patrick.net

the USPS subsidy is not as big as Obamacare subsidy for all the last mile delivery that Amazon uses kind like Uber. How many of those drivers would be able to be contractors for Amazon if they could not get insurance through Obamacare exchanges.

Don't hear Trump talking about his failure to repeal Obamacare.

Oh wait, he got rid of individual mandate taxes that pay for Obamacare, so now we are left with expense and nobody paying for it.

Trump is correct that taxpayers subsidize Amazon because USPS is undercharging. It is refreshing that Republican president acknowledges, albeit indirectly, that the US Postal Service delivers packages better and cheaper than anyone else. Usually, Republicans are busy demonizing USPS as yet another inefficient government-run service (which is wrong, of course).

But as always, I wonder what the Trump real motivation is. Harming USPS? Harming Amazon? Harming Jeff Bezos because he owns the Washington Post, which often is critical of Trump? Helping FedEx and UPS? Enriching himself? Just posturing? Because Trump does not have an internal consistency or moral compass guiding his policy pushes, it is hard to know what he really is trying to accomplish, or trust his judgement.

Hes trying to raise rates so the f***** thing breaks even. It's really not that complicated
justme says

Because Trump does not have an internal consistency or moral compass guiding his policy pushes, it is hard to know what he really is trying to accomplish, or trust his judgement.

I hope so!

Maybe the USPS should follow the CPS’s lead and contract with the distributors of medicinal flowers?

https://www.mtlblog.com/whats-happening/canada-post-to-start-delivering-marijuana

Oh wait they can’t do that here in the land of FREEDOM because Trump hates freedom and appointed Lord Swamp Monster Jeff Retard Sessions to the AG position. How fucked is that? Well not that fucked when you realize that a hyperConservative political organization disguised as a religion is using their mindless followers to infiltrate our Republic and destroy it from within! All because their loser SJW clowns are all Muh Abortion. Get a clue, Losers!

justme says

It is refreshing that Republican president acknowledges, albeit indirectly, that a the US Postal Service delivers packages better and cheaper than anyone else.

Really?? Why do they deliver "better and cheaper" than anyone else?

US Postal Services posts $5.6B loss for 2016.

The U.S. Postal Service, which has suffered through years of financial trouble, recorded a net loss of $5.6 billion for fiscal 2016 despite an increase in revenue.

The agency’s losses increased from 5.1 billion in 2015.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/306224-us-postal-services-posts-56b-loss-for-2016

Do yah think the USPS would stay open if they weren't bailed out by the US taxpayers?

justme says

Usually, Republicans are busy demonizing USPS as yet another inefficient government-run service (which is wrong, of course).

Still think it's an efficient run service?

What would happen to UPS or Fedex if they ran these huge losses each year?

justme says

But as always, I wonder what the Trump real motivation is.

How about REDUCING spending and saving taxpayer's money? How's that for a novel concept?

Obviously this is about the Washington post. Sounds like they have done way too much real journalism and it got on trumps nerve. Need to dumb down and be more biased like fox n friends to be left alone. Trump is going after all critics.

BorderPatrol says

Obviously this is about the Washington post.

Finally a theory that makes sense! Bezos owns both amazon and the WaPo which has been publishing very fake news for years. Time to see its parent company lose its (unearned) subsidies!

I use Amazon a lot, but see no reason why the usps should undercharge them at a loss.

justme says

Trump is correct that taxpayers subsidize Amazon because USPS is undercharging. It is refreshing that Republican president acknowledges, albeit indirectly, that the US Postal Service delivers packages better and cheaper than anyone else. Usually, Republicans are busy demonizing USPS as yet another inefficient government-run service (which is wrong, of course).

But as always, I wonder what the Trump real motivation is. Harming USPS? Harming Amazon? Helping FedEx and UPS? Enriching himself? Just posturing? Because Trump does not have an internal consistency or moral compass guiding his policy pushes, it is hard to know what he really is trying to accomplish, or trust his judgement.

Maybe it was just a segment on Fox News.

Sniper says

How about REDUCING spending and saving taxpayer's money? How's that for a novel concept?

Do you want your mail delivered? Perhaps it's worth subsidising. Just a thought.

Sniper says

How about REDUCING spending and saving taxpayer's money? How's that for a novel concept?

Or they could be allowed to set their own prices if you want them to have a better shot at making sustained profits. You're a fan of the free market, aren't you?

Sniper says

Just like UPS and Fedex does?? What a novel and a unique concept!! Talk about amazing!!

Yeah, apparently so novel and unique that you failed to mention it.

anon_b8f55 says

Do you want your mail delivered? Perhaps it's worth subsidising. Just a thought

Except that you MISSED the fucking point, that it's the postal service that is subsidizing Amazon with under-charged postal deliveries!

When the government is subsidizing a private company, we as taxpayers should ask why.

Especially since the government's losses are made up by the taxpayer, so it's a wealth transfer from the public to Amazon and their Prime Customers.

I hate to let facts get in the way of a good Trump story, but just for the folks at pat.net who want to actually understand the truth:

https://aircargoworld.com/allposts/trump-says-the-usps-is-getting-a-raw-deal-from-amazon-com-but-its-a-bit-more-nuanced/
"Firstly, the USPS doesn’t operate with tax dollars, meaning that tax payers aren’t subsidizing Amazon’s deliveries. The USPS posted a net income of US$307 million in the first quarter of 2016, the first such gain since 2011, thanks in large part to a 13.5 percent increase in shipping and package revenues.
It also turns out, package delivery is the USPS’ more profitable arm, with earnings actually subsidizing rural mail delivery operations, which are mostly unprofitable. In its 2017 fiscal year report, the USPS attributed its losses to declines in first class mail and marketing mail volumes. On the flip side, the USPS said that “the growth in our Shipping and Package business provided some help to the financial picture… as revenues increased by $2.1 billion, or 11.8 percent.” If the USPS wants to pursue profitability, it needs partnerships like the Amazon.com deal."

Quigley says

anon_b8f55 says

Do you want your mail delivered? Perhaps it's worth subsidising. Just a thought

Except that you MISSED the fucking point, that it's the postal service that is subsidizing Amazon with under-charged postal deliveries!

When the government is subsidizing a private company, we as taxpayers should ask why.

I didn’t miss the point. I was making an additional one. It’s highly likely that USPS would be able to turn a regular profit without having control of its own prices. That’s the choice - subsidize or allow it to set its own prices and see if it can turn a profit. If it doesn’t, then no doubt it will have to be subsidized as people need a mail service.

And before all the usual suspects jump in, I’d just like to clarify that my comment about subsidizing wasn’t meant to refer to Amazon. It was in reference to the continued need for a postal service even if it can’t turn a profit - it is of national importance after all.

If people really want the USPS to stop losing money, we need to focus on the real problems with the business plan. Package delivery is profitable and subsidizes the rest of the business. 6 day/week delivery of mail to rural areas is why the USPS loses money. A couple ideas (not mine) that make sense:

1. Reduce mail service to 5 days/week
2. Impose a surcharge on rural addresses to cover the additional costs incurred in making their service.

justme says

But as always, I wonder what the Trump real motivation is.

How is this difficult to ascertain? Trump wants the American people to stop hemorrhaging money into the pockets of billionaires. Simple, easy, and obvious.

BorderPatrol says

Washington post. Sounds like they have done way too much real journalism

I can't tell if you are joking. WashPo is a CIA propaganda machine. It is misinformation and an enemy of the people

anon_4480e says

How is this difficult to ascertain? Trump wants the American people to stop hemorrhaging money into the pockets of billionaires. Simple, easy, and obvious.

If that were the case, he wouldn't have signed the tax bill.

HappyGilmore says

anon_4480e says

How is this difficult to ascertain? Trump wants the American people to stop hemorrhaging money into the pockets of billionaires. Simple, easy, and obvious.

If that were the case, he wouldn't have signed the tax bill.

Exactly, because it's clear as day, not a single middle class American will get a tax savings with that new tax bill, right HappyGilmore/JoeyJoey/Tattup70?

Oh, wait.... the majority WILL get a tax savings... damn Trump...

Sniper says

Exactly, because it's clear as day, not a single middle class American will get a tax savings with that new tax bill, right HappyGilmore/JoeyJoey/Tattup70?

Oh, wait.... the majority WILL get a tax savings... damn Trump...

Yep, the average middle class family will get a couple hundred while the average rich will get tens of thousands. That's called hemorrhaging money into the pockets of billionaires.

HappyGilmore says

Yep, the average middle class family will get a couple hundred while the average rich will get tens of thousands

That’s how percentages work.
Duh!
3% tax break of 30k is $900.
3% tax break on $1,000,000 is 30k.
Whose taxes got cut more?
Neither, both got the same tax cut. It was just worth more to the big earner.

HappyGilmore says

If that were the case, he wouldn't have signed the tax bill.

The billions paid out in Xmas bonuses and the economy both disagree w you. Facts are a pesky thing

Quigley says

HappyGilmore says

Yep, the average middle class family will get a couple hundred while the average rich will get tens of thousands

That’s how percentages work.
Duh!
3% tax break of 30k is $900.
3% tax break on $1,000,000 is 30k.
Whose taxes got cut more?
Neither, both got the same tax cut. It was just worth more to the big earner.

Very good point Quigley!!!

Let's go one step further:

The $30,000 guy will pay 12% in taxes = $3,600. (his $900 savings is 25% of his new tax bill)
The $1,000,000 will pay 37% in taxes = $370,000. (his $30,000 savings is only 8% of his new tax bill)

Which one gets a bigger tax savings as a percentage of their taxes?

Question for yo-u HappyGilmore/JoeyJoey/Tattup70, since both have access to the same government services, and the government pays their bills with dollars, which guy pays MORE than his fair share for those services?

HappyGilmore/JoeyJoey/Tattup70 also please tell us is it the middle class guy who's getting a bigger tax savings or the "rich" guy?

30,000 > 900
Pretty simple math for any Great American

errc says

30,000 > 900
Pretty simple math for any Great American

Yes, paying $3,600 versus $370,000 in taxes is simple math for any Great American.

Unfortunately, there are a few here that can't do simple math, and have to rely on drinking the kool-aid served by the Liberal media for those math skills.

So sad.

Quigley says

That’s how percentages work.
Duh!
3% tax break of 30k is $900.
3% tax break on $1,000,000 is 30k.
Whose taxes got cut more?
Neither, both got the same tax cut. It was just worth more to the big earner.

First off, middle class for a family of 4 is $48K to $144K so let's be conservative and use $75K. And a few hundred isn't $900.

So, let's do this again. 3% of 75K = $2,250, but instead they are getting a few hundred which is .4%

So, rich are getting 7.5 times as much benefit as middle class.

HappyGilmore says

First off, middle class for a family of 4 is $48K to $144K so let's be conservative and use $75K. And a few hundred isn't $900.

So, let's do this again. 3% of 75K = $2,250, but instead they are getting a few hundred which is .4%

Wrong again....

Their tax rate in 2017 is 15%, for the new tax bill in 2018, it drops to 12%. So math for simple minds, 15 - 12 = 3%. So they're getting a 3% savings.

Their tax savings next year is $2,250 (3% of $75K), NOT a few hundred. That $2,250 is a over 20% savings on their new $9,000 tax bill, NOT .4%. Where did yo-u learn math????

HappyGilmore says

So, rich are getting 7.5 times as much benefit as middle class.

Why do yo-u KEEP repeating the same lies???

Sniper says

The $1,000,000 will pay 37% in taxes = $370,000. (his $30,000 savings is only 8% of his new tax bill)

HappyGilmore/JoeyJoey/Tattup70, which is a larger savings, 20% or 8%?? Maybe Marcus can help yo-u with that math.

Sniper says

The $1,000,000 will pay 37% in taxes = $370,000

Spoken like someone who doesn't know how taxes are calculated. Are you sure they pay $370k? I'm sure you are wrong.

Why would anyone think taxes are simple math?

Sniper says

The $1,000,000 will pay 37% in taxes = $370,000

You do know that someone making a million dollars doesn't pay 37% on the whole million .... Right? First it depends on filling status then you pay % for each bracket. Everybody pays 10% on the first bracket of $. Even the person making a $1,000,0000. But you knew this. Right? Simple math right?

Why do you assume that savings only come in the %'s on brackets? Top 1% don't generally get paid on a w-2 either so saying this is simple math is wrong.

Sniper says

Their tax rate in 2017 is 15%, for the new tax bill in 2018, it drops to 12%. So math for simple minds, 15 - 12 = 3%. So they're getting a 3% savings.

Both the person making $1 million and the person making $30k both pay 12% on that bracket of money. So there is no reason to subtract 15-12 because the 3 % tells us nothing.

anon_13ce6 says

Top 1% don't generally get paid on a w-2 either so saying this is simple math is wrong.

Really, Vice Presidents and CEOs don't get paid any salary or bonuses on a W-2? Care to back that up with FACTS?

anon_13ce6 says

Both the person making $1 million and the person making $30k both pay 12% on that bracket of money. So there is no reason to subtract 15-12 because the 3 % tells us nothing.

Not even close. Nice try.

What I see here is a bunch of Liberal parrots trying to justify a narrative using straw men, since their twisted narrative is blown.