Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on May 11, 2010, 02:04:08 PM
-
CBO ups health care cost projections
Politico ^ | May 11, 2010 | Jennifer Haberkorn
Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:26:34 PM by jazusamo
________________________ ________________________ __________
Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.
The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to about $1 trillion.
The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal agencies to spend $10 billion to $20 billion over 10 years on administrative costs to implement the overhaul. The CBO expects Congress to spend an additional $105 billion over 10 years to fund discretionary programs in the overhaul.
The CBO released the estimates in response to a request from California Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. A spokeswoman for Lewis said the inquiry was filed before the House voted on the bill.
“[L]arge sums of discretionary spending in both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills have not yet been included in estimates by the CBO, rendering it impossible to make informed decisions regarding the outcome of this legislation,” Lewis wrote in a February letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking her to postpone votes until the discretionary spending analysis was complete.
The CBO estimated in March that the net cost of the overhaul would be $788 billion over 10 years, but cautioned that it couldn’t make an estimate of the discretionary costs without more time and information.
The figures represent estimates as to how Congress will decide to spend money. The CBO cautions that lawmakers could decide to spend less. They would still have to respect the administration’s nonsecurity discretionary spending freeze.
The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to need $5 billion to $10 billion to implement changes in Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and insurance industry reforms, according to CBO estimates.
The nonpartisan CBO expects the Internal Revenue Service to spend another $5 billion to $10 billion on implementing the rules regarding premiums and cost-sharing credits.
The legislation says that the agencies would receive the funding to implement the programs through the appropriations process.
“The law establishes a number of new programs and activities, as well as authorizing new funding for existing programs,” CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf said in the letter. “By their nature, however, all such potential effects on discretionary spending are subject to future appropriation actions, which could result in greater or smaller costs than the sums authorized by the legislation.”
________________________ ________________________ _
But, but but but but . . . all you assholes kneepadded for this shit telling me the CBO said it was deficit neutral.
-
Bump for anyone who supported ObamaCare.
-
Are you kidding 33? Most of the clowns pointing out the whole CBO shit didn't even have a basic understanding of how the CBO derived it's numbers or the assumptions made. Don't hold your breath looking for them to defend it.
-
Are you kidding 33? Most of the clowns pointing out the whole CBO shit didn't even have a basic understanding of how the CBO derived it's numbers or the assumptions made. Don't hold your breath looking for them to defend it.
exactly they took the misinformation that obama fed them and ran with it...240, straw, blacken, KC wont post in this thread...
whats sad is that they had ppl pointing out the probems with the cbo numbers that they were touting and didnt even bother to look into them... ::)
-
Suckers.
-
What pisses me off is that I told everyone well before this even got to the vote that the cbonumbers were a sham and everyone accused me of all sorts of shit.
Guess what morons - the the liar and psycho you voted for punked your stupid asses just like on the stimulus bill.
And considering what I see going on now - the same morons are going to get punked again following this pofs kenyan fraud off the cliff.
Just aks yourselves - at what point will you be tired of being played for a fool?
You idiots were played for fools on the stim bill. You were played for fools on obamacare. You were played for fools on the wars. You were played for fools on transparency.
At what point will you admit that you can't trust anything coming from the govt?
-
What pisses me off is that I told everyone well before this even got to the vote that the cbonumbers were a sham and everyone accused me of all sorts of shit.
Guess what morons - the the liar and psycho you voted for punked your stupid asses just like on the stimulus bill.
And considering what I see going on now - the same morons are going to get punked again following this pofs kenyan fraud off the cliff.
Just aks yourselves - at what point will you be tired of being played for a fool?
You idiots were played for fools on the stim bill. You were played for fools on obamacare. You were played for fools on the wars. You were played for fools on transparency.
At what point will you admit that you can't trust anything coming from the govt?
try to calm down
either you believe the CBO PROJECTIONS or you don't
if they were bullshit before then why are they gospel now?
As far as I can tell from both past and current #'s there is still a PROJECTED net savings
they (the evil CBO) also give credence/blame/cover/credit to all kinds of variables
“[L]arge sums of discretionary spending in both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills have not yet been included in estimates by the CBO, rendering it impossible to make informed decisions regarding the outcome of this legislation,” Lewis wrote in a February letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking her to postpone votes until the discretionary spending analysis was complete.
The CBO estimated in March that the net cost of the overhaul would be $788 billion over 10 years, but cautioned that it couldn’t make an estimate of the discretionary costs without more time and information.
The figures represent estimates as to how Congress will decide to spend money. The CBO cautions that lawmakers could decide to spend less. They would still have to respect the administration’s nonsecurity discretionary spending freeze.
-
Unreal how uninformed and ignorant you are concerning this.
-
"Lawmakers could spend less"...hahahaha riiiight and just like debt ceilings that keep climbing, spending freezes are jut a bunch of bullshit.
-
"What pisses me off is that I told everyone well before this even got to the vote that the cbonumbers were a sham and everyone accused me of all sorts of shit. "
It doesn't take nostradamas to predict EVERY SINGLE GOVT SPENDING PACKAGE will go over budget. Have you ever seen them paint a stop sign without spending over budget?
-
This is not about going over budget once the thing is already in place.
This is about the absolute garbage and lies the democrats put before the CBO from the beginning to get their scoring they wanted all along to fool the idiot public like Straw, Mons, and Blacken, KNOWING FULL WELL IT WAS A LIE FROM DAY 1!
-
Rush stealing my materials again.
-
try to calm down
either you believe the CBO PROJECTIONS or you don't
if they were bullshit before then why are they gospel now?
As far as I can tell from both past and current #'s there is still a PROJECTED net savings
they (the evil CBO) also give credence/blame/cover/credit to all kinds of variables
Exactly. The CBO flat out said that these numbers WEREN'T gospel in this report. Not only are the revised numbers based on discretionary spending that the CBO admittedly has no way of determining, but discretionary spending is subject to "pay-as-you-go" rules, so the report DOESN'T rule out the bill being deficit neutral.
-
The CBO scored the bill based on phoney garbage the democrats put forth in front of it, which were based on lies.
The recent report includes the more realistic number which others including myself said would happen.
-
straw youre a dip shit...the numbers were shit b/c the dems used smoke and mirrors(double counting etc) to produce the false numbers...MANY on here pointed out why they numbers were false, we did not shit on the CBO just the false numbers...The CBO doesnt have an agenda its like a mathmatical formula the problem is if you manipulate the data you put in you can manipulate the outcome just like the dems did...
OBVIOUSLY WE WERE RIGHT ABOUT THE NUMBERS BEING WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
The CBO scored the bill based on phoney garbage the democrats put forth in front of it, which were based on lies.
The recent report includes the more realistic number which others including myself said would happen.
The more recent report doesn't include more realistic numbers. It includes numbers that- in the very article you posted- the CBO admits may not ever exist.
The CBO doesn't score things based on what "democrats put forth in front of it." They use independent sources. Leading up to the passage of the bill, there were a lot of arguments between the CBO and the Obama administration because the CBO refused to use certain factors that the administration felt were important.
-
As far as I can tell from both past and current #'s there is still a PROJECTED net savings
they (the evil CBO) also give credence/blame/cover/credit to all kinds of variables
As far as you can tell? How can you make any sense of it?
Even from an optomistic point of view, the question would be not if it goes over the estimated budget but by how much since DISCRETIONARY spending is a complete unknown.
As far as you can tell. Please. Save it, sheep.
-
Ha ha ha!!!!!
Like what the Obama Admn says really means anything? These are the same pofs who said we have to spend $860 Billion to keep UE under 8%.
What a joke you libs are. A pathetic, gullible, naive, joke.
-
Even from an optomistic point of view, the question would be not if it goes over the estimated budget but by how much since DISCRETIONARY spending is a complete unknown.
Exactly, which is why it is ridiculous that some members of this board are touting this latest report as proof of anything. It is a report made up of speculative, uninformed numbers.
(I'm conveniently ignoring the first part of that sentence. ;D
-
Yeah, because government run social programs have never had HUGE discretionary spending. SSI, post office, etc.
Anything that the government has ever tried to fiscally manage has gone over estimated figures by a large margin.
History will repeat itself. Hopefully, we can avoid becoming Greece.
-
The Post Office and SSI run on the funds that they generate. So, those are actually good supporting arguments of why this program may actually be budget neutral.
-
Dear God - save me from these naive liberal dolts.
-
As far as you can tell? How can you make any sense of it?
Even from an optomistic point of view, the question would be not if it goes over the estimated budget but by how much since DISCRETIONARY spending is a complete unknown.
As far as you can tell. Please. Save it, sheep.
here are the salient #'s from the CBO report in March:
The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years -- so, 2020 to 2029 -- it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population.
Even if we have a PROJECTED increase in costs of 115 billion we still have a PROJECTED 15 billion dollar reduction in the defict pver the first ten years.
I'm sure even hysterical teabaggers can follow that math
There are so many moving parts in this thing that it's ridiculous to shit on the CBO #s in March and then pretend they are somehow accurate today
Let's check back in ten years and see what happened
-
The Post Office and SSI run on the funds that they generate. So, those are actually good supporting arguments of why this program may actually be budget neutral.
the post office is in the red and SSI has to keep pushing back the retiring age(which wont work forever) in order to maintain itself...they are prime examples of the ineptitude of the govt to be able to come in under budget... ::)
-
Government programs are typically 9x more expensive than their priginal cost estimates. Look it up.
Only a complete naive obama dildo like Straw and Al did not see this coming.
-
The point of my previous post as it relates to this thread is that even with the Post Office's monetary problems, it is still deficit neutral because it doesn't receive any tax dollars. Since the moving cog in this report is discretionary spending, there really is no point in putting so much credence in it. The only reason certain people are acting like it's gospel now, is because they are interpreting it to say what they want it to say.
-
Government programs are typically 9x more expensive than their priginal cost estimates. Look it up.
Only a complete naive obama dildo like Straw and Al did not see this coming.
Look it up Where?
Out of thin air where you pull almost all of your statements like this?
-
Straw Man - I honestly wills ay you are perhaps the most ill-informed dumbest poster on this site bar none. I'm not kidding.
Check it out.
http://biggovernment.com/gknapp/2010/03/02/new-government-programs-always-cost-more-than-predicted
-
Straw Man - I honestly wills ay you are perhaps the most ill-informed dumbest poster on this site bar none. I'm not kidding.
Check it out.
http://biggovernment.com/gknapp/2010/03/02/new-government-programs-always-cost-more-than-predicted
oh by "look it up" you mean a far right wing website.
did you happen to notice this statement in the link you posted?
We don’t know enough to create adequate models to predict the outcomes, the models we do have are being fed flawed data, yet we continue to act like we know what will happen five, ten, twenty and 100 years from now
btw
wheres the statement that says "9x more expensive than original cost"
Isn't that what you told us to "look up"?
-
Straw - look up the original cost estimates for Medicare and SS vs the actual costs. They were off by a factor of 9.
-
Straw - look up the original cost estimates for Medicare and SS vs the actual costs. They were off by a factor of 9.
that's not suprising considering how hard it is to project year to year much less 40 or 80 years into the future
shit - I remember when Rumsfeld told out the war in Iraq would be over in "6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt six months" and it would pay for itself
why don't you take a break from your marathon 24/7 bitching and moaning for a day or two
-
Maybe because I am pissed off seeing the Keyan Communist YOU VOTED FOR destroy this nation day by day.
-
33,
are you officially coming out of the birther closet?
welcome, brother!
-
I dont know where he was born and I have my doubts.
Again, until someone can explain why the following were not released I remain skepticle -
Obama's records that are not released.
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
14. Your Illinois State Senate records--'not available'
-
Maybe because I am pissed off seeing the Keyan Communist YOU VOTED FOR destroy this nation day by day.
off your meds again ?
-
sorry, you either believe he was born here, or you are officially a birther.
Nothing wrong with it. But to try to post all these Qs about it, but to say "no no, I'm not crazy... but look at these questions..."
Haha you either believe he's a 100% american, or you think something stinks. You're a birther brah!
-
I dont know where he was born and I have my doubts.
Again, until someone can explain why the following were not released I remain skepticle -
Obama's records that are not released.
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
14. Your Illinois State Senate records--'not available'
are you sure Obama actually exists?
maybe he's just a hologram or maybe he's Kaiser Soze
-
Make a joke Straw - you only make yourself look worse for supporting this communist fraud.
-
Make a joke Straw - you only make yourself look worse for supporting this communist fraud.
LoL
Thanks but if I want advice from a mentally unstable person I'll consult the vagrant who stands outside my local Whole Foods and talks to the invisible people that only he can see
-
That's funny considering he probably has more a grasp on reality than you do. Bro - you have been proven a fool on issue after issue after issue.
-
That's funny considering he probably has more a grasp on reality than you do. Bro - you have been proven a fool on issue after issue after issue.
That's ironic because last time I talked to him he told me he thought you were crazy
seriously though, you get beat like a pinata every day on this board
why don't you take a break for a day or two
don't worry - the sky will still be falling when you come back
-
Coming from you its a compliment. Every single idiotic policy you support has been a proven failure.
-
You're welcome
-
Stim bill - failure. Obamacare - lies now exposed.
Cap and trade - disaster.
And on and on and.
-
Stim bill - failure. Obamacare - lies now exposed.
Cap and trade - disaster.
And on and on and.
At least we have one trillion barrels of oil we acquired from Iraq right? ;D
-
Another complete failure.
-
Another complete failure.
333 - have you ever thought about running for office
I'm sure you'd get Palins endorsement
-
I live in Nita Loweys' district. No libertarian or repub has any chance whatsoever.
-
I live in Nita Loweys' district. No libertarian or repub has any chance whatsoever.
how about indepedent?
don't you think you can convince people to vote for you?
-
Not where I live. Its a deep blue area and she has big bucks behind her. The local level is even worse.
-
Not where I live. Its a deep blue area and she has big bucks behind her. The local level is even worse.
couldn't you just explain to the voters that Obama intentionallly trying to destroy the country to fulfil his secret Communist agenda?
-
Dear God - save me from these naive liberal dolts.
Exactly what I was telling you earlier. You've got one clown in here claiming that the post office doesn't receive any taxpayer money (I guess all the billions it's gotten from the treasury doesn't count as taxpayer money), and another arguing the latest is just a "projection".
Do you see what I mean???????????
-
Exactly what I was telling you earlier. You've got one clown in here claiming that the post office doesn't receive any taxpayer money (I guess all the billions it's gotten from the treasury doesn't count as taxpayer money), and another arguing the latest is just a "projection".
Do you see what I mean???????????
LOL I told you when you first started posting on this board skip about this shit hahahahhaha
LMAO the post office doesnt use any tax payer money thats a good one ;D
-
Exactly what I was telling you earlier. You've got one clown in here claiming that the post office doesn't receive any taxpayer money (I guess all the billions it's gotten from the treasury doesn't count as taxpayer money), and another arguing the latest is just a "projection".
Do you see what I mean???????????
::) The post office is not funded by the tax payers. The money it received from the treasury is considered a loan and there is a legal cap to the amount they can borrow. If the Post Office was a private company, it would have issued bonds or borrowed from a bank. The point is that that money goes back to the gov't, it didn't simply disappear in a puff of smoke.
And, yes, I do believe USPS' recovery is inevitable and tied to the economy. Take the problems Verizon has with its landline division that don't extend to its wireless or broadband divisions- in this day and age, snail mail utilization and landlines are considered luxuries for some. I could go on and on and on, but you either get it or you don't .
-
::) The post office is not funded by the tax payers. The money it received from the treasury is considered a loan and there is a legal cap to the amount they can borrow. If the Post Office was a private company, it would have issued bonds or borrowed from a bank. The point is that that money goes back to the gov't, it didn't simply disappear in a puff of smoke.
And, yes, I do believe USPS' recovery is inevitable and tied to the economy. Take the problems Verizon has with its landline division that don't extend to its wireless or broadband divisions- in this day and age, snail mail utilization and landlines are considered luxuries for some. I could go on and on and on, but you either get it or you don't .
simply b/c its considered a loan doesnt mean its not tax payer money...
more likely al the USPS would be out of business if it was a private company guess why its not?...tax payer money ;)
-
The post office is slated to loae 250 billion over the next 20 years and you clowns are talking about recovery and repayment of loans?
Unbelievable. No wonder you two supported obamacare.
-
simply b/c its considered a loan doesnt mean its not tax payer money...
more likely al the USPS would be out of business if it was a private company guess why its not?...tax payer money ;)
The money the po has borrowed thus far is significantly less than any of the bailout packages any corps received from the federal gov't over the past two years. Their revenue still far outstripped their shortfalls, so if they were a private company they would have had no problem raising capital from a private source.
It's not unusual for large private or publicly held companies to operate in the red.
-
The money the po has borrowed thus far is significantly less than any of the bailout packages any corps received from the federal gov't over the past two years. Their revenue still far outstripped their shortfalls, so if they were a private company they would have had no problem raising capital from a private source.
It's not unusual for large private or publicly held companies to operate in the red.
LOL you operate in the red long enough as a private company guess what happens?
how long has the post office been in the red?
what does the bail outs have to do with the post office? the point is they operate in the red require money and get it from tax payers...not many ppl were in favor of the bailouts myself included why do you think wed be ok with the post office getting money?
the post office doesnt generate enough money to cover its costs...thats why its in the red....
-
LOL you operate in the red long enough as a private company guess what happens?
how long has the post office been in the red?
what does the bail outs have to do with the post office? the point is they operate in the red require money and get it from tax payers...not many ppl were in favor of the bailouts myself included why do you think wed be ok with the post office getting money?
the post office doesnt generate enough money to cover its costs...thats why its in the red....
Business can operate at a loss for a while. My point about the bailouts was just to highlight the USPS losses compared to other companies. I think they can't legally carry a debt of more than 10 or 20 billion- a lot of money, but still if they were private they would have been able to generate that capital through other means. The post office has been historically profitable.
-
They also have a monopoly remember?
-
Business can operate at a loss for a while. My point about the bailouts was just to highlight the USPS losses compared to other companies. I think they can't legally carry a debt of more than 10 or 20 billion- a lot of money, but still if they were private they would have been able to generate that capital through other means. The post office has been historically profitable.
LOL the companies that got bail outs have been historically profitable as well...that it doesnt matter ;)
The USPS would be out of business right now if it were a private company, you keep saying that it could raise money and I agree that it would have options but those options are contingent on ppl being willing to invest in the company...not many would
-
Of course... which is the only way it works. Call me a socialist if you want, but a private company could never have served EVERYONE at such competitive rates. A lot of the reason FedEx and UPS don't have to deal with USPS problems is because they are so much smaller.
-
LOL the companies that got bail outs have been historically profitable as well...that it doesnt matter ;)
The USPS would be out of business right now if it were a private company, you keep saying that it could raise money and I agree that it would have options but those options are contingent on ppl being willing to invest in the company...not many would
And many of the companies that have received bailouts have returned them... which is my point ;)
And there would have been a few people willing to invest in USPS were it private.
-
Of course... which is the only way it works. Call me a socialist if you want, but a private company could never have served EVERYONE at such competitive rates. A lot of the reason FedEx and UPS don't have to deal with USPS problems is because they are so much smaller.
I send overnight packages at the local UPS for $7.65 whereas the USPO charges me $15 for the same service.
Good try though.
-
I send overnight packages at the local UPS for $7.65 whereas the USPO charges me $15 for the same service.
Good try though.
Yes, sending a package overnight is cheaper via UPS. I just checked their website and sending a letter 2-day costs $15. I sent a Mother's day card priority via USPS last week and it cost $0.60.
-
And many of the companies that have received bailouts have returned them... which is my point ;)
And there would have been a few people willing to invest in USPS were it private.
LMAO the problem is AL that the companies that got bail outs were in that situation b/c of bad investments...the USPS is in the situation its in b/c of a BAD BUSINESS MODEL!!!!!!!!!!
not bad investments but b/c it CANNOT COMPETE!!!!!!!!!
thats the difference, its ignorant to think any different...and no not many ppl would invest in the bad business model of the USPS ::)
-
LMAO the problem is AL that the companies that got bail outs were in that situation b/c of bad investments...the USPS is in the situation its in b/c of a BAD BUSINESS MODEL!!!!!!!!!!
not bad investments but b/c it CANNOT COMPETE!!!!!!!!!
thats the difference, its ignorant to think any different...and no not many ppl would invest in the bad business model of the USPS ::)
There is nothing inherently bad about the USPS business model- especially since it's a necessary service. Maybe 33386 would rather pay $15 to send a letter, but most people wouldn't.
The USPS is like 200 years old. It's going to have financial difficulties. It's fortunes are tied to the economy. It had a record year near the turn of the century when the country was doing well, and it basically predicted the recession.
-
There is nothing inherently bad about the USPS business model- especially since it's a necessary service. Maybe 33386 would rather pay $15 to send a letter, but most people wouldn't.
The USPS is like 200 years old. It's going to have financial difficulties. It's fortunes are tied to the economy. It had a record year near the turn of the century when the country was doing well, and it basically predicted the recession.
LMAO its business model is not geared toward todays society and technology...when was the last time you sent a letter? ::)
ppl dont communicate the same way today as the turn of the century ::) the post office has been in the red for how long now? its not tied to the economy as its been going downhill for a long time now even when the economy was good...
-
Other than getting checks and sending some stuff, its mostly junk mail.
court filings now can be done by e-filing, most of my work is over the internet and fax now.
-
LMAO its business model is not geared toward todays society and technology...when was the last time you sent a letter? ::)
ppl dont communicate the same way today as the turn of the century ::) the post office has been in the red for how long now? its not tied to the economy as its been going downhill for a long time now even when the economy was good...
It is tied to the economy. It actually was having record profits near the turn of the century.
My firm has a business account with USPS and FedEx and we send mail on a daily basis. I"ve addressed the fact that mail is not the vital lifeline it once was in previous posts. It is still necessary for a lot of people and, like all business, it must adapt.
-
Other than getting checks and sending some stuff, its mostly junk mail.
court filings now can be done by e-filing, most of my work is over the internet and fax now.
There was an article a little while ago lamenting how computers were supposed to turn us into a paperless society, but like tripled business paper usage.
-
Yes because you always need a hard backup just in case.
-
They also have a monopoly remember?
they do?
-
It is tied to the economy. It actually was having record profits near the turn of the century.
My firm has a business account with USPS and FedEx and we send mail on a daily basis. I"ve addressed the fact that mail is not the vital lifeline it once was in previous posts. It is still necessary for a lot of people and, like all business, it must adapt.
LOL the turn of the century... ::) how has it done the rest of the century, when they economy was properous, when it was not...im not saying that there isnt some tie there b/c there is with all business but the economy coming back isnt going to save the post office...
you see the problem is NO the USPS doesnt have to adapt b/c it can rely on tax payer money ;) A private business must adapt and a private business would have adapted a long time ago or it would have gone out of business
-
Yes they do on regular mail.
-
Yes they do on regular mail.
there are plenty of alternatives including email, faxing, etc...
not to mention all the other UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, etc...
pretty weak monopoly
-
I was talking about 1st class mail.
-
there are plenty of alternatives including email, faxing, etc...
not to mention all the other UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, etc...
pretty weak monopoly
actually its pretty strong when you consider bulk mail...these ppl dont have your email and ups, fedex, dhl ship packages not letters or bulk mail they have specialized and so has the USPS but they specialized in a form of communication that is less and less prevelant....
-
LOL the turn of the century... ::) how has it done the rest of the century, when they economy was properous, when it was not...im not saying that there isnt some tie there b/c there is with all business but the economy coming back isnt going to save the post office...
you see the problem is NO the USPS doesnt have to adapt b/c it can rely on tax payer money ;) A private business must adapt and a private business would have adapted a long time ago or it would have gone out of business
How has the economy done during the rest of the century? ::)
The USPS does have to adapt, had adapted and will continue to adapt. I'm not sure what fantasy world you live in where no businesses ever have hurdles or take out loans or file for chapter eleven or sell assets or restructure, but with the assets USPS has and the money it still generates there is not a chance in hell it would be out of business by now were it private.
-
actually its pretty strong when you consider bulk mail...these ppl dont have your email and ups, fedex, dhl ship packages not letters or bulk mail they have specialized and so has the USPS but they specialized in a form of communication that is less and less prevelant....
I've Fed Ex'd letters many times and there are so many alternatives to USPS for all kinds of mail
-
How has the economy done during the rest of the century? ::)
The USPS does have to adapt, had adapted and will continue to adapt. I'm not sure what fantasy world you live in where no businesses ever have hurdles or take out loans or file for chapter eleven or sell assets or restructure, but with the assets USPS has and the money it still generates there is not a chance in hell it would be out of business by now were it private.
the economy has gone up and down since the turn of the century has the USPS followed those trends?
my point is the USPS has less incentive to adapt, and not they would not still be in business...chances are another company would have bought them out or squeezed them out by now...
-
the economy has gone up and down since the turn of the century has the USPS followed those trends?
Yes, it has, pretty closely.
[/quote]
my point is the USPS has less incentive to adapt, and not they would not still be in business...chances are another company would have bought them out or squeezed them out by now...
[/quote]
I don't agree with your conclusion, but the argument could be made for any public service. The primary goal of the postal service was not to be a for profit business, but to provide a necessary service.
-
The USPO needs to get with the program and expand things that work. For example - they have a 24/7 machine in some offices that you can do almost anything. That works great and I never stand in line anymore.
My biggest issue with the PO is how the offices themselves are run. Horrible service and horrible wait times.
-
The USPO needs to get with the program and expand things that work. For example - they have a 24/7 machine in some offices that you can do almost anything. That works great and I never stand in line anymore.
My biggest issue with the PO is how the offices themselves are run. Horrible service and horrible wait times.
Few would disagree with that... I'm not arguing that USPS is renowned for customer service or can't use improvements, but it's not exactly on it's way out.
-
The 24/7 Kiosk they have is awesome. I can do Certified Mailings, packages, buy stamps, etc. I wish they could put those in public places like ATMS.
However, waiting for a money order, picking up a certified or otherwise is like torture.
-
::) The post office is not funded by the tax payers. The money it received from the treasury is considered a loan and there is a legal cap to the amount they can borrow. If the Post Office was a private company, it would have issued bonds or borrowed from a bank. The point is that that money goes back to the gov't, it didn't simply disappear in a puff of smoke.
And, yes, I do believe USPS' recovery is inevitable and tied to the economy. Take the problems Verizon has with its landline division that don't extend to its wireless or broadband divisions- in this day and age, snail mail utilization and landlines are considered luxuries for some. I could go on and on and on, but you either get it or you don't .
lol. Now that I pointed out your idiocy, suddenly you're in the know about taxpayer money going to the post office. I see your google-fu serves you well. How about the subsidies the post office gets from Uncle Sam? Guess that doesn't count as taxpayer money either? Ooops, suppose that didn't come up in your quick google search.
It is tied to the economy. It actually was having record profits near the turn of the century.
My firm has a business account with USPS and FedEx and we send mail on a daily basis. I"ve addressed the fact that mail is not the vital lifeline it once was in previous posts. It is still necessary for a lot of people and, like all business, it must adapt.
I agree it is tied to the economy, but only partially. The electronic age is helping to kill it off, and it's currently failing to adapt.
There is nothing inherently bad about the USPS business model
There's not? The GAO thinks it's flawed. The USPS thinks it's flawed.
The comparison to private companies is non-sensical to say the least. Private companies are not forced to maintain unprofitable offices for political reasons. Private companies have no where near the myriad of bullshit restrictions that the post office has to deal with. Private companies usually (not always) don't have to deal with the unbelievable strength of a union as strong as the postal union. Even teamsters can't get postal level benefits.
Yes, there is a cap on what they can borrow, it's $15 billion and they are almost there. The cap can always be raised. What not being pointed out is the post office additionally has nearly $90 billion in unfunded pension and retirement liabilities. And while they've been losing huge sums of money, they managed to cut expenses by some $10 billion. So not only are they making huge cuts, but they're still losing huge amounts of money.
The USPS is projecting a $7 billion dollar shortfall for 10-11.
The USPS is projecting a mail volume in the year 2020 to have declined so much it will equal the volume of mail in 1986.
-
LOL I told you when you first started posting on this board skip about this shit hahahahhaha
LMAO the post office doesnt use any tax payer money thats a good one ;D
Yes you did. It's unfuckingreal!!
-
lol. Now that I pointed out your idiocy, suddenly you're in the know about taxpayer money going to the post office. I see your google-fu serves you well. How about the subsidies the post office gets from Uncle Sam? Guess that doesn't count as taxpayer money either? Ooops, suppose that didn't come up in your quick google search.
Yes, suddenly if you read about something you're in the know about it.That's pretty much how it works. ::) However, I've actually been a part of discussions about the USPS' finances- on this very board- before, so I was already pretty informed about how they work and where their shortfalls stemmed from.
I agree it is tied to the economy, but only partially. The electronic age is helping to kill it off, and it's currently failing to adapt.
I've already acknowledged that the information age has made snail mail superfluous for many... but it still has a lot going for it... distribution is always king and usps trumps everyone else. Small business is in it's pocket more than any other delivery service.
There's not? The GAO thinks it's flawed. The USPS thinks it's flawed.
As it is run now, with it's current financial liabilities and obligations, it can't continue forever. However, what I was referring to- the actual product, delivery and service- is still viable.In terms of reliability or speed, FedEX and UPS arent notably superior. Price is contingent on different factors. Anecdotally, I seem to notice people have a preference between Fed Ex and UPS based on customer service. When all three are option, people seem to just choose whoever is cheapest.
The comparison to private companies is non-sensical to say the least. Private companies are not forced to maintain unprofitable offices for political reasons. Private companies have no where near the myriad of bullshit restrictions that the post office has to deal with. Private companies usually (not always) don't have to deal with the unbelievable strength of a union as strong as the postal union. Even teamsters can't get postal level benefits.
It's not a perfect analogy and I never intended it to be. I'm not sure if I'm the one who introduced it, but my comparison was basically just an acknowledgment of the fact that the types of troubles it's facing aren't unheard, or even particularly unusual in the private sector. The two companies I think of when I think of the current troubles with USPS are Polaroid and GM.
Like I said earlier, an important distinction-to me, at least- is that the PO's primary goal was never to become as profitable as possible. It's two major directives were a)serve everyone and b) do it at a reasonable price. I honestly don't think the private sector ever could have done as well at handling the mail.
Yes, there is a cap on what they can borrow, it's $15 billion and they are almost there. The cap can always be raised. What not being pointed out is the post office additionally has nearly $90 billion in unfunded pension and retirement liabilities. And while they've been losing huge sums of money, they managed to cut expenses by some $10 billion. So not only are they making huge cuts, but they're still losing huge amounts of money.
This could go on for 20 pages, and I'm sure you're too much of a man to let this post go without a response, but I'm just going to focus on the highligted text. The USPS is adapting. A lot of their problems with adapting stem from being legally hamstrung. Those issues have to be worked out but nothing about them is insurmountable.
-
However, I've actually been a part of discussions about the USPS' finances- on this very board- before, so I was already pretty informed about how they work and where their shortfalls stemmed from.
You made the claim they don't receive taxpayer dollars. Yeah, you're real informed on the topic. ::)
This could go on for 20 pages, and I'm sure you're too much of a man to let this post go without a response, but I'm just going to focus on the highligted text. The USPS is adapting. A lot of their problems with adapting stem from being legally hamstrung. Those issues have to be worked out but nothing about them is insurmountable.
Is there some reason not to respond? It is a discussion board is it not? Of course, you didn't realize they were receiving taxpayer dollars so you can't be too bright.
The real concern is whether or not taxpayer dollars are going to be lost and spent needlessly in trying to shore up the post office. Right now the political will obviously doesn't exist to deal with the problem and they just continue to rack up huge amounts of debt. At some point, simple loans and budgetary tricks are not going to cut it. We may even be past that point given its unfunded liabilities.
Insurmountable is about as ambiguous as it gets. According the USPS they need legislative changes in 7 key areas. Do you have any idea of how hard it is just to get legislative reform in ONE area, much less 7?
Either Congress starts to take the issue seriously, which I don't think will happen anytime soon, or the taxpayer gets the shaft.
-
Skip laying a Fedor like beating in this thread.
-
Is there some reason not to respond? It is a discussion board is it not? Of course, you didn't realize they were receiving taxpayer dollars so you can't be too bright.
What I was saying is that I could have written a page long response responding to each point, but instead I would just wait for your response before elaborating further. I don't really like that point-by-point response style, so I just meant I'd address anything I'd missed in a follow up post if necessary. I wasn't trying to discourage you from responding, I was ENCOURAGING you to respond.
Insurmountable is about as ambiguous as it gets.
This is what I mean by "not insurmountable".The PO's budgetary problems began in earnest in 2007. They closed every year this decade prior to that with a surplus. They were actually on track to be profitable that year, too, but Congress passed legistlation that required it to make massive pre-payments into its retiree fund. The first payment wiped out the surplus and created a deficit. No other federal agency and few, if any, private businesses pay on these terms. Most pay as they go, and that is what the Post Office had been doing until recently.
Now, I'm not saying that all of the PO's financial problems are a result of that legislation, but they are a big part of it.
Another part- an overall poor economy. The following are excerpted from wikinvest. Grain of salt and all that, but they are just for quick reference.
(http://www.wikinvest.com/images/6/6f/Fdxincome.png)
and here's some elaboration from that page:
FedEx's profits are highly cyclical; they depend on the strength of the U.S. and world economies because economic health is a key determinant of package volumes. Package volumes and economic strength are so tightly correlated that economists will study package volume data from companies like FedEx as an indicator of whether economic activity is slowing or heating up.
This is what I've been trying to push home. How shippers do is not only a reflection of the economy's health, but an indicator of it.
And just for a good measure, here's a look at how UPS was doing:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ups-profit-down-49-on-fewer-shipments-2009-07-23http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ups-profit-down-49-on-fewer-shipments-2009-07-23
United Parcel Service Inc. said Thursday its second-quarter profit was almost halved as the delivery company shipped fewer packages due to the global economic slowdown.
UPS reported net income of $445 million, or 44 cents a share, compared with net income of $873 million, or 85 cents a share a year ago
Later in that article, once again:
closely watched as a bellwether for economic activity
Now beyond those two issues, the post office does have problems. But those are two issues that had an immediate and directly traceable impact on the POs profitability.
-
The PO's budgetary problems began in earnest in 2007. They closed every year this decade prior to that with a surplus.
Al you're a tool. Do you just make up shit hoping people buy into it? Another clueless, uninformed, wannabe. The post office historically has ended with more losses than gains.
And, no they have not been profitable every year this decade prior to 07.
2000 = $199 million loss
2001 = $1.68 billion loss
2002 = $676 million loss
I'll deal with the rest of your made-up misleading bullshit later - right now it's BBQ time at Skip's!!
In the meantime, why don't you actually study the issue before taking a stand. That way you won't have to make shit up, fabricate facts, and basically make an ass out of yourself.
-
You have been on a roll lately. Lol.
-
The 24/7 Kiosk they have is awesome. I can do Certified Mailings, packages, buy stamps, etc. I wish they could put those in public places like ATMS.
However, waiting for a money order, picking up a certified or otherwise is like torture.
333
you seem to use the US Postal Service much more than I do
you sound like a fan
-
I don't have a choice.
-
I don't have a choice.
I don't understand
isn't private, for profit, mail service like Fed Ex, UPS, DHL cheaper?
-
Many rhings I do require usage of the post office.
-
You have been on a roll lately. Lol.
Ha, Doggity makes up more shit than SAMSON running a CT convention. This is exactly what I was referring to earlier in the thread.
-
Many rhings I do require usage of the post office.
what about all the things that don't require you to use the Post Office
We know you think the Post Office sucks, is a complete failure, more proof of our inevitable slide toward communism et....
but you sure do sound like a fan here:
The 24/7 Kiosk they have is awesome. I can do Certified Mailings, packages, buy stamps, etc. I wish they could put those in public places like ATMS.
However, waiting for a money order, picking up a certified or otherwise is like torture.
-
Al you're a tool. Do you just make up shit hoping people buy into it? Another clueless, uninformed, wannabe. The post office historically has ended with more losses than gains.
And, no they have not been profitable every year this decade prior to 07.
2000 = $199 million loss
2001 = $1.68 billion loss
2002 = $676 million loss
I'll deal with the rest of your made-up misleading bullshit later - right now it's BBQ time at Skip's!!
In the meantime, why don't you actually study the issue before taking a stand. That way you won't have to make shit up, fabricate facts, and basically make an ass out of yourself.
I'm neither a tool, an idiot or or an ass.
The worst I can be accused of is not committing the cardinal sin of googling enough before I post. LOL. (And for the record, no, I do not just make shit up hoping no one calls me on it. As I stated earlier, I've been a part of this basic discussion before. Not having total recall of the post office's relatively arcane financial history is not something that particularly embarrasses me, but I should be more careful about the numbers I use if I insist on using them.)
So, while there were some inaccuracies in my last post, that graph DOES reinforce what I've (along with every economist) been saying about how closely linked the post office's financial forecast is linked to that of the general economy's.
On top of that, my statements about the retirement fund are completely accurate. Those payments are equal to something like 90% of the losses USPS has suffered since 2006. So the basic point of the post stands.
I thought this was sort of interesting. It's from a GAO report of three years ago. Even though the post office was placed on the high risk list again this year, it had just been removed in this 2007 report. Here is the link to the report, relevant pages start at 14:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:BbPxBcyq2mMJ:www.gao.gov/new.items/d07310.pdf+gao+high+risk+list&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiWu8QmDUXPKUOZCZEXGxLngwKvtVVGpmDqHd_5XSoQKtNYPyn-xVWyeJ5rCaNYwKqupgZZRz7OQClhieyjvSBWG5FADY6U9II1itcMAFSCQlZTEsDl4inu4jK77WorqFAosmzv&sig=AHIEtbQqFLgxeezLgv6Vxi_CwwFWAyaZ7w
The GAO is practically raving about the structural and cost-cutting changes the post office made.None of these changes have been reversed, so the USPS's re-inclusion on the list mostly stems from their debts. Debts which overwhelmingly stem from the relatively new regulations for the retirement fund.The retirement fund is controlled by the treasury and the money borrowed is from the treasury,and payments on that scale aren't required by any other government agency. That's some pretty damned kooky math.
-
No, this is just more misleading crap because you're uninformed. And that's the same reason why you keep making fabricated claims.
First, Congress passed legislation in 2009 that alleviated the post office of $4 billion in payments to the pre-retirement fund and they are still bleeding money.
Second, nobody has argued that the pre-fund is not a part of the problem, however:
1. Those problems are expected to be addressed in the near future. Without going into a whole background, the transfer of funds from the old CSRS account shorted the pre-fund account.
2. The post office itself expects continued losses even when the pre-fund issue has been corrected.
THE REAL PROBLEM:
The GAO and the USPS have both agreed they have a defunct business model.
Now, I don't think it's the end of the post office. As I noted before, what matters is whether or not taxpayers will have to bail them out. Right now, we are bailing them out. Whether or not taxpayers will ever get their money back remains to be seen. But, if the post office and the government don't take serious steps to do something, then taxpayers can say bye-bye to their money.
...so the USPS's re-inclusion on the list mostly stems from their debts.
Just one more made-up claim. That's only one reason.
Other reasons are significant declines in mail volume, significant declines in projected mail volume, and a poor business model.
At the end of the day, when the pre-fund issue goes away, the post office is still in some significant shit. To their credit, they are busting their asses trying to change things some things while ignoring others. But given the congressional support they need to make real, lasting, substantial changes...I'll remain extremely skeptical.
-
Oh snap. Dang Al.
(http://static.open.salon.com/files/rocky-beat_up1255318053.jpg)
-
First, Congress passed legislation in 2009 that alleviated the post office of $4 billion in payments to the pre-retirement fund and they are still bleeding money.
As I've stated over and over, the post office's economic picture is tied to the economy so strongly that it is considered a bellwether. Yes, the post office is in economic straits right now, but one or two people have claimed that the economy as a whole is not doing so hot right now, either.
And, yes, while that payment was reduced this last fiscal year, the payments for each of the three years prior to that actually exceeded the losses the USPS suffered in each of those years. Meaning my previous statement still holds: THE MAJORITY- IF NOT ALL- OF THEIR DEBT IS DUE TO THOSE PAYMENTS. Theoretically, they could have carried a large enough surplus to avoid the need to borrow in the face of current legitimate losses had those requirements not been put into effect.
2. The post office itself expects continued losses even when the pre-fund issue has been corrected.
THE REAL PROBLEM:
The GAO and the USPS have both agreed they have a defunct business model.
The GAO is basing its numbers on projections provided by the post office and I think it's evident that the post office is maximizing the travails burdening them. And that's not something I fault them for. It might motivate congress and possibly give them leverage when dealing with unions. However, when it comes to the possibility of the post office not rebounding significantly along with the economy...? That not only defies what pretty much anyone with even the basest knowledge of economics believes, but it also defies common sense. I believe the post office had a record breaking year in terms of volume in either 2005 or 2006(I'm sure you can correct me and let me know which ;))... that was welllll into the internet age. To me, that's an obvious sign that the economy had more to do with the drop off than technology.
Now, I don't think it's the end of the post office. As I noted before, what matters is whether or not taxpayers will have to bail them out. Right now, we are bailing them out. Whether or not taxpayers will ever get their money back remains to be seen.
Which was the topic of this conversation. Even with the correction you made to the inaccurate numbers I posted, I don't see that as an impossibility, or even an unlikelihood.
Just one more made-up claim. That's only one reason.
"Largely stems" means "the most prominent of more than one reason". The fact that I didn't say "completely stems" means I acknowledge that there was more than one reason.
Other reasons are significant declines in mail volume, significant declines in projected mail volume, and a poor business model.
Those same problems existed three years ago and were addressed in that report. The fact of the matter is that their re-inclusion on the list LARGELY STEMS from the debt they have incurred since 2006.
At the end of the day, when the pre-fund issue goes away, the post office is still in some significant shit.
I've posted this very thing numerous times.
To their credit, they are busting their asses trying to change things some things
Something else I've been trying to drive home.
I'll remain extremely skeptical.
And you are within your rights in doing so... however, with all the facts on the table, I don't see any reason to share that pessimism.