Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:05 PM Feb 2013

On Jan. 27, 2013, Obama instituted the largest tariff on U.S. small businesses in American history

Last edited Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:04 PM - Edit history (4)

On Jan. 27, an agreement by Obama's Postal Regulatory Commission Chairman, Ruth Y. Goldway to have USPS First Class International package service reclassified from a relatively fixed-rate "market dominant product" to a "competitive product" (i.e., comparable to FedEx and UPS prices) raised the price of internationally mailing lightweight packages (1 oz - 4 lb) upwards to between 60%-110% more than previously.

For example, prior to the rate increase, the cost of mailing a 1.25 lb package to the UK was $13.17; now it will be $18.60. Previously, the cost of mailing a 1 oz-2 oz. package to, say, Canada, was $3. The new rates double that to $6.03 - $6.55. A 5 oz. package package, previously $6.95 to ship internationally, will now cost $12.75

Needless to say, any American small business owner who sells products internationally -- be they small electronics dealers, millions of online vendors, or any other small business which wishes to sell its goods internationally: http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/01/29/170498909/rising-postal-rates-squeeze-small-record-labels will be devastated by these rate increases as overseas buyers will naturally balk on making purchases made cost prohibitive due to now unaffordable shipment costs. With their international clients disappearing, it's not gratuitous to say that many of these small businesses will simply go extinct.

And clearly, the rate increases instantly makes USPS less, not more, "competitive" with UPS and FedEx than it ever was before, benefiting both private shippers at the expense of small business owners and USPS itself (expect to see USPS selling much less international mail services because of dramatic rise in the cost of its services).

An obvious question arises: what connections do Ruth Goldway, the USPS Board of Governors, Republicans (especially Darrell Issa and Dennis Ross), and both the Obama and previous Bush administrations have with UPS/FedEx and the assorted hedge funds and private equity groups who are waiting to buy up USPS assets for pennies on the dollar when USPS will finally be forced to fully privatize its 200 years accumulation of property, worth countless billions of dollars?

76 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
On Jan. 27, 2013, Obama instituted the largest tariff on U.S. small businesses in American history (Original Post) brentspeak Feb 2013 OP
Pardon me jehop61 Feb 2013 #1
The USPS is an independent, not private, agency of the US government brentspeak Feb 2013 #4
What does President Obama have to do with the Post Office? n/t ProSense Feb 2013 #2
Answer: brentspeak Feb 2013 #3
That's not an answer. ProSense Feb 2013 #5
Typical obfuscation on your part brentspeak Feb 2013 #21
Stop highlighting stuff you don't understand. ProSense Feb 2013 #22
Instead, I posted stuff brentspeak Feb 2013 #25
LOL! ProSense Feb 2013 #26
The reality is that Obama's own PRC chairman brentspeak Feb 2013 #27
2 of 5 members of Board of Governors were appointed by President Obama. elleng Feb 2013 #38
I call bullshit. The people were nominated based upon experience. You are implying that bluestate10 Feb 2013 #68
So the USPS is going down and your main concern is that Pres Obama shouldnt be blamed? nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #9
I see ProSense Feb 2013 #11
So do you approve of the price hikes or not? nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #15
Why exactly do you think I would agree with the price hikes? ProSense Feb 2013 #20
I guess I didnt know since your only comment was about the President. nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #34
Well, this thread ProSense Feb 2013 #39
If the price hikes reflect the true cost of delivering the packages, YES. bluestate10 Feb 2013 #69
This has nothing to do with me. These prices hikes will affect small businesses rhett o rick Feb 2013 #72
our public institutions are disappearing before our very eyes and democrats are silent liberal_at_heart Feb 2013 #12
Seems to me that a lot of the Democratic politicians are satisfied with the argument that it isnt rhett o rick Feb 2013 #16
No, it is obvious the OP wants to make sure he gets blamed treestar Feb 2013 #17
What "longstanding problems" does the OP poster have? nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #36
I don't think that's a tariff ("tax" or "duty" on imports/exports) bhikkhu Feb 2013 #6
The rate increase will not improve USPS' finances brentspeak Feb 2013 #28
Your examples are about as skewed as they could be bhikkhu Feb 2013 #37
I can tell right away that you have no experience in this area at all brentspeak Feb 2013 #41
I suppose you have a good point as far as ebay sellers bhikkhu Feb 2013 #46
blame the President for Teabagger destruction? sigmasix Feb 2013 #7
So you are saying that raising these prices is a good move? Or a bad move but not the Pres fault?nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #10
wishing on a star sigmasix Feb 2013 #18
I want the damage done by the teabaggers undone. I said nothing shining blame on the President. rhett o rick Feb 2013 #35
the only game being played sigmasix Feb 2013 #47
I dont appreciate posters that call me names and lie about what I said. Please just go away. nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #61
Post removed Post removed Feb 2013 #62
It is not my OP. Now go annoy someone else. You will be my first ignore. nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #64
200 years ago the USPS was the only game in town, DreamGypsy Feb 2013 #8
Not quite clear what you're trying to say brentspeak Feb 2013 #14
Even blaming Goldway seems ridiculous treestar Feb 2013 #19
"And the small business angle you brought in yourself. It will affect everyone." brentspeak Feb 2013 #23
everything is cheaper in bulk treestar Feb 2013 #44
President Obama has nothing to do with the downfall of the USPS... EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #13
He already won re-election. JaneyVee Feb 2013 #24
Well, this is just ProSense Feb 2013 #29
Let me be the one to say it .... Trajan Feb 2013 #30
SMALL businesses are trying to "wipe out decent wages for US workers"??? brentspeak Feb 2013 #31
Yeah ... Not only do they despise decent wages and compensation for workers Trajan Feb 2013 #32
This is...er, uh... brentspeak Feb 2013 #33
i've literally seen it all datasuspect Feb 2013 #63
OMG: President Obama ProSense Feb 2013 #40
Probably because brentspeak Feb 2013 #42
You should ProSense Feb 2013 #43
Well, I do imagine the staff at Obama PR headquarters brentspeak Feb 2013 #49
"I do imagine the staff at Obama PR headquarters-- where you work at" ProSense Feb 2013 #50
You mean there's another conspiracy afloat? treestar Feb 2013 #45
So Obama posted those threads about stamp price increases himself? brentspeak Feb 2013 #48
Even with a rate increase, USPS international rates stomp UPS and Fedex. Hoyt Feb 2013 #51
No, the new rates are only marginally cheaper than UPS and FedEx brentspeak Feb 2013 #52
I've shipped a number of musical instruments overseas and UPS/FEX rates are prohibitive and Hoyt Feb 2013 #58
This rate changes involves lightweight items brentspeak Feb 2013 #59
Are you sure volume will decrease that much. In any event, sorry you are impacted. Hoyt Feb 2013 #60
I guess it's all part of trying to make the USPS profitable? Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #53
The Postal Service isn't supposed to make a profit brentspeak Feb 2013 #54
Oh, that's right. Well, make it break even, then? It must be in debt, since costs have exceeded Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #75
There should be no such THING as "profit" for the USPS, as there is none with NASA, the DoD, FEMA, WinkyDink Feb 2013 #55
You're right! I forgot that for a sec! nt Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #76
"I don't really understand the pension prepayment funding issue." hay rick Feb 2013 #57
I see. I thought it was the health care portion of pensions. That sucks. Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #74
Since USPS doesn't own any airplanes, haven't their contracted costs gone up with energy prices? FarCenter Feb 2013 #56
Not sure how it will devastate online sellers - lynne Feb 2013 #65
maybe the op would rather we raise the cost of a first class stamp to better reflect costs in other rdking647 Feb 2013 #66
Considering the amount of money the are hemorrhaging I'm ok with this. bamacrat Feb 2013 #67
Obama also changed the formula for envelope glue so that it tastes yuckier Orrex Feb 2013 #70
That's a lick too far! He just lost my vote in 2016! nt pinboy3niner Feb 2013 #71
i smell FAIL in this OP... dionysus Feb 2013 #73

jehop61

(1,735 posts)
1. Pardon me
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:35 PM
Feb 2013

but isn't the USPS a mostly private entity that is autonomous? Didn't a Republican Congress handicap it with draconian pension requirements? And haven' t House members refused to rectify said requirements? So how is it Obama's fault? Please clarify.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
4. The USPS is an independent, not private, agency of the US government
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:52 PM
Feb 2013

And yes, a GOP-controlled Congress did indeed cripple it with an onerous future retiree prefunding mandate. I've posted about it before.

The decision to dramatically raise First Class International package rates will not help USPS regain its financial footing; only a repeal of the prefunding requirement will do that. And Obama has not once urged the Republicans to allow prefunding-reform legislation to pass through Congress, let alone spoken out in favor of prefunding-reform legislation.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
3. Answer:
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:44 PM
Feb 2013


http://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/about/commissioners/bio.aspx?subsectionid=64

Ruth Goldway was designated Chairman of the United States Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) by President Barack Obama on August 6, 2009. She was first appointed by President Clinton in April, 1998 to the predecessor agency, the Postal Rate Commission, and twice reappointed by President George W. Bush, most recently in 2008 to serve a third term ending in November 2014. She is the longest serving, full-time, Senate-confirmed Presidential appointee within the Executive Branch of the United States Government. The Postal Regulatory Commission oversees the performance and accountability of the U.S. Postal Service, the world's largest post and the second largest civilian employer in the United States.




http://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/about/commissioners/bio.aspx?subsectionid=63

Commissioner Mark Acton was nominated to the Postal Regulatory Commission by President Barack H. Obama on May 12, 2011 for a second term of office extending until October 14, 2016. Commissioner Acton was confirmed by the United States Senate on September 26, 2011. President George W. Bush first nominated Mr. Acton as a Postal Rate Commissioner on November 7, 2005, and he was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 2006. Prior to that appointment, Mr. Acton served as Special Assistant to the Chairman of the Postal Rate Commission and assisted in managing all aspects of agency operations.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
5. That's not an answer.
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:52 PM
Feb 2013

That's your confusion.

The President appoints the commissioners, but unlike other agencies, the Post Office is an independent organization subject to rules of the Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Governance_and_organization

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
21. Typical obfuscation on your part
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:37 PM
Feb 2013

The President appoints the commissioners -- and 9 of the ten Board of Governor -- whose USPS policies he wishes them to implement. It is called an "independent organization" not because, as you say, "it is subject to the rules of Congress", but rather, according to your own Wikipedia link...



it is legally defined as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States", (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is controlled by Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General
, with the PRC (Presidential appointees):

overseeing postal rates and related concerns, having the authority to approve or reject USPS proposals
.

Didn't they teach you in Corporate/Government Hybrid Public Relations Obtuseness and Obfuscation Guerrilla Posting 101 to first read your own links before posting them?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
22. Stop highlighting stuff you don't understand.
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:39 PM
Feb 2013

You're posting nothing that supports the ridiculous assertion you made in the OP.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
25. Instead, I posted stuff
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:53 PM
Feb 2013

that refutes your ridiculous assertion that the President has almost nothing to do with the Post Office. Which, consequently, retroactively supported my point that Obama had a lot to do with the dramatic international mailing rate increase (ergo, by appointing people who approved such a thing).

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
26. LOL!
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:05 PM
Feb 2013

Believe what you want to. The Post Master General is not appointed by the President.

Swin in the nonsense. It's absurd, and doesn't change reality. Obviously, it makes you feel good so have fun.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
27. The reality is that Obama's own PRC chairman
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:09 PM
Feb 2013

and at least a majority (and maybe all) of the Board of Governors he personally appointed approved the rate hike. Furthermore, none of these people he hand-selected seem particularly interested in getting rid of the Bush-era GOP-created prefunding requirement. Why is that?

elleng

(130,974 posts)
38. 2 of 5 members of Board of Governors were appointed by President Obama.
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 05:24 PM
Feb 2013
http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/leadership/board-governors-bios.htm#p=5

about the Board of Governors:

http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/leadership/board-governors.htm

The independent Postal Regulatory Commission (formerly the Postal Rate Commission) is also controlled by appointees of the President confirmed by the Senate. It oversees postal rates and related concerns, having the authority to approve or reject USPS proposals.

Ruth Goldway is chair of the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Ruth Goldway was designated Chairman of the United States Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) by President Barack Obama on August 6, 2009. She was first appointed by President Clinton in April, 1998 to the predecessor agency, the Postal Rate Commission, and twice reappointed by President George W. Bush, most recently in 2008 to serve a third term ending in November 2014. She is the longest serving, full-time, Senate-confirmed Presidential appointee within the Executive Branch of the United States Government. The Postal Regulatory Commission oversees the performance and accountability of the U.S. Postal Service, the world's largest post and the second largest civilian employer in the United States.

http://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/about/commissioners/bio.aspx?subsectionid=64

On January 22, 2012, the Postal Service implemented a price increase on all market-dominant classes equal, on average, to the applicable price cap limitation. The Postal Service expects that, in each subsequent year, price changes for all of the market-dominant classes will equal, on average, the price cap limitation applicable in that year.

Postal Service price increases for market-dominant products are subject to a statutory, CPI-based price cap. The price cap for future increases will not be finalized until the Postal Service files a Notice of Rate Adjustment with the Commission.

http://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/default.aspx

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
68. I call bullshit. The people were nominated based upon experience. You are implying that
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 11:42 AM
Feb 2013

because of who first appointed them, that they are corrupt. Seldom have I seen a larger pile of raking crap, or a blinder leap of faith. The two people may in fact be corrupt, but to imply that without a shred of information to back up that implied charge is an act of complete bullshit and a bad attempt at obfuscation.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
11. I see
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:04 PM
Feb 2013

"So the USPS is going down and your main concern is that Pres Obama shouldnt be blamed?"

...your main concern aren't the facts. I mean, "USPS is going down" and like everything else it has to be Obama's fault or it mean nothing?

Reminds me of the people ignorantly screaming for the President to fire the Post Master General.

You know, the country was screwed up before Obama became President (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381931).

In fact, the law that is responsible for the USPS problems was passed before 2009.


ProSense

(116,464 posts)
20. Why exactly do you think I would agree with the price hikes?
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:30 PM
Feb 2013

I don't agree with the Post Office having to raise the price of stamps every several months. Congress needs to fix the law it passed that is creating the USPS crisis.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders...will oppose a U.S. Postal Service plan to end Saturday mail delivery."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022335994

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
69. If the price hikes reflect the true cost of delivering the packages, YES.
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 11:44 AM
Feb 2013

You can always use UPS or Fedex, see what they charge you.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
72. This has nothing to do with me. These prices hikes will affect small businesses
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 11:57 AM
Feb 2013

that ship out of country. Many wont be able to afford them and go out of business. That wont help the USPS.

Another issue - FedEx and UPS get to profit from the most lucrative part of the mail business that the USPS used to help offset their loses when servicing rural customers. This is killing the USPS. And if the postal service is privatized the first thing that will happen is they will cut rural routes. Check that, the first thing they will do is establish huge salaries for the CEO and top executives. Mitten would love to "harvest" the USPS.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
12. our public institutions are disappearing before our very eyes and democrats are silent
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:08 PM
Feb 2013

Democratic politicians are silent on the privatization of our pensions, postal service, bridges, our schools. What is next? Libraries, fire stations, social security?. When do we stop being silent? When do we say no? Will we wait until they are all gone and then scratch our heads and wonder where they went? People you do realize if we allow them to take over our schools, evolution will a thing of the past right? If they are allowed to take over, creationism will be taught in our schools. Women's bodies can reject rape sperm, wombs of women who take birth control are littered with dead babies, metiorites and dinasaurs aren't real. Women came from the rib of a man. Women belong to God and their husbands. The poor are only here for the service of the rich. All of this will be taught to our children if we continue to allow the privatization of our public institutions.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
16. Seems to me that a lot of the Democratic politicians are satisfied with the argument that it isnt
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:25 PM
Feb 2013

their fault.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
17. No, it is obvious the OP wants to make sure he gets blamed
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:28 PM
Feb 2013

and is characterized as doing something to hurt small business to boot.

The P.O. has longstanding problems.

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
6. I don't think that's a tariff ("tax" or "duty" on imports/exports)
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:52 PM
Feb 2013

...as USPS is only regulated by the government. Its not the government, and the money doesn't go to the government; it just goes to fund the operations of the USPS.

I can't say I'm in favor of the price increases, any more than anyone is in favor of prices increases on anything, but I don't think they're out of order as far as shipping costs go. Given current issues at the USPS, I can understand how they might be needed.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
28. The rate increase will not improve USPS' finances
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:23 PM
Feb 2013

Only getting rid of the $5.5 billion/year prefunding requirement for hypothetical as-yet unborn future USPS retirees will.

And the price increases are certainly out of order in this case, as low-weight First Class International shipments are cost-effective for the service (i.e, USPS transports all this stuff on the cheap already).

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
37. Your examples are about as skewed as they could be
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 05:12 PM
Feb 2013

...given that the USPS switched to a "one price" policy for all international mail. So, the "say, Canada" example sounds bad, but how about the, say, South Korea, example? Its not so bad at all.

If you also note that delivery confirmation is now included in the "one price", its sounds even less bad. And that they are pushing customers to use their online service by giving additional discounts, then its also much less bad. If it doesn't effect USPS finances its probably because its not a net price increase, just a simplification.

Anyway, considering how fuel costs continue to plague every transport-dependent business's bottom line, there's probably plenty of basis for an across-the-board price increase.

But not to nitpick too much, as its all pretty tame stuff (read it here if you want: http://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2012/pb22352/html/kit.htm )...I probably wouldn't even argue if it weren't for the "Thanks, Obama!" slant in the OP title. He's got nothing to do with it, other than having to appoint a board member every year or two.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
41. I can tell right away that you have no experience in this area at all
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 05:40 PM
Feb 2013


bhikkhu: "USPS switched to a "one price" policy for all international mail. So, the "say, Canada" example sounds bad, but how about the, say, South Korea, example? Its not so bad at all."


It is now almost 68% more expensive to ship to S. Korea than it was prior to the rate increase. Last year, it cost about $10 to mail a 1 lb package from the US to S. Korea; today, $16.75.

It's also clear that you don't really grasp the economics behind this. Try explaining to real-world sellers (just one example below) whose sales have gone 'poof' from the increased rates that this all just a "simplification":



http://forums.ebay.com/db2/topic/International-Trading/New-Usps-Fees/5100132625?start=36

Interesting..I'm in the same boat, (without a paddle). Cost for shipping international has doubled..since the 27th of the month no international shipment. I have lost 1/3rd of my sales.
I had some great customers..lost, vanished in a dust storm..
From what I understand the USPS by LAW, can only increase the cost of shipping to match the rate of inflation..50% has destroyed small transactions on e-bay. The USPS wants all of the pie..as it will turn out they get none...I've contacted some of my international customers and explained the change to them..offering the best rates possible and still make a small profit..it's not likely that I will retain any of them..there may be some action protesting the rate increase based on legal grounds..at a later date. My postage to ship the same article has gone from 3.61 to 7.70 which takes any profit out of the sale. Believe it or not I checked with other providers. for a 5oz package one wanted 70.00, and the other wanted 28.00 for a 6.00 item..amazing.

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
46. I suppose you have a good point as far as ebay sellers
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 06:33 PM
Feb 2013

and other than pen pal type stuff, letters and a couple packages a year maybe, I don't ship anything overseas. You got me there.

sigmasix

(794 posts)
7. blame the President for Teabagger destruction?
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:58 PM
Feb 2013

The New Republican/Fox "news" party instituted the legislation designed to destroy the USPS. The Teabaggers continue to support the privatization of America's public works and commons, in the hopes of devastating our culture and shared liberties. The destruction of small business in America is one of the main aims of Teabaggers and thier criminally wealthy overlords. The OP stinks like a pile of shit-stained "Elect Romney" T-shirts. The suggestion that the right wing attack on neccessary American institutions is the responsibility of President Obama exposes the dishonesty and rank hypocrisy of the poster and other teabagger apologists. Isn't there enough hatred for America at the freeper site? Why don't you stick to posting lies like this to the Yahoo news comments section and freeper "destroy America" message board.
This kind of right wing radical extremism disguised as "news" will not go unchallenged on DU. Now go find something else to blame on the president- I'm sure that your fellow Teabaggers have some sort of new racist conspiracy theories that implicate President Obama was responsible for Aids and Nazi death camps.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
10. So you are saying that raising these prices is a good move? Or a bad move but not the Pres fault?nm
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:02 PM
Feb 2013

sigmasix

(794 posts)
18. wishing on a star
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:29 PM
Feb 2013

Playing stupid about the actions of the Teabaggers and the destruction they have caused underlines your true motives for posting this- The antiAmerican right wing zealouts inhabiting the republican party enacted the legislation that made the destruction of the USPS possible, but you just keep beating that blame Obama drum- I'm sure you'll find someone hate-filled enough to disregard the truth in favor of Teabagger radicalism and fear.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
35. I want the damage done by the teabaggers undone. I said nothing shining blame on the President.
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 05:10 PM
Feb 2013

I think the President could at least alleviate some of the damage. The actions described in the OP dont appear to me to be on the correct path. Do you agree or disagree?

Saying that I am "playing stupid" and "beating that blame Obama drum", shows that you arent interested in having a decent discussion. So thanks but no thanks, I dont want to play your game.

sigmasix

(794 posts)
47. the only game being played
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 06:47 PM
Feb 2013

Is the one you started by posting this OP in the hopes of distracting the reader from the facts of history and the duplicitious nature of your claim that the president enacted tariffs on small businesses through the USPS. The USPS is simply attempting to continue to exist, even though antiAmerican right wingers have targeted it for the forces of "privatization"- which is Teabagger speak for "let's destroy America's most successful public works or give them to wealthy republican supporters". Admit it; you're the only one playing a game here, and now that people are calling you out over it you want to change the rules in the middle of the game to make it seem as if you didn't REALLY intend to use Teabagger lies and hyperbole to attack the president. You lost at your own game, now you're demanding that using your own words and the OP against you is unfair. Sounds an awful lot like the only game Teabaggers play. You ought to at least ACT like an adult and admit when you are wrong, accepting the responsibilty that all adults must, to be considered an adult. Your affinity for Teabagger hate and hyperbole directed towards the president isnt a legitimate social or political opinion, it's a sign that you value your fear and hate more than you value morality and adult notions of honor and responsibility. Grab your ball and run home- no one here wants to play YOUR game.

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #61)

DreamGypsy

(2,252 posts)
8. 200 years ago the USPS was the only game in town,
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:59 PM
Feb 2013

The article you reference in your OP under 'between 60%-110%', http://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/letters/blog.pl?/pl/2012/10/1350432220.html, is a letter to an editor. The author of the letter, after discussing the changes in pricing and services, writes:

Parcel Post now appears to have to cover costs, and as such a 20%+ increase is required across the weights and zones to achieve this 100% cost coverage requirement.


From Wikipedia,

The USPS is legally obligated to serve all Americans, regardless of geography, at uniform price and quality. <snip>

The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. Since the 2006 all-time peak mail volume,[7] after which Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act",[8] (which mandated $5.5 billion per year to be paid into an account to pre-fund retiree health-care, 75 years into the future, a requirement unique among organizations and businesses in the U.S.[9]), revenue dropped sharply due to recession-influenced[10] declining mail volume,[11] prompting the postal service to look to other sources of revenue while cutting costs to reduce its budget deficit.[12]


Times have changed dramatically since 1775 and Ben Francklin's tenure as first postmaster. The environment for international logistics and delivery is very competitive and very large. If the USPS is to survive then it needs to play on a level field which, among other things, means it needs flexibility in its pricing to meet its costs within the scope of pricing of its competitors, AND it needs to function under the same general business practices as do its suppliers, consumers, and competitors. If you are looking for the enemies who are trying to destroy the USPS for the sake of FedEx and UPS, I'd suggest you look into the members of Congress (as it was under Bush).

I was not familiar with Ms. Ruth Goldway before, but from the Postal Regulatory Commission page about that you referenced about Ms. Goldway:

In October 2012, she received a National Consumer Excellence Award for her contributions to the protection of postal consumers from the organization Consumer Action.

Ms. Goldway is a founding member and co-Chair of a networking and mentoring organization, Women in Logistics and Delivery Services (WILDS). She has lectured on the role of women in government, Finnish culture and society, urban planning, and consumerism at universities and professional associations throughout the world.

Ms. Goldway has long been a successful advocate on behalf of consumer, women's and urban issues. She was Assistant to the Director of California's Department of Consumer Affairs during the 1970s. She was elected council member and mayor of the city of Santa Monica from 1979 to 1983. She helped to found California's system of statewide farmers markets and expanded citizen representation on state regulatory boards. She served as Founder and Chairperson of the Santa Monica Pier Restoration Corporation from 1983 - 1994.

Ms. Goldway served as Director of Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles, one of the nation's most racially and ethnically diverse campuses. From 1991 to 1994 she served as Manager of Public Affairs for the Getty Trust, the largest arts and education foundation in the U.S.


She seems to me to be a pretty cool lady, and not a likely candidate for a member of a conspiracy to handover the assets of the USPS to the waiting vultures. Nor is our President, IMHO.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
14. Not quite clear what you're trying to say
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:21 PM
Feb 2013


The article you reference in your OP under 'between 60%-110%', http://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/letters/blog.pl?/pl/2012/10/1350432220.html, is a letter to an editor.


The writer of that particular piece was expressing a simple fact, not an opinion. Rates for First Class International have indeed risen between 60%-110%. The PRC's own filing notice low-balls the figure at 58.6%, with actual rates encountered by consumers exceeding 100%, and those actual rates are confirmed and listed within the PRC filing notice on page 86.

I'm not sure why you quoted that bit about the Parcel Post rate increase because it has nothing to do with the First Class International rate increase. And as for your opinion concerning Ruth Goldway -- all I can say is that anyone who reads an official bio blurb and concludes from it that a bureaucrat or politician must be a "pretty cool" person, exempted from real scrutiny, probably doesn't deserve the right to vote.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
19. Even blaming Goldway seems ridiculous
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:30 PM
Feb 2013

This would fall under something that has to be done to keep things going. Money doesn't appear out of nowhere.

And the small business angle you brought in yourself. It will affect everyone.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
23. "And the small business angle you brought in yourself. It will affect everyone."
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:45 PM
Feb 2013

No, it won't. Those larger vendors whose revenues exceed $100,000 utilizing several USPS services would be eligible to apply for a special discounted rate; no one else would be eligible (page 6 of the PRC filing notice. Large corporations will have their shipping subsidized by increasing rates on the little guys.

 

EastKYLiberal

(429 posts)
13. President Obama has nothing to do with the downfall of the USPS...
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:09 PM
Feb 2013

And to suggest otherwise is blatant lying on the part of the OP.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
29. Well, this is just
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:23 PM
Feb 2013

the evil Obama's way of taking back all the government-destroying tax breaks and incentives, including those in the health care law, for small businesses. Did anyone think he was giving those away for free?



"Obama instituted the largest tariff on U.S. small businesses in American history"

In "American history"? It could only mean one thing: Obama sucks!


 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
30. Let me be the one to say it ....
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:34 PM
Feb 2013

The USPS has been bleeding and racking up deficits for years ....

For whatever reason, whether for a pre-funding mandate foisted on the service by TeaHadist idiots, or simply because their costs exceed their revenues ...

Maybe, just maybe, the USPS needs to increase prices to maintain revenue flows that will help keep it from diving too far into the red ....

Maybe, just maybe, it's time for EVERYBODY who uses the service to pay the REAL cost for that service ....

Maybe, just maybe, it's time for small businesses, who have done their utter best to wipe out decent wages and benefits for US workers, to the point where they have stifled the very marketplace they need to survive ....

Maybe, just maybe, it's time for small business to put it's money where it's mouth is, suck it up, and pay those real costs ....

They want to pass down these increases to it's customers ? .... Well, they have been jacking up prices for years without much concern for their customers ... Why start worrying about them now ? ....

I see just more price increases on the horizon; increases that will already come anyways ...

I am open to being re-educated as to why this hurts regular folk ....

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
31. SMALL businesses are trying to "wipe out decent wages for US workers"???
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:45 PM
Feb 2013

Who knew that the real money behind the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable were small tool makers, independent record companies, and mom-and-pop Amazon book sellers and etsy quilt makers?

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
32. Yeah ... Not only do they despise decent wages and compensation for workers
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:49 PM
Feb 2013

They despise pay taxes for the public infrastructure they use to promote their sales and move their goods ...

They want it all .... and they have been getting it, to a great degree ....

All they need now is families with money to buy their stuff ....

OOPS ....

PASS the price increases to their customers .... That's the way it works ... right ?

 

datasuspect

(26,591 posts)
63. i've literally seen it all
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:40 AM
Feb 2013

holy shit.

wow.

(i agree with you, SMALL businesses are trying to "wipe out decent wages for US workers", my ass).

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
40. OMG: President Obama
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 05:28 PM
Feb 2013

increased the price of stamps.

Cost of first-class U.S. stamp increases to 46 cents
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/cost_of_first-class_us_stamp_i.html

I'm surprised that there weren't five other threads over the years blaming the President for USPS pricing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postage_rates

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
42. Probably because
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 05:48 PM
Feb 2013

focus on the price of domestic letter stamps is a red herring to distract from the real issue of the catastrophic rise in the price of international package shipping.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
43. You should
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 05:58 PM
Feb 2013

"Probably because focus on the price of domestic letter stamps is a red herring to distract from the real issue of the catastrophic rise in the price of international package shipping."

...do standup. Good stuff.




brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
49. Well, I do imagine the staff at Obama PR headquarters
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:44 PM
Feb 2013

-- where you work at -- probably check out the Georgetown improv cafes when they want to sip on a latte and there's no lobbyist around to foot the bill.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
50. "I do imagine the staff at Obama PR headquarters-- where you work at"
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:47 PM
Feb 2013

Are you auditioning to be a clown?

"sip on a latte"

I take that back, try Fox, I hear they're hiring.





treestar

(82,383 posts)
45. You mean there's another conspiracy afloat?
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 06:20 PM
Feb 2013

That clever Obama! He couldn't be more devious to the left than he is to the right.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
48. So Obama posted those threads about stamp price increases himself?
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:42 PM
Feb 2013

Hey, you're the looney tune claiming that's the case, not me.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
51. Even with a rate increase, USPS international rates stomp UPS and Fedex.
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:53 PM
Feb 2013

Unless something has changed, it's still the way to go and international shipping is usually added to price of goods.

I think this will help USPS.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
52. No, the new rates are only marginally cheaper than UPS and FedEx
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:02 PM
Feb 2013

Yet another who apparently has no experience in day-to-day overseas shipping. Read the links I provided, and you'll discover that small-time American vendors are already suffering from the increase in prices. You think someone in, say, Germany, will actually buy the same number of widgets from a US seller when they're asked to pay up to 100% more in shipping than they did previously?

And USPS will not be significantly helped by this rate increase; the built-in cost-prohibitive nature will decimate its overseas mail service volume. The loss of USPS' affordable international shipping service is one of the things that FedEx and UPS have been clamoring for for decades.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
58. I've shipped a number of musical instruments overseas and UPS/FEX rates are prohibitive and
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:47 PM
Feb 2013

They don't go to a lot of countries.

I think rate increase will help USPS.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
59. This rate changes involves lightweight items
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:14 PM
Feb 2013

1 oz - 4 lbs, which covers First Class International. You have experience shipping large weight parcels overseas, a completely different animal. Small independent US vendors use First Class International to ship their lightweight items and rely upon (or, until a few weeks ago, have relied upon) its relatively low-cost price structure to stay in business. That's now been taken away from them.

You haven't explained how losing mail volume will help USPS (and they'll a lot of mail volume from this).

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
53. I guess it's all part of trying to make the USPS profitable?
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:05 PM
Feb 2013

The USPS has been charging pretty cheap rates for years, while costs of providing the services have gone up a lot. That can't continue, esp now that a lot of people don't use the USPS any more.

I don't really understand the pension prepayment funding issue. Over my head. I don't know what other govt agencies do about that, or why that funding was done that way.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
54. The Postal Service isn't supposed to make a profit
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:15 PM
Feb 2013

It's supposed to provide a service. And the physical cost of shipping low-weight items overseas is cheaper than you might imagine. USPS wasn't losing money providing First Class International service.

The prefunding mandate is explained in this truth-out article under the "Stage 3: Dismantling of the Post Office" section.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
75. Oh, that's right. Well, make it break even, then? It must be in debt, since costs have exceeded
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 11:45 PM
Feb 2013

income, hasn't it, for some years?

I don't ship international, so I have no idea of the costs of that.

Thanks for the link. I'll check that out.

 

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)
55. There should be no such THING as "profit" for the USPS, as there is none with NASA, the DoD, FEMA,
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:18 PM
Feb 2013

etc.

hay rick

(7,624 posts)
57. "I don't really understand the pension prepayment funding issue."
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:35 PM
Feb 2013

It's not pensions- it's health care.... 75 years of health care, paid in advance over a 10 year period. The difficulty is not in understanding- the difficulty is in believing that something so blatant could be perpetrated by people charged with representing our interests.

What do other government agencies do about pre-funding health care? Nothing. This law was passed by the Republican lame-duck congress in 2006.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
74. I see. I thought it was the health care portion of pensions. That sucks.
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 11:43 PM
Feb 2013

I'll try reading up more on this. I've read a few things, but what I read assumed the reader had a basic knowledge of the facts to begin with (unlike me), so I didn't understand the articles.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
56. Since USPS doesn't own any airplanes, haven't their contracted costs gone up with energy prices?
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:25 PM
Feb 2013

AFAIK, there is no USPS internationl shipment by mailboat anymore.

lynne

(3,118 posts)
65. Not sure how it will devastate online sellers -
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:57 AM
Feb 2013

- as I'm always charged the shipping amount, it's not like the seller is paying it. Many things I can't purchase locally so will have to pay the shipping anyway. On the other hand, will it send some business back to faltering "brick and mortar" Mom and Pop stores? Possibly. That wouldn't be a bad thing overall.

It all depends on what's cheapest - online shipping fees or gas to get to the store. With gas looking to hit $4. gallon soon, it's pretty much a draw.

 

rdking647

(5,113 posts)
66. maybe the op would rather we raise the cost of a first class stamp to better reflect costs in other
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 11:21 AM
Feb 2013

for instance a first class stamp in the UK costs 60p which is about .93 cents
in canada its 63 cents.

id rather they raise costs on business than individuals

bamacrat

(3,867 posts)
67. Considering the amount of money the are hemorrhaging I'm ok with this.
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 11:41 AM
Feb 2013

Granted ti have never sent an international package, but if they are having to cut out days to save money etc, something needed to be done. When you consider how much it costs to send a letter domestically, its amazing they can offer such a cheap service. A stamp costs 47cents, and they will send my letter across the country. They could make it a dollar and I would be ok with it. Again I don't mail a lot of things, and I think that once my generation is the generation in power we will see a lot of the services go away. This sucks for those who mail a lot of things, but in reality, when you consider the cost of fuel, and pay for the person transporting the parcel it still isnt that bad of a deal.

Orrex

(63,216 posts)
70. Obama also changed the formula for envelope glue so that it tastes yuckier
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 11:47 AM
Feb 2013

Damn him and his Socialist over-reaching!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»On Jan. 27, 2013, Obama i...