world

Trump: U.S. Postal Service must charge Amazon more, or no loan

19 Comments
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER and DARLENE SUPERVILLE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

Very good . An Alfa male decision. Do not allow our postal system be a free hand for Amazon. American tax money should not be fed to the mouth of the richest man on the world. Let him pay for the service . May be liberals and democrats do not like the decision of Trump. Lets see..

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The U.S. Postal Service has been losing money for decades. Amazon-type companies can certainly afford to pay more than they have been paying. The U.S. Postal Service has a huge, growing, pension that it needs to fund. No U.S. taxes fund the U.S. Postal Service, but the U.S. Postal Service does borrow money from the U.S. government in order to meet expenses. Or, the Amazon-type companies can hire trucks, and drivers, to perform all of the duties currently performed by the U.S. Postal Service.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The U.S. Postal Service has been losing money for decades.

Incorrect.

The postal service was the only revenue generating agency in the federal government until republicans passed a law in 2006 requiring the postal service to perfumed 75 years of retirement. Let’s keep the false information for after 8:30, okay?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I thought Amazon does their own deliveries? Are they talking about regular people who sell their items on Amazon but not the company itself?

And does the post office lose money on every package or is the problem the pensions and other costs?

Either way, the buyer pays the shipping, which means higher costs for consumers.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/apr/02/donald-trump/trump-usps-postal-service-amazon-losing-fortune/

Amazon isn’t causing the United States Postal Service to lose a fortune. In fact, it’s contributing to its biggest growth sector, package delivery. Deals like the one with Amazon brought in $7 billion in fiscal year 2017.

While we don’t know the deal USPS crafted with Amazon, we know it’s not losing money. A 2006 law codified profitability into law, and an independent regulatory commission that reviews their deals annually gave it a green light on March 29

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Chip Star - The postal service was the only revenue generating agency in the federal government until republicans passed a law in 2006 requiring the postal service to perfumed 75 years of retirement.

How do those 75 years of retirement smell now?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Yes. Let's punish Jeff Bezos because he's more successful in his business than Trump is. And let's screw all Americans in the process. Once again, Trump is in this for Trump, and no one else.

I'll run through a raging wildfire during an earthquake in the middle of a 2nd wave of COVID-19 to vote Trump out of office.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The postal service was the only revenue generating agency in the federal government until republicans passed a law in 2006 requiring the postal service to perfumed 75 years of retirement

Incorrect

Let’s keep the false information for after 8:30, okay?

I’ll say

The word “unfunded obligations” must have zero meaning for you.

Our one party system has rigged the USPS to do the bidding of their corporate sponsors. How is it that a company in China can ship a coffee cup for a dollar, but an American company must pay the full price, 14 dollars to ship a coffee cup to his next door neighbor?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hey, all you Repub conservative free market traders - all of you that cried that government has no business in the free market, that less government is better government, that the markets will always decide the best price....

Your President now wants to set price controls. Have the government determine prices. To heck with the free market...

Sound a little socialist to you?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Um, Fizzbit, the US postal service was indeed generating a profit, and the retirement fund was well funded, following the standard formula.

It was artificially forced into a 'financial crisis' by the Republican party (who were morally offended by a government agency that was able to generate significant profits with a fully unionized workforce that outperformed the private sector, which had a mostly ununionized workforce) passing a law that required the postal service to meet standards nobody else has been required to meet, immediately, without a chance to restructure the funding for the retirement plan.

But hey, what does that matter, the heresy of an 'inefficient' unionized public sector outperforming an 'efficient' ununionized private sector was erased.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Just a continuation of Trump's feud with Bezos. This is a slippery slope: if one bulk retailer can be charged more, can't they all? What about the NRA?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Amazon is big enough now to either operate it's own delivery service or partner with the existing private networks. Government run "Postal" services have had their day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pricing set by governments sounds socialist, comrade. If the government quadruples the post office’s price for Amazon, the post office business will stop. If Amazon is forced to accept that price, consumers will suffer, and a socialist state is confirmed. Enough of this, if we’re becoming socialist, I’d better go hone my tractor-driving skills.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

RichardPearce - the US postal service was indeed generating a profit, and the retirement fund was well funded, following the standard formula.

Every time the U.S. Postal Service raised the price of service, it was because they were running out of money.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Farmboy - Pricing set by governments sounds socialist, comrade.

The U.S. government has contracts with many companies. Something to do with living in a capitalistic society.

Definition of Socialism

So´cial'ism

*n.1. **A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. *

http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/socialism

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Every time the U.S. Postal Service raised the price of service, it was because they were running out of money.

Something to do with living in a capitalistic society.

This also doesn’t change the fact that the post office was a profit making enterprise until republicans had their way with it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Chip Star - This also doesn’t change the fact that the post office was a profit making enterprise until republicans had their way with it.

Except when they weren't.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

arrestpaulApr. 26  06:53 am JST

Farmboy - Pricing set by governments sounds socialist, comrade.

The U.S. government has contracts with many companies. Something to do with living in a capitalistic society.

Definition of Socialism

And they don't get to dictate what companies are to charge the post office for contracts that have already been made unless they are socialist.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Except when they weren't.

Which was after Republicans passed legislation in 2006

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites