My Ongoing Facebook Battle

One of my friends posted the Will Ferrell video the other day, and some right-wing mouth breather decided he was going to counter with old tried-and-true rhetorical response of, "Just look at the Post Office."

So I, being the type that just can't keep his mouth shut, even when I probably should, couldn't let that slide, and I responded with the following: "Yes. DO look at the postal service. Still cheaper (by a mile) and more efficient than the private sector (I can get a letter to Texas in 2-3 days, but my new Cowboys jersey takes a week and a half to get here)." Then I posted the link to the following article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090827/ts_usnews/thecaseforpostalstylehealthcare

After that had been up for a while I get some OTHER mouth breather who thinks he's smart posting an article about how the US Postal Service is losing money and may have to consolidate 413 of its 37,000 locations due to a record $6 billion loss this year. Here's his link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ed19e84a-9c12-11de-b214-00144feabdc0.html?catid=71&SID=google

Nevermind the fact that the article clearly states that package delivery is down for EVERYONE due to cheaper and easier technologies such as e-mail, et al.

So, after about 10 seconds of research consisting of nothing more than a Google search, I find out the following. UPS is losing money and laying off workers and closing down retail locations. http://www.statesman.com/biz/content/shared/money/stories/coxnews/2006/UPS_1018_COX.html

And so is Fedex, posting an $876 million loss in the 4th quarter this year.
http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/other/2009/06/18/0618bizbriefs.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=3

And I wrapped it all up in a nice little bow with the following statement: "Gee, it almost seems like the delivery business is down for EVERYONE, despite the fact that private sector charges about 10 times more to do it 10 times more slowly."

Two questions: 1) Why is it SO darn easy to shoot down these wild, half-informed claims made by the right-wing whack jobs? 2) How do you think this guy is going to respond, so I can have a snappy comeback prepared? I assume you people have had much more extensive arguments with fools like this before. Is there a chestnut they ALWAYS use when backed into a corner like this?

and then pull one little teeny weeny throw away line you added and jump all over it asking you to 'prove it' and calling you an ass for believing it

pwn them in every direction.

These people do not arrive at their opinions through thinking critically about the facts. They get where they are by listening to their inner fears and bigotries. You won't change that with your facts. After all, as Stephen Colbert says, the facts are biased.

But now I've got the "She chopped tha broccoli ... She chopped tha broccoliiiiii ..." stuck in my head.

:hi:

My whole family is there and they hate President Obama. I just let their comments go unanswered and use it mainly to keep up with birthdays and anniversaries and other mundane happenings. Nothing is worse than trying to argue with several people at the same time with no back-up.

though most of my friends are fellow liberals. I just don't think it's the forum for political dissension. It annoys me when my friends become all political on facebook... Why post something that could offend family and friends. But, I'm admittedly there for the pictures of the kids and to play online Scrabble!

Probably because there's no way to make money doing it!

Ever wonder why there aren't any private companies that do day-to-day mail delivery? Because there's no money in it.

Be prepared for the stupidity to be hurled at you.

I guess I'm a little more lucky in terms of who I have on FB. Then again, I'm more selective who I allow as my friends.

I don't even know the guy. And I try like hell not to stir up what is usually a very pleasant atmosphere over there on Facebook. But the way I see it, this guy started it. HE could have ignored it in the interest of keeping the peace too, but right-wingers are so certain they're right that they'll NEVER let anything go by without challenging it. And the way I see it, allowing a lie to go unrefuted (especially when it's so darn easy to shoot down) is tantamount to a silent acknowledgment of its truth. Plus, maybe someone (obviously not him, but someone) will see the post and get the logic of it, and we'll get someone who was previously on the fence to come over to the light. That's how you achieve change--one person at a time.

Here's the update. I got a response from the guy. Here it is:

"Sure, the poor economy affects everyone. No argument there. The USPS had a record loss of SIX BILLION DOLLARS this year. (Kind of a big number, don't you think?) If that was a private sector business, they would have been OUT of business long ago. You see, private companies actually have to make a PROFIT to survive. Not so with the federal government. If the feds ever go over budget, they just forcibly take more from you & I, the taxpayers -- or they just print it. Problem solved. Yeah, you're right -- the government option is a much better way to go...."


And here's how I responded to him:

"Check your math. Fedex lost $876 million in a single quarter. Multiply that number times four to find out how much they will have lost in a year. Now imagine they only charged 44 cents to make a delivery. Still think they're run better and more efficiently?"

Here's his response to me:

"The fact remains -- FedEx doesn't have the power to reach into your pocket year after year to (dare I say) BAIL THEM OUT. The federal government loves to prop up failure. Do the words "too big to fail" ring a bell? In the end (which is never really the end) who's left holding the bill? Taxpayers. I don't know about you, but I'd rather see a company fail in the private sector than a failing federal agency, etc. Why? Because when the private company fails, it must (get this) IMPROVE to survive. Oh -- and we are not being forced to prop them up with higher taxes. The failing federal program (forgive the redundancy) will just continue to fail & the gov't will continue to pump more & more money into the failing system. But, you're right, we're only paying 44 cents for a stamp. That MUST mean the gov't option is more efficient."


For those of you out there who are veteran right-winger battlers, any help on how I can counter this? It seems to me that he just shot down his own argument, but the logic is so convoluted that I'm having trouble concocting a response. Or maybe I should just let the stupidity speak for itself. I don't want this guy thinking he silenced me with a superior argument, though.

it was very important to have a way for our huge country to communicate. Nixon restructured the post office, but the need remains.

here's a link with some interesting history

http://www.ceol.com/vvpo/history.html#COLONIAL

nt

I read a little bit about it on Wikipedia, so I do understand that it's not considered a Government Agency, but are you saying it's self-sufficient, in that it is funded solely by the revenues it takes in from stamp sales, delivery fees, etc.?

They are the only quasi-independent federal agency. Meaning, they hold the status of a federal agency--for the purposes of maintaining mail delivery for the masses at one rate but not because they operate using tax dollars.

However, they also compete with all other delivery services in the for-profit premium service categories like overnight mail delivery. They also partner with companies like FedEx and UPS and deliver mail for them, too.

Did you know that the Postal Service was charged, under Boosh, with funding the Iraq war and that if you bought postage stamps under Bush you were helping fund the war effort? Of course you didn't because the LIBRUL (lapdog) MEDIA didn't tell you :sarcasm: but it's true. Bush placed an unheard of mandate on the Postal Service to set aside billions of retirement fund dollars and then Bush took that money and funneled it elsewhere.

Recently, the Postmaster General was able to get Capitol Hill to reduce the amount of money that was required under Bush.

Some of the financial problems that you are hearing about with the Postal Service--including 5-day delivery--stem from leftover damage of the Bush administration.

:fistbump:

keep fighting the good fight - I love hear stories like this :D

i think they just go away to snark at the next opportunity. to be honest though i don't engage as a rule.

With your help, I was able to find an article (written by a US Postmaster) that shows exactly what a prior poster said (that the US Postal Service isn't funded by tax dollars). So, armed with that new knowledge, I posted this response:

"That would be a valid argument, if only it were true. The US Postal Service is not funded by tax dollars. They rely solely on the sale of postal products and services in order to fund their operations. The Supreme Court has ruled that the USPS is not even a Government Agency. So the amount of tax dollars the USPS is reaching into your pocket and taking, this year or any other, is ZERO."

The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies, and for keeping some rural posts offices in operation.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm

That doesn't cover much of anything. All the rest is paid for by raising stamp prices and other fees. However, unlike a business, the USPS doesn't have to pay federal income taxes, can borrow money cheaply, and can take property via eminent domain.

"And all this despite being the second-largest employer of Americans in the nation (second only to Wal-Mart). You want to see the USPS (which you don't pay a dime in taxes to support) be "allowed to fail," adding close to a million people to the unemployment rolls, and filing for unemployment compensation (which you DO pay taxes to support). And who would pick up the slack when you need to send Grandma a birthday card or pay your electric bill? UPS, who will charge 3 bucks to deliver something that the USPS would have delivered for 44 cents? Interesting accounting. Did you work for Enron?"

sorry; when people want to be unreasonable, they really are.

will simply repeat the lies over and over until they stick. Karl Rove perfected this "art" form. And often, they get help from some right-wing "think" tank who will come up with some three-word phrase they can use, such as, "cut and run", "tax and spend", etc. Any moron can pick up an oft-repeated three-word phrase and run with it. I haven't heard one relating to the USPS yet, but I'm sure someone out there is working on it.

As you pointed out FedEx and UPS are also hurting, but what is far less known is that is in spite of hefty subsidies directly from the USPS which is required by Congress to lease their equipment (at outrageously inflated rates) rather than buying it for its own use. Further, the USPS packages are second priority to the carriers own, giving these carriers the ability to sabotage delivery of U.S. mail and all this was done to prop up the "private sector" businesses so they would not have to compete with the greatest mail system in the world.

Every dollar of profit given to UPS and FedEx comes as a result of the subsidy from the USPS. Neither of these companies could exist without those subsidies and those employed by them would work for the USPS at higher wages with better benefits.

Just another of the gargantuan corporate welfare programs we fund in order to make rich people richer.

After doing a little research on a previous poster's suggestion that the USPS actually subsidizes private sector companies like UPS and Fedex, I found an OpEd written by an Oregon Postmaster. Here's an excerpt from that piece:


"Compared to private sector companies like UPS and FedEx, postal wages are not excessive. In fact, those companies don't have our mandate to deliver to every address in America six days a week. On any given day, UPS and FedEx back up to our docks to drop off parcels for letter carriers to deliver. Why? Because It's cheaper for the Postal Service to deliver those parcels.

In response to the Postal Service's financial crisis, postal unions have already conceded to paying higher health insurance premiums. Fixing America's broken health care system would significantly benefit the Postal Service's bottom line.

Though it looks like an easy fix, simply cutting employee wages and benefits will not solve the Postal Service's financial predicament. The Bush administration required the Postal Service to pre-fund future retiree health-care obligations on an accelerated schedule, which is costing the Postal Service extra billions every year. Had the Postal Service not had this requirement, it would have had a $2 billion profit last year instead of a $2 billion deficit. No other federal agency does so and I doubt many companies reeling from this recession do either.

Additionally, the Bush legislation saddles postal ratepayers with retirement obligations for postal employees' prior military service. In effect, the stamp you buy subsidizes the U.S. military."

does plenty of things very well. Medicare is an example. Mr Pip applied for Medicare over the phone. It took just a few minutes. He'll get his card in a few weeks. Try getting private insurance that easily.

Most businesses, both public and private have their problems. I doubt anyone can name one private institution that runs smoothly, without glitches. It doesn't happen. Same is true for the public sector. Sure the USPS has some problems, as do UPS and Fed Ex. Nothing will ever be perfect. But for health insurance the private sector has let the public down in a big way. There is a reason 44,000 people die every year because they don't have health insurance. They can't get it or can't afford it. It's a problem and the private sector has not addressed it because it might cut into their bottom line.

I guess what I don't understand is why so many people feel the need to defend companies that would throw them under the bus if they got sick or lost their jobs and couldn't pay. Other than taking their money, what do health insurance companies do anyway?