Mr_Jet, on 14 August 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:
You just don't know how to read. That's all it is. Not only do I know how to use a dictionary, I also know how to use an apostrophe.
I don't care what you think you know, but you are not more financially literate than Elizabeth Warren or Paul Krugman. Both of them are liberals.
If you read what I wrote I said there are exceptions. I would also assume their opinion is not that they disagree with how money works but they feel human rights out weigh money. I assume they feel the consequenses of what they want are worth the loss.
The USPS was making profits before that 2006 law.
1)They probably were. But why
is the question. They were using current income to pay for current retirees. There is a huge problem with this. They will have more retirees than workers very soon if not already.They will not be able to pay for all these retirees. They are being forced to secure funds now so the current workers will get their pensions. This is pretty simple.
2) They were doing more business. This decline is why they are in trouble. Less net money coming in yet they still have all these retirees to pay.
I am sure we can go on and on but these are pretty much factual.
They've OVERfunded their retirement programs. And there are bills in congress that would enable the USPS to make new revenue.
By what number? this is what I have been trying to say. What figures are they using? Again ?+?= 56Billion. How can you say thay without knowing the ?? Pensions, 401Ks, ESOPS and just about all finacially sound retirement devices are funded live. Not post work. Social Security is one of the few retirement funds that can be completed this way. We can be pretty sure more people will be in the US than there are now.
I also know how to use the space bar.
Its my Ipad. It sucks. If I try to edit anything it types over what is there instead of pushing it forward. Should have bought the Galaxy pad.
Anyway I think most people are compassionate. Some conservatives have compassion during tragedies and natural disasters. But that compassion doesn't often enough lead to bold action and personal sacrifice. Conservatives for the most part are just self-centered and focus more now on closing doors behind them to make it more difficult for others to walk through them.
I sure there are some people like that but I would say that is the minority. Most conservatives are after protecting what they have earned. I guess you could say self centered but really it is more self responsible or maybe self reliant. They dont believe in asking for help.
You have shown you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this topic. From the Postmaster General's own statement at the end of the USPS last fiscal year:
"Postal Service retirees and employees will also continue to receive their health benefits. The health care for current retirees is paid from the Postal Service’s general operating budget and is not affected by the Postal Service’s inability to make the accelerated payments mandated by Congress as part of a 2006 law."
I am not sure why you keep talking about health care. I am talking about the funding of pensions. Do you know the difference?
The Federal Employee Retirement System has a surplus and the USPS has said because of that surplus CURRENT retirees are not effected. Current USPS retirees are getting their benefits that they've earned. Some people are trying to free the USPS to create new revenue. The only road block is the Republican controlled House of Representatives. But nobody wants to talk about that, especially not conservatives. Because that might mean the USPS would make profits again and then that would hurt the conservative's talking points about the big bad federal government.
Your not understanding what I am saying. You cant seem to grasp this and its clear I cant explain it to you.
CURRENT retirees are not effected
Do you not understand the funds they are recieving are not the same dollars they paid in. The dollars they paid in went to people who are dead. think timeline here.
Forget the USPS and lets talk just simple business
lets say you have 100 people recieving retirement funds in 1950 with 200 people working. 1/2 is what we will use for our retirement to worker ratio to be in the black. This would work because you have enough people working. Now lets say there are 400 people working in 1970 and 150 retirees. you are still at a good ratio of 37.5% and business is growing so you are fine. What happens when this company declines and cuts staff? Now in 1990 you have 250 people working but you still have to pay those 300 peoples retirements. Now instead of being at a 50% ratio you are at %120 ratio (in the red). Since this company did not prefund, these 300 retirees that worked for others will have either reduced or no retiement income or the 250 current workers will have reduced income and benefits. Possibly all the above.
My question to you is.... How is this company going to pay the 300 workers with no income.
Lets say a business has a budget of (keeping is simple)
10% new capital
25% loans/ debts
Where do you take the money from? We cant take it from labor, capital or debts. The only place is profit. One huge problem. the comapany is sinking. In 1970 they had a 166% surplus according to how they calculate.
So right now the USPS may be able to claim they are overfunded but with the decline of the USPS gross income (reguardless of the government mandate) they need to be ahead by the current retiress and employees to be finacially sound. This is where the problem is.