Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (14595)	4/4/2012 1:07:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

My premise is a simple matter of math. The Post Office is losing more than these payments, so whether or not these payments are reasonable they aren't the source of its losses. Its a losing operation even without them. Also can you name other, still operating companies that have never gone through a bankruptcy that have the feds pay out their benefits for them? Do most other companies have a federally granted monopoly of indefinite length? If the feds are going to have to pay the benefits its reasonable for them to get the post office to cover them, esp. since the post office has a declining revenue base and won't be able to cover the payments later (larger payments in the future with lower revenue), since its already losing money (even without these payments), and since it benefits from a federally granted monopoly. Obviously we disagree on the reasonableness of the payments, but even if we agreed they where unreasonable and somehow got them eliminated the post office would still be hemorrhaging cash.