Well done.  

[jimmyjazz 46979]

I don't think she should be immune to criticism.  I don't think any of them should be immune to criticism.  She has become a lightning rod for no reason other than she represents the new wave of political perspective, and it's freaking the right wing out.  I get it, it's all politics, but to diminish her as any less intellectual or any less thoughtful than the average toad in office is disingenuous.  Predictable, but disingenuous, and it should be countered.

[elfenix 34658]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

How deep are you willing to ride that roller coaster? The thought process in this thread has gone nuts and will do nothing but empower the fake Republican conservatives to rail on Democrat spending. Now the argument is “we don’t mind deficit spending and new programs if it’s for what we agree with and the rich have to pay more.” How about we get our house back in order and not pay for things the way we always have and be realistic about tax collection projections and tax law and take on new spending and new measures as part of an overall plan?

that's hume's argument, at least.  writing in 1752: ‘either the nation must destroy public credit, or public credit will destroy the nation.’  britain's debt to GDP ratio continued to rise over the next 65 years to the highest ever seen (over 200%), and for the next century after that it ran the whole damn world. 

so, yeah, sign me up for that roller coaster.  so long as we can figure out how to keep the entirety of national income increases from accruing to 10,000 individuals, at least.

Edited January 7, 2019 by elfenix

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Exactly. People look at the post office and see there was a budget shortage of a couple billion dollars one year and complain about it. They somehow miss that the post office is possibly the most efficient business in existence, delivering mail all over the country at less than .50 cents per item in total cost. That is and has been a huge benefit to the country that far exceeds the 2 billion shortfall or the ~70 billion a year in total cost (revenue of USPS + shortfall). 

And to relate it to the discussion of how we pay: would it make any practical difference if the USPS was mostly funded by taxes rather than by postal fees? No, of course it wouldn't. The country and the tax payers would pay for it all the same at like $50 per capita per year. How we pay is the least important question for a government. Should we do it. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Those are the questions we should be focusing on. 

A lot of people also miss that they have a monopoly on mailing letters.....maybe if other competitors were allowed to deliver letters it would be different?  

 

Quote

The reason the USPS is in trouble and is struggling to cover its estimated $29 billion in fixed costs is because of its status as a partial legal monopoly. From the own words of the USPS, Congress has granted, with criminal penalty, the USPS total monopoly over the delivery of letters, with some carve-out exceptions (such as urgent or free of charge). Like most monopolies, the USPS had little incentive to keep costs controlled. In 1999, the USPS even went so far as to shrug off the burgeoning Internet, e-mail in particular, as some fad and engaged in sorting facility expansions with the expectation that letter volume would continue to grow. Since peaking in 2001, the number of letters delivered by the USPS has since collapsed to nearly half as much in 2017. The USPS costs, however, continued to increase, from $62 billion in 2000 to $72.3 billion in 2017, despite the collapse of business volume. The USPS was only able to remain solvent by leveraging its monopoly status by driving up the price of stamps from $0.34 for a first class stamp in 1999 to $0.50 later this year. But even this is running into limitations as the decline in mail volume accelerates.

https://mises.org/wire/how-postal-service-loses-so-much-money

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Forgot to quote 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, American Swindle said:

A lot of people also miss that they have a monopoly on mailing letters.....maybe if other competitors were allowed to deliver letters it would be different?  

 

https://mises.org/wire/how-postal-service-loses-so-much-money

I can FedEx a letter

[elfenix 34658]

2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

A lot of people also miss that they have a monopoly on mailing letters.....maybe if other competitors were allowed to deliver letters it would be different?  

 

https://mises.org/wire/how-postal-service-loses-so-much-money

what a load of shit.

the USPS is "struggling" because unlike its competitors it has been forced to fully fund its pensions and cannot raise rates or innovate into other/additional markets without an act of congress.   the only thing it can do that its competitors can't is put mail in the box, but how much is that actually worth?  in exchange it has to visit every box, damn near every day.  how much does that cost?  its only real subsidy is that it doesn't pay state property taxes.  it hasn't been taxpayer funded in a generation.

Edited January 7, 2019 by elfenix