Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: James on August 04, 2009, 06:36:15 AM
-
"the US Postal Service is probably just fine
I'd buy stock if I could" - Straw Man
You are an idiot :o
Post office in big trouble
Facing a $7 billion loss this year, the Postal Service may close hundreds of branches. » 'Unable to pay its bills'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_go_ot/us_postal_closings
U.S. Postal Service May Close 1,000 Post Offices; Curtail Home Delivery - Video 8/3/09
Video :
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/08/us-postal-service-may-close-1000-post.html
-
Que response from straw saying either
1. He was CLEARLY joking
2. Everyone is doing bad(green shoots???)
-
Que response from straw saying either
1. He was CLEARLY joking
2. Everyone is doing bad(green shoots???)
-
how about posting a link to the entire thread so I can at least remember the conversation rather than just taking it out of context
-
how about posting a link to the entire thread so I can at least remember the conversation rather than just taking it out of context
Why bother? You repeatedly embarass youself with illogical statements like the above.
-
Why bother? You repeatedly embarass youself with illogical statements like the above.
it's called context dumbass.
I have no clue what that conversation was about, what else I said in the thread etc...
shouldn't you be posting another thread about how Obama is going to put us all into re-education camps, force our women to get abortions and euthanize our grandparents
-
it's called context dumbass.
I have no clue what that conversation was about, what else I said in the thread etc...
shouldn't you be posting another thread about how Obama is going to put us all into re-education camps, force our women to get abortions and euthanize our grandparents
Yeah, that remindas me. I have not done so in the last ten seconds. ;D
-
how about posting a link to the entire thread so I can at least remember the conversation rather than just taking it out of context
I remember it straw and you were completely and totally in the wrong...
-
I remember it straw and you were completely and totally in the wrong...
unlike MANY people here I frequently admit when I'm wrong
how about a link to the thread instead of a one comment taken out of context
-
unlike MANY people here I frequently admit when I'm wrong
how about a link to the thread instead of a one comment taken out of context
I commented on your comment straw in that thread it wasnt taken out of context it would be easier for you to search your previous post to find that thread then us to search for that thread. Again is was not taken out of context you defended that state of the post office more then once in that thread.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=291612.msg4147736#msg4147736
here you go straw another few posts from this thread
things the govt does a good job running are: social security, the post office, medicare, etc...
the US Postal Service is probably just fine
I'd buy stock if I could
here you go.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=291612.msg4147736#msg4147736
here you go straw another few posts from this thread
here you go.
-
yep - Medicare and Social Security are both successful programs. Just ask the people who are using it.
Regarding the Post Office you'll notice I said "PROBABLY" just fine.
Every friggin business that is heavily dependent on fuel costs are having issues at the moment
They still do a good job for an incredibly low price. Try going to UPS or Fed Ex and ask them to mail a letter for 44 cents and see what they say
-
I commented on your comment straw in that thread it wasnt taken out of context it would be easier for you to search your previous post to find that thread then us to search for that thread. Again is was not taken out of context you defended that state of the post office more then once in that thread.
gimme a break - if someone is going to take my quote out of a thread then how much extra effort is it to post a link to the thread. Especially so if they want me to respond.
-
yep - Medicare and Social Security are both successful programs. Just ask the people who are using it.
Regarding the Post Office you'll notice I said "PROBABLY" just fine.
Every friggin business that is heavily dependent on fuel costs are having issues at the moment
They still do a good job for an incredibly low price. Try going to UPS or Fed Ex and ask them to mail a letter for 44 cents and see what they say
ok so let me lay this out for you here straw as you never respond in other threads when I lay it out for you in them
If like obama says you will get the same care on the govt program as from private insurance and they are able to operate in the red as the VAST MAJORITY OF GOVT PROGRAMS DO. How will the private insurance companies compete?
-
yep - Medicare and Social Security are both successful programs. Just ask the people who are using it.
Regarding the Post Office you'll notice I said "PROBABLY" just fine.
Every friggin business that is heavily dependent on fuel costs are having issues at the moment
They still do a good job for an incredibly low price. Try going to UPS or Fed Ex and ask them to mail a letter for 44 cents and see what they say
No they dont!
Of course they work well for the people who are benefitting off of it. However, for the taxpayer, its a disaster now, and even one that is looming.
This is what I disagree with you on most issues Straw. You only look at one side of equation and never consider the entire picture.
Sure the post office works well for someone paying a low price. However, that is why they are broke. Their pricing structure cannot pay for their operating costs. Sure the guy paying an artifically low price loves it.
This is the same with the govt. Just because you personally do not pay the ful lprice does not mean that no one else is.
Of course old people love Medicare. They paid a small amount in and take a huge amount out.
-
ok so let me lay this out for you here straw as you never respond in other threads when I lay it out for you in them
If like obama says you will get the same care on the govt program as from private insurance and they are able to operate in the red as the VAST MAJORITY OF GOVT PROGRAMS DO. How will the private insurance companies compete?
Thats the whole freaking point tony!
Obama is designing this entire mess to put the companies out of business.
Straw does not realize that because like other liberals, he is infected with the mental disorder that does not allow one to realize reality, facts, even when it is put in front of his face.
-
Every friggin business that is heavily dependent on fuel costs are having issues at the moment
They still do a good job for an incredibly low price. Try going to UPS or Fed Ex and ask them to mail a letter for 44 cents and see what they say
there is alot more to it then fuel costs straw that would be way down on the list of reasons the post office is in the shitty position it is in right now...
-
No they dont!
Of course they work well for the people who are benefitting off of it. However, for the taxpayer, its a disaster now, and even one that is looming.
This is what I disagree with you on most issues Straw. You only look at one side of equation and never consider the entire picture.
Sure the post office works well for someone paying a low price. However, that is why they are broke. Their pricing structure cannot pay for their operating costs. Sure the guy paying an artifically low price loves it.
This is the same with the govt. Just because you personally do not pay the ful lprice does not mean that no one else is.
Of course old people love Medicare. They paid a small amount in and take a huge amount out.
Social Security and Medicare are fine. Did you even bother to read the article by Krugman posted in the thread that my original quote was from.
I'm not going to spend my day arguing with you. I already know your point of view.
Basically you think everything the Govt does is a disaster. The govt should do absolutely nothing (except maybe fight the occassional war) and let the free market do everything else.
We have fundamentally different views.
-
answer my question please straw
ok so let me lay this out for you here straw as you never respond in other threads when I lay it out for you in them
If like obama says you will get the same care on the govt program as from private insurance and they are able to operate in the red as the VAST MAJORITY OF GOVT PROGRAMS DO. How will the private insurance companies compete?
-
Thats the whole freaking point tony!
Obama is designing this entire mess to put the companies out of business.
Straw does not realize that because like other liberals, he is infected with the mental disorder that does not allow one to realize reality, facts, even when it is put in front of his face.
LOL - yes Obama want's to put companies out of business
Why didn't I see it before
Thank Jeebus I have you two geniuses to finally show me the light
-
Social Security and Medicare are fine. Did you even bother to read the article by Krugman posted in the thread that my original quote was from.
I'm not going to spend my day arguing with you. I already know your point of view.
Basically you think everything the Govt does is a disaster. The govt should do absolutely nothing (except maybe fight the occassional war) and let the free market do everything else.
We have fundamentally different views.
Oh lord Straw. I dont know where to start with you. SS by definition is going broke. Just look at the demographic trends. When the plan was started there 16 workers for every retiree. Soon there will be a ration of 2 to 1. That is not sustainable.
Medicare is in even worse shape.
Both are a complete fiscal train wreck.
-
33386, why are you wasting your energy on this dolt?
When the entire economy completely collapses, he will still insist its "republican" scare tactics and that the economy is fine. If Obama came out tomorrow and imposed Sharia law, he would probably blame George Bush Senior or Ronald Reagan. Logic and numbers are big scary republican propaganda tools. The solution is to blame everything on wall street bonuses, republicans and corporations. Next, pray like hell for a miracle as Barry the anointed comes up with more lamebrain economic policies that are guaranteed to fail. Finally, when the government controls the entire private sector, fault the capitalist system for being unable to sustain itself. Typical shit for brains, predictable liberal Modus Operandi.
For anyone who lives in the greater NYC area, new york one news announced that the US Postal service is going to shut down more than 70 post offices by years end. Many ( or most I should say) are located in poor areas with large minority populations. Change we can believe in?
-
LOL - yes Obama want's to put companies out of business
Why didn't I see it before
Thank Jeebus I have you two geniuses to finally show me the light
Here you go - OWNED THE FUCK AGAIN -
-
ANSWER THE QUESTION STRAW
ok so let me lay this out for you here straw as you never respond in other threads when I lay it out for you in them
If like obama says you will get the same care on the govt program as from private insurance and they are able to operate in the red as the VAST MAJORITY OF GOVT PROGRAMS DO. How will the private insurance companies compete?
-
ANSWER THE QUESTION STRAW
He cant answer it because he is nothing but a liberal cliche machine.
This is in page 16 of the bill itself.
The goal of this plan is to elimate private health care. even ZERO admits it in the video I posted.
-
I'm curious to know the benefits of a private insurance company over what the government will instate.
-
I'm curious to know the benefits of a private insurance company over what the government will instate.
If you dont like one company, you always have the choice to go to another.
When the govt takes over, if it screws up, you have no other choices. You are stuck by law with whatever garbage they ffed you with no choice whatsoever.
-
If you dont like one company, you always have the choice to go to another.
When the govt takes over, if it screws up, you have no other choices. You are stuck by law with whatever garbage they ffed you with no choice whatsoever.
Screw up in what way? All insurance companies do is pay for the actual treatment.
-
ANSWER THE QUESTION STRAW
Are you aware the huge profits that the health insurance companies make.
The primary way they make money is by DENYING PEOPLE the health care that they have paid for
They'll definitely find a way to compete just like UPS and Fed EX, DHL etc.. compete with the postal service
btw - as I'm sure you know, most states in this country have virtually no choice at all and a few companies have virtual monopolies
I'd post a link to a great report (can't seem to get it to attach) but I know NO ONE here would bother to read it so why bother
ah what the heck: http://www.4ibew.com/2009/05/27/health-insurance-profits-soar-as-industry-mergers-create-near-monopoly/
here's the link. Do me a personal favor and scroll down to the bottom where it says click here to read full report.
on the report - go to page 5 and see how in 40+ states only 2 companies control the vast majority of the market.
If you won't take the time to look at it then don't bother demanding that I respond to your questions or your posts
-
He cant answer it because he is nothing but a liberal cliche machine.
This is in page 16 of the bill itself.
The goal of this plan is to elimate private health care. even ZERO admits it in the video I posted.
hey champ - I have a job with 2 phone ringing off the hook, meetings, problems to deal with etc..
Where is the benefit to me to invest time debating with someone who is the equivalent of a nut job standing on the corner screaming that the world is coming to an end.
-
Are you aware the huge profits that the health insurance companies make.
The primary way they make money is by DENYING PEOPLE the health care that they have paid for
They'll definitely find a way to compete just like UPS and Fed EX, DHL etc.. compete with the postal service
btw - as I'm sure you know, most states in this country have virtually no choice at all and a few companies have virtual monopolies
I'd post a link to a great report (can't seem to get it to attach) but I know NO ONE here would bother to read it so why bother
ah what the heck: http://www.4ibew.com/2009/05/27/health-insurance-profits-soar-as-industry-mergers-create-near-monopoly/
here's the link. Do me a personal favor and scroll down to the bottom where it says click here to read full report.
on the report - go to page 5 and see how in 40+ states only 2 companies control the vast majority of the market.
If you won't take the time to look at it then don't bother demanding that I respond to your questions or your posts
none of that has anything to do with the fundamental question that I asked you, again answer the question...
you cite UPS and FEDEX as examples but then that would mean the healthcare system would be the USPS and like I said a Money pit...
-
"on the report - go to page 5 and see how in 40+ states only 2 companies control the vast majority of the market. "
And why is that Straw????
The reason is that insurance companies are highly regulated as it is and have to cover all sorts of things under any policy they offer and simply cant afford to set up shop in these states.
-
none of that has anything to do with the fundamental question that I asked you, again answer the question...
you cite UPS and FEDEX as examples but then that would mean the healthcare system would be the USPS and like I said a Money pit...
go back and look at my post. I said they will FIND a way to compete. There is too much money to be made otherwise.
if the govt plan is going to suck so much, ration health care etc... then there will be plenty of opportunity for other companies to do a better job and gain a share of the market.
BTW - the 48 million people who don't have insurance aren't worried about. The millions more who have insurance but can't afford the deductible aren't worried about it. The people who have paid for years only to get bumped off when they actually need it aren't worried about it.
Don't ask me any more questions until you at least honor my request that you click the link and look at the report.
If you can't be bothered to do that then I can't be bothered to talk with you
-
"on the report - go to page 5 and see how in 40+ states only 2 companies control the vast majority of the market. "
And why is that Straw????
The reason is that insurance companies are highly regulated as it is and have to cover all sorts of things under any policy they offer and simply cant afford to set up shop in these states.
really - that's the reason?
go look at the report and see the exponential growth in profits
maybe we should just have one company then.
maybe even a public single payer system
great idea
I'm done with you today.
I trust you'll still be a raving, hysterical lunatic tomorrow
-
go back and look at my post. I said they will FIND a way to compete. There is too much money to be made otherwise.
if the govt plan is going to suck so much, ration health care etc... then there will be plenty of opportunity for other companies to do a better job and gain a share of the market.
BTW - the 48 million people who don't have insurance aren't worried about. The millions more who have insurance but can't afford the deductible aren't worried about it. The people who have paid for years only to get bumped off when they actually need it aren't worried about it.
Don't ask me any more questions until you at least honor my request that you click the link and look at the report.
If you can't be bothered to do that then I can't be bothered to talk with you
I agree with your assessment here.
-
I agree with your assessment here.
Incorrect assessment my friend. The bill locks people into their current insurance and also forces people to join a "compliant" program. Compliant is determined by who?
-
Incorrect assessment my friend. The bill locks people into their current insurance and also forces people to join a "compliant" program. Compliant is determined by who?
Compliant means that the govt dictates the rules by which the carriers operate and what must be covered. What they will do is make it impossible to compete since the govt has ability to operate in the red and can always print money or exact tax increases on tax payers.
Brain dead libs cant understand this basic concept.
-
go back and look at my post. I said they will FIND a way to compete. There is too much money to be made otherwise.
if the govt plan is going to suck so much, ration health care etc... then there will be plenty of opportunity for other companies to do a better job and gain a share of the market.
BTW - the 48 million people who don't have insurance aren't worried about. The millions more who have insurance but can't afford the deductible aren't worried about it. The people who have paid for years only to get bumped off when they actually need it aren't worried about it.
Don't ask me any more questions until you at least honor my request that you click the link and look at the report.
If you can't be bothered to do that then I can't be bothered to talk with you
wait i thought obama said your coverage would not change? which one is it straw is it going to suck or be the same as obama says it will?
-
Incorrect assessment my friend. The bill locks people into their current insurance and also forces people to join a "compliant" program. Compliant is determined by who?
So the bill forces us to participate in two health insurance programs, one private and one certify by the government?
-
So the bill forces us to participate in two health insurance programs, one private and one certify by the government?
Correct. If you choose private health insurance, you are paying for government and private health insurance. If you choose government, you only pay once. What do you think lower income people will choose?
-
Correct. If you choose private health insurance, you are paying for government and private health insurance. If you choose government, you only pay once. What do you think lower income people will choose?
LOL Never even thought of that WOW thats assinine, straw comment on that while your at it...
-
LOL Never even thought of that WOW thats assinine, straw comment on that while your at it...
There is a ton of bullshit out there that people don't realize. Tell me what you think of this tony.
Medicare/Medicaid notoriously underpays for services/takes years to pay, so wouldn't that be reflected in the cost of services on the doctors end?
-
Damn, Straw getting his ass kicked up and down this thread. Sounds like a blabbering retard that talked himself into a corner.
-
Damn, Straw getting his ass kicked up and down this thread. Sounds like a blabbering retard that talked himself into a corner.
100% correct
-
it's nice to see that a confederacy of dunces have aligned against me.
hey guys - news flash.
there is no bill yet.
the govt already does a good job with medicare (go ask your parents or grand parents).
If/when we get a public option there will still be plenty of opportunity for private companies to actually compete and make money (again - look at the link to the report and see the exponential increase in profits and also the profound lack of competition). If some can't compete then tough titties. There will be plenty who find a way.
right now you're arguing about minutiae of an non-existent bill
-
it's nice to see that a confederacy of dunces have aligned against me.
hey guys - news flash.
there is no bill yet.
the govt already does a good job with medicare (go ask your parents or grand parents).
If/when we get a public option there will still be plenty of opportunity for private companies to actually compete and make money (again - look at the link to the report and see the exponential increase in profits and also the profound lack of competition). If some can't compete then tough titties. There will be plenty who find a way.
right now you're arguing about minutiae of an non-existent bill
really so a company providing supposedly the same product can compete with another company who is not forced to make a profit or even can operate in the red? please explain the economics of that for me?
-
really so a company providing supposedly the same product can compete with another company who is not forced to make a profit or even can operate in the red? please explain the economics of that for me?
did you look at the link I posted?
-
did you look at the link I posted?
your link is a blog...sorry post a credible source and I will read it
but yes I did look at your link which was your requirement so please answer the question...
-
your link is a blog...sorry post a credible source and I will read it
but yes I did look at your link which was your requirement so please answer the question...
the link was IN the blog
I gave you specific instructions
go back and do it right
here's a quick test to prove you've actually done it
tell me the 2 companies that control 98% fo the health insurance market in Hawaii?
-
the link was IN the blog
I gave you specific instructions
go back and do it right
here's a quick test to prove you've actually done it
tell me the 2 companies that control 98% fo the health insurance market in Hawaii?
LOL blue cross/blue sheild and kaiser...now answer the question...
also you think linking to a organization that obviously is agenda based is evidence, this is taint amount to taking olbeirmens/oreillys word for it...
at any rate answer the question and dont give me an already answered it bullshit...
-
LOL blue cross/blue sheild and kaiser...now answer the question...
also you think linking to a organization that obviously is agenda based is evidence, this is taint amount to taking olbeirmens/oreillys word for it...
at any rate answer the question and dont give me an already answered it bullshit...
2 companies control essentially the entire market. Is that good for the consumer? Did you happen to see the profit growth among from 2000 to 2007 and also the growth in premiums compared to the growth in wages. Can you see the the current system is unfair and fraught with abuse.
btw - what does "taint amount" mean?
-
LOL blue cross/blue sheild and kaiser...now answer the question...
also you think linking to a organization that obviously is agenda based is evidence, this is taint amount to taking olbeirmens/oreillys word for it...
at any rate answer the question and dont give me an already answered it bullshit...
what was the question again and try politely requesting rather than demanding (and yeah I did answer it but I'll repeat the answer again if you'd like)
-
what was the question again and try politely requesting rather than demanding (and yeah I did answer it but I'll repeat the answer again if you'd like)
politely such as this
answer my question please straw
ok so let me lay this out for you here straw as you never respond in other threads when I lay it out for you in them
If like obama says you will get the same care on the govt program as from private insurance and they are able to operate in the red as the VAST MAJORITY OF GOVT PROGRAMS DO. How will the private insurance companies compete?
answer the question of how a company that must make a profit to operate can compete with a company that doesnt need to make a profit can even operate in the red if they are as obama is saying going to be offering the same coverage?
Also if there is an increase in taxes do you think its fair if a person who chooses to use a private company is taxed to pay for another persons public option?
youve never answered the question simply side stepped and deflected
-
politely such as thisanswer the question of how a company that must make a profit to operate can compete with a company that doesnt need to make a profit can even operate in the red if they are as obama is saying going to be offering the same coverage?
Also if there is an increase in taxes do you think its fair if a person who chooses to use a private company is taxed to pay for another persons public option?
youve never answered the question simply side stepped and deflected
Private health insurance companies already provide shitty services. Why would it matter if it was state sponsored or private? What's the benefit to the insured of one solution over the other?
-
I've answered it numerous times.
first, I don't buy your premise that the govt plan will operate at a loss but let's just say it does. It doesn't matter if it's a loss or not. A business could run at a loss and still be more expensive and offer a worse product than their competitors.
Bottom line - there is a TON of money to be made in the industry and the health insurance companies will find a way to offer a competitive product at the right price in order to stay in the game. If they don't then I couldn't give less of shit. And, if I didn't have health insurance or was denied treatment by my insurer why would I even give a fuck if they go out of business. Some will survive and thrive and other will not.
Again, just like Fed Ex, DHL, UPS etc... can effectively compete with the US Postal Service, health insurance companies will find a way to adapt and compete.
-
I've answered it numerous times.
first, I don't buy your premise that the govt plan will operate at a loss but let's just say it does. It doesn't matter if it's a loss or not. A business could run at a loss and still be more expensive and offer a worse product than their competitors.
Bottom line - there is a TON of money to be made in the industry and the health insurance companies will find a way to offer a competitive product at the right price in order to stay in the game. If they don't then I couldn't give less of shit. And, if I didn't have health insurance or was denied treatment by my insurer why would I even give a fuck if they go out of business. Some will survive and thrive and other will not.
Again, just like Fed Ex, DHL, UPS etc... can effectively compete with the US Postal Service, health insurance companies will find a way to adapt and compete.
OK but see now if this happens the program will become nothing more then another money pit such as the USPS, dont you understand that?
so youre ok with the govt being the only medical insurer in the US then?
-
OK but see now if this happens the program will become nothing more then another money pit such as the USPS, dont you understand that?
so youre ok with the govt being the only medical insurer in the US then?
how in the world do you know anything about what will happen in the future.
Why didn't the US Postal Service put Fed Ex, UPS etc.. out of business.
PAY ATTENTION - I DON'T BUY THE PREMISE THAT PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE WILL GO AWAY. What will most likely happen is that they will have to offer a better product in order to justify their higher costs (based again on your assumption that the govt plan will run in the red) or a better product at a better price
-
how in the world do you know anything about what will happen in the future.
Why didn't the US Postal Service put Fed Ex, UPS etc.. out of business.
PAY ATTENTION - I DON'T BUY THE PREMISE THAT PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE WILL GO AWAY. What will most likely happen is that they will have to offer a better product in order to justify their higher costs (based again on your assumption that the govt plan will run in the red) or a better product at a better price
ITS COMMON FUCKING SENSE..............
THIS IS MY POINT STRAW...Are you happy with the way the USPS is run? happy about the large amount of tax dollars thrown into this money pit? OK b/c the USPS cannot really compete with private companies it has become a money pit so you have option 1
option 2 USPS outperforms or performs equally as well but is still able to operate in the red or even with a profit margin unsustainable by a private company...the private companies will only be able to compete for so long before folding...
I never said you were ok with no private insurance it was a question denoted by the "?" so please answer it...
I followed your link now you watch this video...obama point blank says he wants a single payer health care system...POINT BLANK...
-
ok - I watched 30 seconds and saw clips from at least two different times (one back in 2007). I need to leave for home but I'll watch it later tonight.
Obama (like all politicians) say one thing on the campaign trail and do something else when they get elected.
All that matters is what he is saying now and more importantly what he can get accomplished.
With the way health premiums are going I would most likely not have a problem with only having a single payer system.
btw - I also have no problem with the postal service. Try asking UPS to mail a letter for 40 some cents and see what they say. The problem is they've kept the prices down too long and the recent spike in fuel probably kicked them in the balls
I'm outa here for at least a few hours
-
ok - I watched 30 seconds and saw clips from at least two different times (one back in 2007). I need to leave for home but I'll watch it later tonight.
Obama (like all politicians) say one thing on the campaign trail and do something else when they get elected.
All that matters is what he is saying now and more importantly what he can get accomplished.
With the way health premiums are going I would most likely not have a problem with only having a single payer system.
btw - I also have no problem with the postal service. Try asking UPS to mail a letter for 40 some cents and see what they say. The problem is they've kept the prices down too long and the recent spike in fuel probably kicked them in the balls
I'm outa here for at least a few hours
LOL straw this post was one of your most ignorant...
it does matter what a politician said even years ago especially when it pertains to the issue at hand...
straw your are very wrong about the post office bro again my father is a carrier for them and worked for decades as a carrier. Things such as the internet, email, text messages, cell phones all have had a bad impact on the post office. Fuel prices are again WAY DOWN THE LIST...Horrible management is also a major factor in the problems the post office faces...
-
I'd buy stock if I could" - Straw Man
it's nice to see that a confederacy of dunces have aligned against me.
hey guys - news flash.
there is no bill yet.
the govt already does a good job with medicare (go ask your parents or grand parents).
If/when we get a public option there will still be plenty of opportunity for private companies to actually compete and make money (again - look at the link to the report and see the exponential increase in profits and also the profound lack of competition). If some can't compete then tough titties. There will be plenty who find a way.
right now you're arguing about minutiae of an non-existent bill
Straw Brain, You really are the most ignorant person on GetBig
First you say you would invest in the U S postal Service if you could....
and now you write about how good medicare is ....
Medicare is almost broke, as is Medicaid, as is Social Security, as is the U S Postal Service.
-
Tommy/James
you guys crack me up with your pissing on the f'ng post office, medicare and pretty much ANYTHING provided by the US Govt by virtue of your tax dollars
It seems like your point of view is "the govt sucks at everything"
-
Tommy/James
you guys crack me up with your pissing on the f'ng post office, medicare and pretty much ANYTHING provided by the US Govt by virtue of your tax dollars
It seems like your point of view is "the govt sucks at everything"
Can you name a government program that hasn't massively gone over budget?
-
Can you name a government program that hasn't massively gone over budget?
how about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
wait, those were in the budget right?
?
-
how about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
wait, those were in the budget right?
?
I'm not asking for bullshit, or avoidance of my questions. If you follow my posts, I'm not a fan of either war. I just want an answer to that simple question. Is that too much for you?
-
I'm not asking for bullshit, or avoidance of my questions. If you follow my posts, I'm not a fan of either war. I just want an answer to that simple question. Is that too much for you?
What about Katrina and how that was handled by everly level of govt from the mayor to the governor to Borown to Bush???
-
Medicare is almost broke, as is Medicaid, as is Social Security, as is the U S Postal Service.
Medicare is not almost broke. Medicaid is not broke. And Social Security is not broke.
Other than that, your arguments are dead on.
As for the Post office, it lost money and so did all its private competitors. We're in a depression/recession. Everybody is losing money.
Government is an efficient bogeyman for you. It replaces any qualitative thought on your part. I mean why analyze the complexity of any phenomenon? You can just point to government and say, "baaaaaaaaaaaaad.'
Apparently your world breaks down to 'Gov. bad', 'privatization' gooooood'.
That's why people like you buy into the bullshit pushed by hucksters like Pete Schiff and Ron Paul.
Your admiration for their oversimplified elitest messages borders on unquestioning religious adoration.
That's why libertarianism is a young man's philosophy. It's full of short sighted pablum that's easy to understand. It exploits egoism as a profound truth. Everyman for himself. If there's a problem, then there's government for you. Libertarianism makes the practitioner feel good - he thinks he can understand the overwhelming complexities of government and economy with only a few simple rules.
I believe that simpleton George Whorewell said it best, "libertarianism is the way to go."
-
Can you name a government program that hasn't massively gone over budget?
Social Security. Federal Student Loans. FDIC.
Here's a list of a few hundred government programs that are top notch:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/rating/effective.html
-
Social Security. Federal Student Loans. FDIC.
Here's a list of a few hundred government programs that are top notch:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/rating/effective.html
You are such a joke. FDIC is grossly underfunded.
Medicare is broke and you are going to believe the WH website while it it trying to push through a stupid health bill?
-
You are such a joke. FDIC is grossly underfunded.
I am such a joke....
Wow. What insightful criticism. I blame the government!
The FDIC will never go broke. I'll give you a gov. chip if you can tell me why.
Medicare is broke and you are going to believe the WH website while it it trying to push through a stupid health bill?
Medicare is broke? Show me the numbers that prove it's insolvent.
If you can't, I'll expect your retraction and a fucking apology.
-
I am such a joke....
Wow. What insightful criticism. I blame the government!
The FDIC will never go broke. I'll give you a gov. chip if you can tell me why.
Medicare is broke? Show me the numbers that prove it's insolvent.
If you can't, I'll expect your retraction and a fucking apology.
lol - Decker, there are people on this site (as you probably already know) who are the equivalent of the nut-job on the street corner with a sandwich board screaming about the end of the world. We ignore them in real life but for some reason spend hours trying to talk with them rationally on a message board.
-
lol - Decker, there are people on this site (as you probably already know) who are the equivalent of the nut-job on the street corner with a sandwich board screaming about the end of the world. We ignore them in real life but for some reason spend hours trying to talk with them rationally on a message board.
Yeah, that's why I'm hitting the libertarians hard today. The modern notion of libertarianism is easy to understand and appeals to selfishness of the worst kind therefore it must be true.
These fucking people.
All gov is bad. And they believe it. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahaha hhaha
-
lol - Decker, there are people on this site (as you probably already know) who are the equivalent of the nut-job on the street corner with a sandwich board screaming about the end of the world. We ignore them in real life but for some reason spend hours trying to talk with them rationally on a message board.
THIS WAS FROM BEFORE THE FINANCIAL MELTODOWN.
Medicare Will Go Broke By 2018, Trustees Report
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 2, 2006; Page A03
The financial troubles daunting the Medicare system have deepened during the past year, according to a government forecast that says the federal fund that pays for hospital care for older Americans will become unable to cover all its bills a dozen years from now.
The annual report, issued yesterday by the trustees who monitor the fiscal health of the Medicare and Social Security programs, said the trust fund for the health insurance system for the elderly will run out of money in 2018 -- two years sooner than predicted a year ago and 12 years sooner than had been anticipated when President Bush first took office.
The problem, the report says, has accelerated largely because hospital costs last year were greater than expected.
The forecast also said that Social Security's financial condition has weakened, although its problems are not as great or urgent. It said the retirement system will have enough cash to pay the benefits it owes retirees, disabled workers and workers' survivors until 2040 -- one year less than expected in the 2005 forecast.
In releasing the report, the trustees -- including three of Bush's Cabinet secretaries -- slightly altered the message accompanying the forecast the past few years, when the administration sought to use the predictions as leverage to persuade a reluctant Congress to embrace the president's goal of letting Americans divert some of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts. That emphasis prompted Democrats and other critics to chastise the administration for dwelling on Social Security while Medicare's problems were more acute.
Yesterday, the president's aides -- and Bush himself -- drew attention equally to the frailty of the two largest benefits programs that form the twin pillars of the government's assistance to the elderly. The solution, they said, is for Congress to approve changes Bush already has proposed.
Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, one of the trustees, said the programs "form the basis of a looming fiscal crisis for our nation as the baby-boom generation moves into retirement."
"The systems are going broke," Bush said in a health-care speech earlier in the day. "And now is the time to do something about it."
Administration officials portrayed the report as containing some bright news, because spending on the new Medicare prescription drug benefits -- paid for from general revenue, not the same trust fund as covers hospital bills -- appears less than expected. Several of Bush's aides said costs will be lower because drug companies are charging less than predicted for medicine. However, two independent trustees had a different explanation: Fewer Medicare patients are signing up for the drug benefits than anticipated last year.
Administration officials did not emphasize yesterday the idea of private retirement accounts, a plan that is relatively inert on Capitol Hill. Instead, they focused on proposals Bush made early this year -- to create a federal commission on the plight of entitlement programs and to slow Medicare spending by $36 billion during the next five years. Neither has drawn much enthusiasm among lawmakers.
And yesterday's report -- released a month after its due date -- did not produce any surge of momentum. The chairman and the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee are griping that the White House has diminished the role of independent experts in preparing the trustees' report, by failing to appoint replacements for the public trustees, economists Thomas R. Saving and John L. Palmer, when their terms expired a year ago.
Instead, the White House renominated them last November and, after lawmakers complained that they preferred to rotate outside trustees, installed them without Senate confirmation as "recess appointments" while Congress took Easter vacation. Saving and Palmer said yesterday they had served as unpaid consultants in preparing the report until they were reappointed.
White House spokesman Ken Lisiaus said that Saving and Palmer were reappointed because they "are true experts in economics" and that the position of public trustee, created in 1984, is too recent "to establish any sort of long-held precedent" that they must serve only one term.
-
Tommy/James
you guys crack me up with your pissing on the f'ng post office, medicare and pretty much ANYTHING provided by the US Govt by virtue of your tax dollars
It seems like your point of view is "the govt sucks at everything"
well you certainly live up to your name ::) I guess I could say that you think that govt is the answer to everything couldnt I?
-
This is just more reason to never allow libertarians or republicans to make legislative decisions re Medicare. You got Bush lying about the cost of his mediscare proposal. YOu got Bush forcing the Medicare actuary to lie about the program. You got Bush et al. removing the bargaining power of congress to lower drug costs--there's a sop to big Pharma.
And you have private insurance companies fucking the whole healthcare system up in general.
I'm waiting for your retraction and apology. Medicare is not insolvent as you alleged. Now is the time to come clean.
That sounded gay and I'm sorry for that.
-
This is just more reason to never allow libertarians or republicans to make legislative decisions re Medicare. You got Bush lying about the cost of his mediscare proposal. YOu got Bush forcing the Medicare actuary to lie about the program. You got Bush et al. removing the bargaining power of congress to lower drug costs--there's a sop to big Pharma.
And you have private insurance companies fucking the whole healthcare system up in general.
I'm waiting for your retraction and apology. Medicare is not insolvent as you alleged. Now is the time to come clean.
That sounded gay and I'm sorry for that.
It is going broke.
-
ITS COMMON FUCKING SENSE..............
THIS IS MY POINT STRAW...Are you happy with the way the USPS is run? happy about the large amount of tax dollars thrown into this money pit? OK b/c the USPS cannot really compete with private companies it has become a money pit so you have option 1
option 2 USPS outperforms or performs equally as well but is still able to operate in the red or even with a profit margin unsustainable by a private company...the private companies will only be able to compete for so long before folding...
The USPS doesn't receive tax dollars. They operate on their own revenues. The USPS has been profitable for most of its existence.
-
The USPS doesn't receive tax dollars. They operate on their own revenues. The USPS has been profitable for most of its existence.
The problem is they did not economize with the creation of the internet, etc.
Go into most Post Offices and it feels like 1985.
-
The problem is they did not economize with the creation of the internet, etc.
Go into most Post Offices and it feels like 1985.
That's one of the problems. They have such a large network of employees and they are dependent on volume to be profitable, so in a bad economy like this one, they feel losses dramatically and don't have the option of being nimble.
That being said, the fiscal problems of the post office don't come down to the fact that it's a government agency.
-
The USPS doesn't receive tax dollars. They operate on their own revenues. The USPS has been profitable for most of its existence.
what happens when they run in the red where does the money come from?
-
It is going broke.
Sorry man, but implying something may happen in the future is not a valid argument for making present claims.
-
I'm still still waiting for someone to provide concrete justifications as to why private health insurance companies are better than a government sponsored one. Based on historical experience with what we have now, I can't say moving away from the private industry is a bad thing.
-
what happens when they run in the red where does the money come from?
They shut down branches, cut services, and operate like any other businesses?
-
I'm still still waiting for someone to provide concrete justifications as to why private health insurance companies are better than a government sponsored one. Based on historical experience with what we have now, I can't say moving away from the private industry is a bad thing.
If the govt program runs in the red who pays for it? if a private insurance company runs in the red who pays for it?
-
They shut down branches, cut services, and operate like any other businesses?
noooo you see your thinking of a private company, while the post office is doing this to a MIMINAL EXTENT they still operate in the red...who pays for the salaries and wages if the company is running in the red?
-
noooo you see your thinking of a private company, while the post office is doing this to a MIMINAL EXTENT they still operate in the red...who pays for the salaries and wages if the company is running in the red?
What do you mean "minimal extent"?
Private companies operate in the red all the time.
USPS borrows against scheduled payments for employee retirement funds to pay for shortfalls. They don't receive money from the government.
Interesting side note: Up until 2001, people had been complaining that the USPS was making TOO MUCH money. Bush did a study and introduced reforms that capped stamp inflation to the level of the year prior. That's one of the main reasons the post office is in trouble right now. Inflation is rising so fast right now, USPS isn't legally allowed to raise prices to match operating costs.
-
What do you mean "minimal extent"?
Private companies operate in the red all the time.
USPS borrows against scheduled payments for employee retirement funds to pay for shortfalls. They don't receive money from the government.
Interesting side note: Up until 2001, people had been complaining that the USPS was making TOO MUCH money. Bush did a study and introduced reforms that capped stamp inflation to the level of the year prior. That's one of the main reasons the post office is in trouble right now. Inflation is rising so fast right now, USPS isn't legally allowed to raise prices to match operating costs.
not on a large scale...
Ok see the problem is only a govt agency can run in the red for and extended period of time public companies will go out of business....you still havent answered my question, when the post office runs in the red who pays for the salaries, wages expenses? when a private company does it who pays?
-
THIS WAS FROM BEFORE THE FINANCIAL MELTODOWN.
Medicare Will Go Broke By 2018, Trustees Report
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 2, 2006; Page A03
The financial troubles daunting the Medicare system have deepened during the past year, according to a government forecast that says the federal fund that pays for hospital care for older Americans will become unable to cover all its bills a dozen years from now.
The annual report, issued yesterday by the trustees who monitor the fiscal health of the Medicare and Social Security programs, said the trust fund for the health insurance system for the elderly will run out of money in 2018 -- two years sooner than predicted a year ago and 12 years sooner than had been anticipated when President Bush first took office.
The problem, the report says, has accelerated largely because hospital costs last year were greater than expected.
The forecast also said that Social Security's financial condition has weakened, although its problems are not as great or urgent. It said the retirement system will have enough cash to pay the benefits it owes retirees, disabled workers and workers' survivors until 2040 -- one year less than expected in the 2005 forecast.
In releasing the report, the trustees -- including three of Bush's Cabinet secretaries -- slightly altered the message accompanying the forecast the past few years, when the administration sought to use the predictions as leverage to persuade a reluctant Congress to embrace the president's goal of letting Americans divert some of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts. That emphasis prompted Democrats and other critics to chastise the administration for dwelling on Social Security while Medicare's problems were more acute.
Yesterday, the president's aides -- and Bush himself -- drew attention equally to the frailty of the two largest benefits programs that form the twin pillars of the government's assistance to the elderly. The solution, they said, is for Congress to approve changes Bush already has proposed.
Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, one of the trustees, said the programs "form the basis of a looming fiscal crisis for our nation as the baby-boom generation moves into retirement."
"The systems are going broke," Bush said in a health-care speech earlier in the day. "And now is the time to do something about it."
Administration officials portrayed the report as containing some bright news, because spending on the new Medicare prescription drug benefits -- paid for from general revenue, not the same trust fund as covers hospital bills -- appears less than expected. Several of Bush's aides said costs will be lower because drug companies are charging less than predicted for medicine. However, two independent trustees had a different explanation: Fewer Medicare patients are signing up for the drug benefits than anticipated last year.
Administration officials did not emphasize yesterday the idea of private retirement accounts, a plan that is relatively inert on Capitol Hill. Instead, they focused on proposals Bush made early this year -- to create a federal commission on the plight of entitlement programs and to slow Medicare spending by $36 billion during the next five years. Neither has drawn much enthusiasm among lawmakers.
And yesterday's report -- released a month after its due date -- did not produce any surge of momentum. The chairman and the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee are griping that the White House has diminished the role of independent experts in preparing the trustees' report, by failing to appoint replacements for the public trustees, economists Thomas R. Saving and John L. Palmer, when their terms expired a year ago.
Instead, the White House renominated them last November and, after lawmakers complained that they preferred to rotate outside trustees, installed them without Senate confirmation as "recess appointments" while Congress took Easter vacation. Saving and Palmer said yesterday they had served as unpaid consultants in preparing the report until they were reappointed.
White House spokesman Ken Lisiaus said that Saving and Palmer were reappointed because they "are true experts in economics" and that the position of public trustee, created in 1984, is too recent "to establish any sort of long-held precedent" that they must serve only one term.
Easy guy, no need to actually use a fact based argument.
-
You know what?
I try to use fact based arguments most of the time and sometimes fall off the wagon. I try tomake sure i source my info, etc.
Sure I screwed up on the SS article, but overall, I think I have a good track record presenting facts, and have become like kryptonite around here to the obamabots.
-
not on a large scale...
Ok see the problem is only a govt agency can run in the red for and extended period of time public companies will go out of business....you still havent answered my question, when the post office runs in the red who pays for the salaries, wages expenses? when a private company does it who pays?
Yes, Mctones, I know the definition of "minimal extent". I'm wondering what you think the p.o.'s minimal extent solutions are?
I did answer the question. When the post office operates in the red, it takes out loans against its scheduled payments to employee retirement funds. They don't receive subsidies from the government.
Private companies run in the red all the time. Lear jet was operating at a loss for four years before they filed for bankruptcy last month . There are any number of measures a large company can take to keep the business afloat during lean times.
-
This is really like trying to kill a fly with a nuclear weapon, but try to follow the basic premise of 33386's argument.
The government can operate in the red indefinetly because they print our money. They have the power to tax and spend for the "general" welfare and Congress can use any means it finds necessary and proper to implement its policies. That means, Congress can hold a nation wide bake sale, borrow money from foreign governments, print more money or contract out to private companies and give tax incentives or other benefits in return. Private companies CANNOT do this. They can file bankruptcy and restructure, they can get bailed out by the government, or they can perpatrate a fraud and rip off all of its shareholders-- either way operating in the red is a finite proposition for any private company.
By defintion a private company cannot and will not be able to compete with a government agency that makes the rules, prints its own money and operates with no possibility of failure (especially when its operating expenses will be less by definition and it is charging less for care).
Our government has operated in the red for my entire lifetime and we just watched the deficit baloon to an amount so outrageously enormous, you would need 10 statisticians just to figure out the interest we owe. Private companies would be bankrupt, corporations dissolved and employees jobless if they tried to pull the same act.
If for no other reason, this whole government run healthcare mess will be nothing more than a state run monopoly which will cause privately run insurance outfits to fold. At the expense of the 75% of americans who can afford private care or are already getting free healthcare, the whole concept of the free market will be flushed down the toilet. Rationing health care, waiting 6 months to visit a dentist and the other culprits in the parade of horribles are coming to a doctors office near you.
Is it an accident that when people in Canada and Europe need an important operation they come here? Is it just dumb luck that when world leaders and celebrities from other countries need operations they come here? Momentarily, Im going to post an article from todays post that puts things in perspective.
-
noooo you see your thinking of a private company, while the post office is doing this to a MIMINAL EXTENT they still operate in the red...who pays for the salaries and wages if the company is running in the red?
So are we arguing about the virtues of a private company versus a government sponsored company or are we talking about public health care versus a private one?
For the latter, the people will have to pay no matter if it is publicly sponsored or a private. I'm more concerned about the level of service for what I am paying for. I doubt a public sponsored health care plan can be any worse than a private one.
-
This is really like trying to kill a fly with a nuclear weapon, but try to follow the basic premise of 33386's argument.
There have been more than enough posts in this thread to demonstrate that that basic premise is faulty.
-
There have been more than enough posts in this thread to demonstrate that that basic premise is faulty.
Of what? What I said is 100% accurate.
-
You're making the argument that the gov't has an unfair advantage because they have bottomless pockets and that they write the rules so private insurers won't be able to compete. On top of that, even though the plans are government run and bound to be lousy, private insurers still won't be able to compete because everyone will choose lousy government run plans.
The government isn't interested in competing with insurance companies. The goal is to get everyone covered. They are not going to make it impossible for insurance companies to compete.
-
You're making the argument that the gov't has an unfair advantage because they have bottomless pockets and that they write the rules so private insurers won't be able to compete. On top of that, even though the plans are government run and bound to be lousy, private insurers still won't be able to compete because everyone will choose lousy government run plans.
The government isn't interested in competing with insurance companies. The goal is to get everyone covered. They are not going to make it impossible for insurance companies to compete.
Oh lord are you uninformed.
Take two plumbing companies A and B. both compete against each other for business. Both pay private insurance costs of $300 a month per employee. The govt comes out with a plan that costs $100 a month. However, the $100.00 is not the actual cost since the taxpayer subsidizes the difference. The private is now out of business since it cant offer a plan at $100.00 a month.
Company A wants an advantage on B to lower its costs and dumps it employees on the govt program. What will company B do? It will either go out of business or put its employees also on the public plan for $100.00 a month.
Dont you see how this whole thing is a scheme to get tyhe govt to take over health care?
-
You're making the argument that the gov't has an unfair advantage because they have bottomless pockets and that they write the rules so private insurers won't be able to compete. On top of that, even though the plans are government run and bound to be lousy, private insurers still won't be able to compete because everyone will choose lousy government run plans.
The government isn't interested in competing with insurance companies. The goal is to get everyone covered. They are not going to make it impossible for insurance companies to compete.
Okay, lets make an example out of this for you.
I make 40,000 dollars a year. I pay 300 dollars a month for my health insurance. The government moves in and only charges me "150" dollars. Well that isn't going to be much of a choice for me, or probably anyone for that matter. So I take the public health option. There are two advantages to this. Now since I've left the private sector, I only have to pay for health insurance once(before I payed for private+public). When people begin to realize that they are paying for health insurance for ALL americans, and they realize they are infact paying for healthcare twice, what do you think will happen?
-
Al you nailed it on the head until you got to your second paragraph. The government does want to put the private companies out of business. Thats the point!
-
Al you nailed it on the head until you got to your second paragraph. The government does want to put the private companies out of business. Thats the point!
George - tell me in my example of the two plumbing companies how that does not EXACTLY detail what is going to happen.
People are so dumb and uninformed to realize what the truth is anymore. My example, mark it down as of today, will be exactly what happens and will result in everyone being dumped on the govt system.
-
Medicare is not almost broke. Medicaid is not broke. And Social Security is not broke.
Other than that, your arguments are dead on.
As for the Post office, it lost money and so did all its private competitors. We're in a depression/recession. Everybody is losing money.
Government is an efficient bogeyman for you. It replaces any qualitative thought on your part. I mean why analyze the complexity of any phenomenon? You can just point to government and say, "baaaaaaaaaaaaad.'
Apparently your world breaks down to 'Gov. bad', 'privatization' gooooood'.
That's why people like you buy into the bullshit pushed by hucksters like Pete Schiff and Ron Paul.
Your admiration for their oversimplified elitest messages borders on unquestioning religious adoration.
That's why libertarianism is a young man's philosophy. It's full of short sighted pablum that's easy to understand. It exploits egoism as a profound truth. Everyman for himself. If there's a problem, then there's government for you. Libertarianism makes the practitioner feel good - he thinks he can understand the overwhelming complexities of government and economy with only a few simple rules.
I believe that simpleton George Whorewell said it best, "libertarianism is the way to go."
Facts:
Medicare Will Go Broke By 2018
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006050101448.html
New Trustees Report Says Medicare Going Broke Slightly Faster than Expected
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-NewTrusteesReport.htm
Medicaid: It's Broken
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=MMS_Forum26&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=8108
Why Social Security Is Going Broke:
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2009/07/why-social-security-is-going-broke-two-simple-charts.html
(http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/0907/ssle.gif)
Fix is hard for Medicare, Social Security finances
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6439187.html
-
The FDIC Is in Trouble
Safe Haven ^ | 8/5/09
Posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:28:47 PM by FromLori
As we all know, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) guarantees depositors that they'll get their money back if a bank fails, at least up to a certain amount. To fund its operations, the FDIC collects small fees from the banks that are held in reserve for the purpose of taking over troubled banks and paying off depositors.
Since the Great Depression, a period marked by widespread runs on banks, the FDIC has done a good job of fulfilling its mandate. So how are they doing in this crisis?
In a nutshell, they are in trouble.
The FDIC insures 8,246 institutions, with $13.5 trillion in assets. Not all of them are going bankrupt, of course. Yet as of late July, a disturbing 64 banks had gone belly up this year - the most since 1992 - costing the FDIC $12.5 billion. At the end of Q1, the agency was already asking for emergency funding.
And worse, much worse, is likely yet to come. The following chart shows the total assets on the books of the FDIC's list of 305 troubled banks. The list doesn't include the biggest banks that are considered too big to fail, as they are being separately supported with bailouts. By contrast, if the banks on this list fail, the FDIC is on the hook to have to step in and take them over and, of course, make depositors whole.
Other measures of how serious the losses at banks are becoming can be seen in the chart below, which shows charge-offs and non-current loans at all banks. You can see that the Net Charge-offs remain stubbornly high, with banks charging off almost $40 billion in bad loans in the last two quarters alone. And the number of non-current loans - loans where payments are not being kept up - is soaring.
Together, these measures indicate the potential for more big failures and more big bailouts coming down the pike.
About Those Reserves...
Into the battle against bank insolvency the Fed brings a level of reserves that can best be described as paper-thin. From almost $60 billion last fall, the FDIC's reserves have been drawn down to only about $13 billion today, a 16-year low. A quick look at the FDIC's own data shows us how inadequate those reserves are compared to the deposits they are now insuring.
The chart below says it all:
As you can see, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation currently covers each dollar on deposit with a trivial 2/10ths of a penny.
And even that understates the seriousness of the situation: the $4.8 trillion in deposits the FDIC is providing coverage on doesn't include the expansion that now extends insurance coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 for normal bank accounts. That likely brings the exposure of the FDIC closer to $6 trillion. But that's pretty inconsequential at this point: using any reasonable accounting method, the FDIC is already bankrupt and will require hundreds of billions of dollars in government bailouts just to keep the doors open.
So, given the dire shape of its finances, what measures is the FDIC taking, you know, to batten down the hatches and all that?
For starters, they are expanding their mandate by guaranteeing bank loans - $350 billion and counting at this point. And the government has tapped the FDIC to play a pivotal role in guaranteeing the loans issued to buy toxic waste through the government's highly problematic and fraud-prone new Private Public Investment Partnership (PPIP). The FDIC's commitment to the PPIP is and may become limited based on its resources.
It is hard to draw any other conclusion but that hundreds of billions in new funding will be required to keep the FDIC operating. Given the catastrophic consequences of the FDIC failing, starting with a bank run of biblical proportions, there's no question it will get whatever funding it needs. By loading the new loan guarantee responsibilities and the PPIP onto the FDIC's back, the administration will go back to Congress and ask for the next large bailout.
Of course, in the end, all of this falls on the taxpayer, either directly in the form of more taxes or indirectly via the destruction of the dollar's purchasing power. Another bale of straw on the camel's back, and another reason to be concerned about holding paper dollars for the long term.
If you still trust the government to take care of you and yours when the feces hits the fan, you're on the path to financial disaster.
________________________ ________________________ ___________________
Straw and Decker - OWNED AGAIN.
-
The FDIC Is in Trouble
Safe Haven ^ | 8/5/09
Posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:28:47 PM by FromLori
As we all know, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) guarantees depositors that they'll get their money back if a bank fails, at least up to a certain amount. To fund its operations, the FDIC collects small fees from the banks that are held in reserve for the purpose of taking over troubled banks and paying off depositors.
Since the Great Depression, a period marked by widespread runs on banks, the FDIC has done a good job of fulfilling its mandate. So how are they doing in this crisis?
In a nutshell, they are in trouble.
The FDIC insures 8,246 institutions, with $13.5 trillion in assets. Not all of them are going bankrupt, of course. Yet as of late July, a disturbing 64 banks had gone belly up this year - the most since 1992 - costing the FDIC $12.5 billion. At the end of Q1, the agency was already asking for emergency funding.
And worse, much worse, is likely yet to come. The following chart shows the total assets on the books of the FDIC's list of 305 troubled banks. The list doesn't include the biggest banks that are considered too big to fail, as they are being separately supported with bailouts. By contrast, if the banks on this list fail, the FDIC is on the hook to have to step in and take them over and, of course, make depositors whole.
Other measures of how serious the losses at banks are becoming can be seen in the chart below, which shows charge-offs and non-current loans at all banks. You can see that the Net Charge-offs remain stubbornly high, with banks charging off almost $40 billion in bad loans in the last two quarters alone. And the number of non-current loans - loans where payments are not being kept up - is soaring.
Together, these measures indicate the potential for more big failures and more big bailouts coming down the pike.
About Those Reserves...
Into the battle against bank insolvency the Fed brings a level of reserves that can best be described as paper-thin. From almost $60 billion last fall, the FDIC's reserves have been drawn down to only about $13 billion today, a 16-year low. A quick look at the FDIC's own data shows us how inadequate those reserves are compared to the deposits they are now insuring.
The chart below says it all:
As you can see, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation currently covers each dollar on deposit with a trivial 2/10ths of a penny.
And even that understates the seriousness of the situation: the $4.8 trillion in deposits the FDIC is providing coverage on doesn't include the expansion that now extends insurance coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 for normal bank accounts. That likely brings the exposure of the FDIC closer to $6 trillion. But that's pretty inconsequential at this point: using any reasonable accounting method, the FDIC is already bankrupt and will require hundreds of billions of dollars in government bailouts just to keep the doors open.
So, given the dire shape of its finances, what measures is the FDIC taking, you know, to batten down the hatches and all that?
For starters, they are expanding their mandate by guaranteeing bank loans - $350 billion and counting at this point. And the government has tapped the FDIC to play a pivotal role in guaranteeing the loans issued to buy toxic waste through the government's highly problematic and fraud-prone new Private Public Investment Partnership (PPIP). The FDIC's commitment to the PPIP is and may become limited based on its resources.
It is hard to draw any other conclusion but that hundreds of billions in new funding will be required to keep the FDIC operating. Given the catastrophic consequences of the FDIC failing, starting with a bank run of biblical proportions, there's no question it will get whatever funding it needs. By loading the new loan guarantee responsibilities and the PPIP onto the FDIC's back, the administration will go back to Congress and ask for the next large bailout.
Of course, in the end, all of this falls on the taxpayer, either directly in the form of more taxes or indirectly via the destruction of the dollar's purchasing power. Another bale of straw on the camel's back, and another reason to be concerned about holding paper dollars for the long term.
If you still trust the government to take care of you and yours when the feces hits the fan, you're on the path to financial disaster.
________________________ ________________________ ___________________
Straw and Decker - OWNED AGAIN.
QFT
-
Al you nailed it on the head until you got to your second paragraph. The government does want to put the private companies out of business. Thats the point!
I doubt it. The government benefits much more from taxing the companies and the eco-system it supports.
-
You lost me.
But, imo this has nothing to do with making money- there is no way the government will actually make money from covering every single American. From a logistical standpoint it would be impossible for the government to turn a profit. This has everything to do with creating a power vaccum and making the government overlord of everything. Freezing out the private sector, taking over car companies, Government run healthcare, taxing only those who make decent money- its all part of the Democrats plan to ensure its party stays in power. This isn't a conspiracy theory, its just good politics.
-
You lost me.
But, imo this has nothing to do with making money- there is no way the government will actually make money from covering every single American. From a logistical standpoint it would be impossible for the government to turn a profit. This has everything to do with creating a power vaccum and making the government overlord of everything. Freezing out the private sector, taking over car companies, Government run healthcare, taxing only those who make decent money- its all part of the Democrats plan to ensure its party stays in power. This isn't a conspiracy theory, its just good politics.
My example above is exactly how this is going to go down. Obama, like everything else, is lying about this. Companies are going to be forced to dump all their employees on the public system by offering a so called "loss leader" for all your marketing experts, while the actual cost is going to be much higher and paid by the taxpayers.
-
The last two replies are exactly why I can't take your warning about an eminent government takeover of health care seriously. You just see the adminstration's goals far differently than i do. You two see the government's takeover of GM as a way to takeover capitalism. I saw it as a way to preserve jobs in a terrible economy.
You see "Obamacare" as a way for them to eventually takeover the healthcare system. I see every reason for the government NOT to want to do that. The details of the final plan haven't even been worked out, From what we know, the plan will likely only be available to individuals and small businesses and larger companies will be required to offer healthcare plans, which actually increases large health care providers customer base.
-
Yeah 3333, you likened that medicare thing to Obama becoming a dictator.
Seems a bit CT-ish or Alarm-ish.
-
Yeah 3333, you likened that medicare thing to Obama becoming a dictator.
Seems a bit CT-ish or Alarm-ish.
Go read the Lewen Group report.
http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/June25TestimonyUpdate.pdf
You can attack my posts all you like, but almost every one is based on fact. This report confirms exactly what I was saying.
-
Facts:
Medicare Will Go Broke By 2018
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006050101448.html
New Trustees Report Says Medicare Going Broke Slightly Faster than Expected
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-NewTrusteesReport.htm
Medicaid: It's Broken
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=MMS_Forum26&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=8108
Why Social Security Is Going Broke:
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2009/07/why-social-security-is-going-broke-two-simple-charts.html
(http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/0907/ssle.gif)
Fix is hard for Medicare, Social Security finances
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6439187.html
None of those articles show FACTS about the solvency of any federal program.
They show opinions based selective projections.
How the fuck can a federal program's solvency be a fact if you're talking 10 years from now?
This is what makes debating here painful. Guys like this.
The economic experts can't even agree on what's going to transpire a week from now and this guy is posting facts about the year 2018+.
-
The FDIC Is in Trouble
Safe Haven ^ | 8/5/09
Posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:28:47 PM by FromLori
As we all know, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) guarantees depositors that they'll get their money back if a bank fails, at least up to a certain amount. To fund its operations, the FDIC collects small fees from the banks that are held in reserve for the purpose of taking over troubled banks and paying off depositors.
Since the Great Depression, a period marked by widespread runs on banks, the FDIC has done a good job of fulfilling its mandate. So how are they doing in this crisis?
In a nutshell, they are in trouble.
The FDIC insures 8,246 institutions, with $13.5 trillion in assets. Not all of them are going bankrupt, of course. Yet as of late July, a disturbing 64 banks had gone belly up this year - the most since 1992 - costing the FDIC $12.5 billion. At the end of Q1, the agency was already asking for emergency funding.
And worse, much worse, is likely yet to come. The following chart shows the total assets on the books of the FDIC's list of 305 troubled banks. The list doesn't include the biggest banks that are considered too big to fail, as they are being separately supported with bailouts. By contrast, if the banks on this list fail, the FDIC is on the hook to have to step in and take them over and, of course, make depositors whole.
Other measures of how serious the losses at banks are becoming can be seen in the chart below, which shows charge-offs and non-current loans at all banks. You can see that the Net Charge-offs remain stubbornly high, with banks charging off almost $40 billion in bad loans in the last two quarters alone. And the number of non-current loans - loans where payments are not being kept up - is soaring.
Together, these measures indicate the potential for more big failures and more big bailouts coming down the pike.
About Those Reserves...
Into the battle against bank insolvency the Fed brings a level of reserves that can best be described as paper-thin. From almost $60 billion last fall, the FDIC's reserves have been drawn down to only about $13 billion today, a 16-year low. A quick look at the FDIC's own data shows us how inadequate those reserves are compared to the deposits they are now insuring.
The chart below says it all:
As you can see, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation currently covers each dollar on deposit with a trivial 2/10ths of a penny.
And even that understates the seriousness of the situation: the $4.8 trillion in deposits the FDIC is providing coverage on doesn't include the expansion that now extends insurance coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 for normal bank accounts. That likely brings the exposure of the FDIC closer to $6 trillion. But that's pretty inconsequential at this point: using any reasonable accounting method, the FDIC is already bankrupt and will require hundreds of billions of dollars in government bailouts just to keep the doors open.
So, given the dire shape of its finances, what measures is the FDIC taking, you know, to batten down the hatches and all that?
For starters, they are expanding their mandate by guaranteeing bank loans - $350 billion and counting at this point. And the government has tapped the FDIC to play a pivotal role in guaranteeing the loans issued to buy toxic waste through the government's highly problematic and fraud-prone new Private Public Investment Partnership (PPIP). The FDIC's commitment to the PPIP is and may become limited based on its resources.
It is hard to draw any other conclusion but that hundreds of billions in new funding will be required to keep the FDIC operating. Given the catastrophic consequences of the FDIC failing, starting with a bank run of biblical proportions, there's no question it will get whatever funding it needs. By loading the new loan guarantee responsibilities and the PPIP onto the FDIC's back, the administration will go back to Congress and ask for the next large bailout.
Of course, in the end, all of this falls on the taxpayer, either directly in the form of more taxes or indirectly via the destruction of the dollar's purchasing power. Another bale of straw on the camel's back, and another reason to be concerned about holding paper dollars for the long term.
If you still trust the government to take care of you and yours when the feces hits the fan, you're on the path to financial disaster.
________________________ ________________________ ___________________
Straw and Decker - OWNED AGAIN.
You're as bad as that James dude is with misunderestimating your own opinion.
The FDIC will never dissolve at least not until our government dissolves.
Every business is feeling the pinch of the depression. That rings throughout the economic web.
I even forgot what point you are trying to make.
-
Go read the Lewen Group report.
http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/June25TestimonyUpdate.pdf
You can attack my posts all you like, but almost every one is based on fact. This report confirms exactly what I was saying.
The "facts" you choose to base your posts on are often incorrect, and this is a perfect example. Like I said in my previous post, the exact details of the plan arent available yet, so a study like this is useless. The numbers this study uses are way off from the numbers most people assume are gonna wind up in the final bill. The biggest assumption this study makes that most people don't think will hash out is that large companies won't be able to opt in to the government plan. That's about a 50 million subscriber difference right there. There are a lot of other assumptions this study makes that prob won't end up in the final bill either.
This study is based on assumptions. It is not a matter of fact.
-
The "facts" you choose to base your posts on are often incorrect, and this is a perfect example. Like I said in my previous post, the exact details of the plan arent available yet, so a study like this is useless. The numbers this study uses are way off from the numbers most people assume are gonna wind up in the final bill. The biggest assumption this study makes that most people don't think will hash out is that large companies won't be able to opt in to the government plan. That's about a 50 million subscriber difference right there. There are a lot of other assumptions this study makes that prob won't end up in the final bill either.
This study is based on assumptions. It is not a matter of fact.
The Lewen Group is the most widely used group to make projections in health care and it one the most respected and because you dont agree with it, you think they are wrong.
Based on what????
Not one person has discredited this report.
-
The Lewen Group is the most widely used group to make projections in health care and it one the most respected and because you dont agree with it, you think they are wrong.
Based on what????
Not one person has discredited this report.
Read the PDF you posted. The Lewen Group is wholly owned by big insurance.
-
The Lewen Group is the most widely used group to make projections in health care and it one the most respected and because you dont agree with it, you think they are wrong.
Based on what????
Not one person has discredited this report.
The CBO discredited this report.
And the Lewin group is owned by an insurance company, which is why it is such a widely used source for the insurance propaganda machine.
eta-Yeah, what Decker said.
-
The CBO discredited this report.
And the Lewin group is owned by an insurance company, which is why it is such a widely used source for the insurance propaganda machine.
eta-Yeah, what Decker said.
And the CBO discredited Obama's claims as well.
-
And the CBO discredited Obama's claims as well.
Two different claims.
The CBO said that the plan probably would not result in lower medical costs.
They also said there was almost no chance of driving the insurance industry out of business.
-
If you dont like one company, you always have the choice to go to another.
When the govt takes over, if it screws up, you have no other choices. You are stuck by law with whatever garbage they ffed you with no choice whatsoever.
is this true?
can I simply shop between a bunch of different health insurance companies?
an even better question is what value do health insurance companies provide in the delivery of health care to our citizens?
-
is this true?
can I simply shop between a bunch of different health insurance companies?
an even better question is what value do health insurance companies provide in the delivery of health care to our citizens?
1. The answer is yes.
2. What value do they provide? Its insurance and not intended to "add value" as you say. its the same "value" that the insurance company who insures your home adds to your house or your auto carrier adds to your car.
If you are not happy with insurance, pay the doctor yourself for your treatment. No one is stopping you from doing that.
-
1. The answer is yes.
2. What value do they provide? Its insurance and not intended to "add value" as you say. its the same "value" that the insurance company who insures your home adds to your house or your auto carrier adds to your car.
If you are not happy with insurance, pay the doctor yourself for your treatment. No one is stopping you from doing that.
1. the answer is actually NO. There are very few options in many states. I'd post a link showing the dirth of competition in this country and how many states are virtually monopolized by a few companies but it would require you to actually go look at it and I know you won't
2. you actually correct for once. Insurance companies add no value. The difference btw health insurance companies and auto insurance (for example) is that if I have an accident in my car my auto insurance actually does what it's supposed to do and pays for the repairs (and maybe raises my premium if it's my fault). With health insurance companies you have no gurantee that they will pay and in fact they will go out of their way to find ways not to pay. You know this is true so don't even bother pretending to deny it.
3. Of course you can choose to pay a doctor directly but that's not really an option for people who can't even afford insurance or can't afford the high deductible on their policy
-
...
3. Of course you can choose to pay a doctor directly but that's not really an option for people who can't even afford insurance or can't afford the high deductible on their policy
That's a great point. The trend for ER provided health insurance is to buy cheap to save money. To do that, deductibles are going through the roof. Our health insurance is turning into catastrophic insurance b/c of that.
Now we can wait to see some opponent tie UHC to some perceived exercise of FREEDOM. Paying high deductibles is FREEDOM.
No Coverage at all is FREEDOM.
I may not have any health insurance to speak of but I"m FREE.....DOM.
I don't know what just happened there.
-
That's a great point. The trend for ER provided health insurance is to buy cheap to save money. To do that, deductibles are going through the roof. Our health insurance is turning into catastrophic insurance b/c of that.
Now we can wait to see some opponent tie UHC to some perceived exercise of FREEDOM. Paying high deductibles is FREEDOM.
No Coverage at all is FREEDOM.
I may not have any health insurance to speak of but I"m FREE.....DOM.
I don't know what just happened there.
Nor does freedom equal you choosing to pick A's pocket to give something for free to B.
-
Nor does freedom equal you choosing to pick A's pocket to give something for free to B.
That's the cost of civil society my man.
-
Nor does freedom equal you choosing to pick A's pocket to give something for free to B.
"333" you know full well that in many states in this country only few health insurance companies control the entire state.
I literally have more options for beer at 7-11 than I do for health care providers (and 7-11's selection of beer sucks unless you're like Obama and drink Bud light)
Lack of competition, recission, pre-existing conditions, and HMO admins making medical decisions are the main problems with our system.
For some reason we've decided to let insurance companies ration out health care and allow them to make money by monopolyzing markets and denying people healthcare that they've rightfully paid for.
-
Nor does freedom equal you choosing to pick A's pocket to give something for free to B.
who's pocket is being picked and who is getting something for free?
-
who's pocket is being picked and who is getting something for free?
The small business who has to pay an added 8% payroll tax to fund govt health care is having its pockets picked.
The people who will have to pay 2% of the their AGI as a tax if they dont have health insurance are having their pockets picked.
And yes, there are provisions in the bill for people who dont meet certain income levels to get it for free.
BTW - which quotes from Ezeikiel Emanuel that I listed has he disclaimed or said are not his?
-
The small business who has to pay an added 8% payroll tax to fund govt health care is having its pockets picked.
The people who will have to pay 2% of the their AGI as a tax if they dont have health insurance are having their pockets picked.
And yes, there are provisions in the bill for people who dont meet certain income levels to get it for free.
BTW - which quotes from Ezeikiel Emanuel that I listed has he disclaimed or said are not his?
You speak as if the elimination of 6.2% payroll tax will have some sort of qualitative change on your life.
It won't.
Everybody will get the same bump and inflation will catch up with your 'windfall'.
You'll be in the same position you were prior to the tax only without the benefit of the social program.
-
how about posting a link to the entire thread so I can at least remember the conversation rather than just taking it out of context
Postal Service close to going broke
By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 29, 2010; 10:16 PM
www.washingtonpost.com
________________________ ___________________
Americans can still send and receive mail, but the U.S. Postal Service may not have much left in the bank after this week, as it's set to announce billions of dollars in losses as early as Thursday.
It's also waiting for postal regulators to announce Thursday whether they approve of a proposed 5.6 percent postage-rate increase, to start in January. The proposed increase faces stiff resistance from business groups and lawmakers, who say that the USPS should instead make deeper spending cuts to meet its financial obligations.
GOP opposition kept Congress from permitting the Postal Service to postpone paying $5.5 billion required by law to pre-fund retiree health benefits. A temporary spending measure to fund most federal programs through early December didn't mention the Postal Service; it passed the Senate on Wednesday and is expected to clear the House on Thursday.
"The Postal Service does not want to make the tough decisions, which include cuts in personnel, pay and benefits. Instead, they are relying on a generous taxpayer bailout that will not solve any of their mid- or long-term problems," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who opposes the rate increase and congressional relief.
"Taxpayers should not be made to bail out a business-as-usual Postal Service," Issa said.
"While it appears that the continuing resolution will not include USPS funding, service will not be compromised while the administration works with Congress and USPS to ensure that they have the tools and authorities necessary to remain viable well into the future," the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement. The administration and Postal Service have met this week to determine what portion, if not all, of the payment can be made by the close of the fiscal year Thursday, the OMB said.
The Postal Service has cut $10 billion in spending since 2008 and continues to trim its workforce through attrition.
Postmaster General John E. Potter canceled a Wednesday meeting with reporters that was meant to address the financial concerns.
"Ideally, what you'd like to do in the Postal Service is have access to about $5 [billion] to $6 billion in cash, whether that's borrowing ability or cash on the books," Potter said in an April interview that predicted this week's turn of events. "That's basically two payrolls. That's not a lot of breathing room. Without relief in the form of lowering our payments into the retirement trust fund this year, we are perilously close to running out of cash in October."
Strong mail volume this month might add enough revenue to justify making the $5.5 billion payment to the government, but it would still leave little in postal coffers, said sources familiar with the process but not authorized to speak on the record.
Senate Democrats hope to introduce a bill during the lame-duck session that would give the Postal Service more flexibility to determine its delivery schedule and decide whether it needs to close thousands of branches. The bill, introduced by Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), also addresses how USPS could make the $5.5 billion annual payments in the future.
"I think this entire situation puts more pressure on the Postal Service and pressure on the legislators to address the issue comprehensively," said Tony Conway, executive director of the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, which represents some of the mail agency's biggest and most loyal customers.
-
Rate board denies Postal Service price hike plea
NATASHA T. METZLER | September 30, 2010 01:09 PM EST |
Compare other versions »
Compare 01:09 PM EST12:42 PM EST11:24 AM EST11:14 AM EST11:11 AM EST03:04 AM EST and 01:09 PM EST12:42 PM EST11:24 AM EST11:14 AM EST11:11 AM EST03:04 AM EST versions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON — The independent panel that oversees the U.S. Postal Service voted Thursday to deny the agency's request to increase the cost of mailing a letter by 2 cents – and keeping the price of a first-class stamp at 44 cents.
Ruth Goldway, chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission, suggested at a news conference that the problem with the proposal was more in the packaging than the plea.
In July, the Postal Service proposed raising first-class postage from 44 cents to 46 cents as part of a strategy for dealing with a worsening financial crisis. The request required the commission's approval, because the margin of increase was higher than the existing rate of inflation. But the five-member panel unanimously said no.
In light of the decision, the Postal Service has a number of options, including a legal appeal, filing a new special rate-increase request to the commission, or requesting a smaller rate hike that would be automatically approved for rising within the rate of inflation.
Postal Service officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the denial.
The Postal Service lost $3.8 billion last year, and agency officials were seeking other rate increases as well the basic stamp hike, including higher fees for periodicals, post cards and parcels.
Goldway said the requested rate adjustment was not due to recent recession, as indicated by Postal Service officials, but rather was an attempt to address long-term structural problems.
Story continues below
Advertisement
"The case they needed to make, as far as we understand the law, is to relate the revenue they're requesting to the losses that were the impact of the recession," Goldway said after the meeting. "Instead, they explained how terrible the recession was, and then they said we have this liquidity crisis."
Goldway targeted the Postal Service's $5.5-billion-a-year payment schedule on future retiree health benefits as the agency's major financial problem.
"The future of the Postal Service is brighter than it might appear, if we can solve these structural, big financial problems," she added.
The decision was applauded by the Affordable Mail Alliance, a coalition of postal customers including consumer groups, small business, charities, utilities, national retailers and banks.
"The PRC today has helped countless businesses stay competitive and saved tens of thousands of jobs," said Tony Conway, a spokesman for the alliance. "The commissioners recognized that imposing an additional tax on Postal Service customers is not the way to address its financial troubles. Our members look forward to working with the Postal Service on the long-term restructuring needed to restore the Postal Service to competitiveness."
-
The Postal Service Just Had Its Worst 12 Months Ever
Gus Lubin | Nov. 12, 2010, 1:57 PM | 16 |
The U.S. Postal Service just announced a $8.5 billion loss for the 2010 fiscal year.
This was worse than its $3.8 billion loss in the previous year and a $2.8 billion loss in 2008. It was also worse than the $2.8 billion shortfall estimated last spring.
Note the trend: USPS is becoming as much of a perennial loser for tax payers as Fannie Mae.
USPS lost money despite cutting over 100,000 jobs and other reductions in recent years. Expect more reductions next year, including another 2 cents on the first class stamp and an end to deliveries on Saturday.
It's pretty obvious why the USPS is losing money. Mail volume dropped to 170.6 billion pieces from 176.7 billion last year. People have discovered a better way to communicate.
Click here to see the 25 biggest quarterly losses in history >
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/postal-service-lost-85-billion-2010-11#ixzz1561eczOt
-
there doing just fine...straw man told me so...
its not hypocrisey if youre ok with them making fun of you for doing the same thing...straw man told me so...
-
You are an idiot :o
Post office in big trouble
Facing a $7 billion loss this year, the Postal Service may close hundreds of branches. » 'Unable to pay its bills'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_go_ot/us_postal_closings
U.S. Postal Service May Close 1,000 Post Offices; Curtail Home Delivery - Video 8/3/09
Video :
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/08/us-postal-service-may-close-1000-post.html
Post Office Suspends Retirement Contributions
LEX18 TC ^ | June 22, 2011 | Associated Press via LEX18
WASHINGTON (AP) - The financially troubled Postal Service is suspending its employer contribution to the federal employee retirement system.
The agency said Wednesday it was acting to conserve cash as it continues to lose money. It was $8 billion in the red last year because of the combined effects of the recession and the switch of much mail to the Internet. It faces the possibility of running short of money by the end of this fiscal year in September.
-
http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/post-office-suspends-retirement-contributions-1554997.html
FAIL
-
LOL...That fool will never hear the end of this.
-
http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/post-office-suspends-retirement-contributions-1554997.html
FAIL
from your own story
The post office, unlike other federal agencies, is also required to make an annual payment of more than $5 billion as an advance contribution to future retiree medical costs.
they are also not allowed to make a profit
I've said many times to let them raise the cost of postage (we have the lowest of all countries) and let them make a profit
you'd think the right wing/free market types would have no problem with either of those suggestions
333 - you've previously posted how much you like the USPS kiosks and other servives so surely you'd be wiling to pay more for postage
right?
-
US Postal Service warns it could default
AFP – 5 hrs ago
tweet224Share
Email
Print
RELATED CONTENT
US Postal worker helps a customer at the US Postal Service Station in San Francisco, …
The US Postal Service warned on Friday that it could default on payments it owes the federal government, just days after the US government itself narrowly averted a default.
The government's mail service said it lost $3.1 billion in the period from April to June, blaming "the anemic state of the economy" and the growing popularity of electronic communications over old-fashioned letters.
As a result of its mounting losses, the US Postal Service said it would not be able to make a legally required $5.5 billion payment in September to a health-benefits trust fund.
"Absent substantial legislative change, the Postal Service will be forced to default on payments to the federal government," it said in a statement.
Dating back to 1775, the US Postal Service was once a crucial branch of the federal government, but in recent years it has come under increasing fire from critics who consider it bureaucratic and inefficient.
In July, it unveiled plans to identify nearly 3,700 under-used post offices around the United States for possible closure. The Post Office has been hemorrhaging billions of dollars in recent years.
-
US Postal Service warns it could default
AFP – 5 hrs ago
tweet224Share
Email
Print
RELATED CONTENT
US Postal worker helps a customer at the US Postal Service Station in San Francisco, …
The US Postal Service warned on Friday that it could default on payments it owes the federal government, just days after the US government itself narrowly averted a default.
The government's mail service said it lost $3.1 billion in the period from April to June, blaming "the anemic state of the economy" and the growing popularity of electronic communications over old-fashioned letters.
As a result of its mounting losses, the US Postal Service said it would not be able to make a legally required $5.5 billion payment in September to a health-benefits trust fund.
"Absent substantial legislative change, the Postal Service will be forced to default on payments to the federal government," it said in a statement.
Dating back to 1775, the US Postal Service was once a crucial branch of the federal government, but in recent years it has come under increasing fire from critics who consider it bureaucratic and inefficient.
In July, it unveiled plans to identify nearly 3,700 under-used post offices around the United States for possible closure. The Post Office has been hemorrhaging billions of dollars in recent years.
for the love of the baby jeebus
can you ever post a link?
what is
tweet224Share ?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/us-postal-warns-could-default-222059604.html
-
http://news.yahoo.com/us-postal-warns-could-default-222059604.html
isn't this threat of ""default" some kind of advance retirement contribution that no other agency has
maybe we should let the USPS make a profit
or at least raise the first class rate up to the rest of the world
I'm sure business friendly Repubs would agree at the very least agree with those ideas
-
Why bother? You repeatedly embarass youself with illogical statements like the above.
wow
-
Straw invested his daughters savings account and trust fund in the post office.
Now, to make up the fact that Straw lost all of her money and actually owes several thousand to the Post Office, his 11 year old daughter is forced to clean the local post office on alternate weekends.
Sadly, Straw's only regret was that he did not invest more. He feels like he was right on the edge of saving it.
-
Back to previous page
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/usps-proposes-cutting-120000-jobs-pulling-out-of-health-care-plan/2011/08/11/gIQAZxIM9I_print.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USPS proposes cutting 120,000 jobs, pulling out of health-care plan
By Joe Davidson, Updated: Thursday, August 11, 5:04 PM
In an attempt to stem its financial hemorrhaging, the U.S. Postal Service is seeking to reduce its workforce by 20 percent, including through layoffs now prohibited by union contracts. USPS also wants to withdraw its employees from the health and retirement plans that cover federal staffers and create its own benefit programs for postal employees.
This major restructuring of the Postal Service’s relationship with its workforce would need congressional approval and would face fierce opposition from postal unions. But if approved, eliminating contract provisions that prevent layoffs and quitting the federal employee health and retirement programs could have ramifications for workers across the government and throughout the national’s labor movement.
In a notice to employees informing them of its proposals, with the headline “Financial crisis calls for significant actions,” the Postal Service said “we will be insolvent next month due to significant declines in mail volume and retiree health benefit prefunding costs imposed by Congress.”
The Postal Service plan is described in two draft documents obtained by The Washington Post. A “Workforce Optimization” paper acknowledges “that asking Congress to eliminate the layoff protections in our collective bargaining agreements is an extraordinary request by the Postal Service, and we do not make this request lightly. However, exceptional circumstances require exceptional remedies.
“The Postal Service is facing dire economic challenges that threaten its very existence. . . . If the Postal Service was a private sector business, it would have filed for bankruptcy and utilized the reorganization process to restructure its labor agreements to reflect the new financial reality.”
The USPS says it needs to reduce its workforce by 120,000 career positions by 2015, in addition to the 100,000 it expects through regular attrition. Some of the 120,000 could come through buyouts and other programs, but a significant number likely would be the result of layoffs, if Congress allows the agency to circumvent union contracts.
“Unfortunately, the collective bargaining agreements between the Postal Service and our unionized employees contain layoff restrictions that make it impossible to reduce the size of our workforce by the amount required by 2015,” according to the postal document. “Therefore, a legislative change is needed to eliminate the layoff protections in our collective bargaining agreements.”
How Congress will respond to the postal proposals remains to be seen. Many Republicans, including those who have sponsored legislation that labor considers anti-union, may support the plan. Some Democrats probably would back union opposition. But the Postal Service’s critical financial situation could make Democrats have second thoughts.
Two members of Congress who have introduced separate postal reform bills were non-committal on the USPS plan.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) said “he is particularly interested in learning whether these proposals would be fair to employees and effective in reducing the Postal Service’s costs.”
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said: “These new ideas from the Postal Service are worth exploring. Options for reform and cost savings that will protect taxpayers from paying for a bailout, now or in the future, need to be on the table.”
Although what Congress will do is unknown, the response of postal unions has been certain.
American Postal Workers Union President Cliff Guffey said, “The APWU will vehemently oppose any attempt to destroy the collective bargaining rights of postal employees or tamper with our recently-negotiated contract — whether by postal management or members of Congress.”
National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association President Don Cantriel: “We are absolutely opposed” to the layoff proposal. “We are opposed to pulling out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Our advisers are not advising us at all to even consider it.”
National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric V. Rolando: “The issues of lay-off protection and health benefits are specifically covered by our contract. . . . The Congress of the United States does not engage in contract negotiations with unions and we do not believe they are about to do so.”
-
Labor Fight Goes Postal as Unions Rip USPS Cost-Cutting Plan to Slash Jobs, Revamp Benefits
www.foxnews.com ^ | August 12, 2011 | Staff @ FoxNews
Posted on August 14, 2011 12:37:07 AM EDT by Reagan is King
After skirmishes in Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana, the next big union battle is brewing at your local post office.
The U.S. Postal Service’s two largest unions blasted the financially strapped agency’s proposal to cut as many as 120,000 jobs and pull its workers out of the retirement and health benefits plans covering federal workers for a new benefit systems.
The Postal Service, which is facing a second year of losses totaling $8 billion or more, would need congressional approval for its plan and cooperation from the postal unions, which have contracts that ban layoffs unless Congress intervenes.
But the American Postal Workers Union, APWU, and the National Association of Letter Carriers, NALC, made their opposition clear.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
The post office, unlike other federal agencies, is also required to make an annual payment of more than $5 billion as an advance contribution to future retiree medical costs.
they are also not allowed to make a profit
I've said many times to let them raise the cost of postage (we have the lowest of all countries) and let them make a profit
you'd think the right wing/free market types would have no problem with either of those suggestions
333 - you've previously posted how much you like the USPS kiosks and other servives so surely you'd be wiling to pay more for postage
right?
You don't exect the government to subsidize your business by providing you postal services at less than market cost
right?