CARBUCKLE@UMKCVAX1.BITNET (Valentine M. Smith) (02/09/90)
Yesterday, I heard the cost of a stamp would rise to .30 by February of next year. Do we have to pay for the PostalmServices inefficiencies and wastes? Do you think the increase is too high?
JWALES3@UA1VM.BITNET (Jimbo) (02/09/90)
On Thu, 8 Feb 90 15:41:00 CST Valentine M. Smith said: >Yesterday, I heard the cost of a stamp would rise to .30 by February of next >year. Do we have to pay for the PostalmServices inefficiencies and wastes? Do >you think the increase is too high? Sell the post office! Allow competition! Sell Nasa! Sell Nevada! Whew. Sorry... I just got carried away... --Jimbo
PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET (Tim Johnson) (02/09/90)
From: "Valentine M. Smith" <CARBUCKLE@UMKCVAX1.BITNET> >Yesterday, I heard the cost of a stamp would rise to .30 by February of next >year. Do we have to pay for the PostalmServices inefficiencies and wastes? Do >you think the increase is too high? Offer one of your colleagues 30 cents to take a letter across the city, see how far you get. Offer him 30 cents to take it to California - see what it gets ya. 25 cents, 30 cents...it's still a bargain. -Tim
BEN@SPCVXA.BITNET (Ben Cohen) (02/09/90)
>>Yesterday, I heard the cost of a stamp would rise to .30 by February of next >>year. Do we have to pay for the PostalmServices inefficiencies and wastes? Do >>you think the increase is too high? > Offer one of your colleagues 30 cents to take a letter across >the city, see how far you get. Offer him 30 cents to take it to >California - see what it gets ya. 25 cents, 30 cents...it's still >a bargain. Sorry for the full quote, but this needs some context. According to the NY Times yesterday, the 5 ct. increase is more to subsidize the federal deficit than to pay for better service. [The following is done from memory, so the gist will be right, but the facts might be slightly off :-)] Originally, the Postal Service was part of the federal budgeting system. Back then, it was operating at a loss and needed to be part of the fed. budget to cover operating expenses. Then it started breaking-even and was separated from the budget and had to cover its own expenses, etc. _Then_, to everyone's amazement, the Postal Service started becoming a profitable organization. Shortly thereafter it was reintegrated into the federal budget so that the excess could be applied to the deficit. Personally, this smells a lot like the Social Security issue. We're making the deficit seem smaller than it really is by some creative accounting which is using up surplusage that should be saved or applied elsewhere. Ben Cohen Bitnet: Ben@SPCVXA Saint Peter's College Internet: Ben@spcvxa.spc.edu Jersey City, NJ USA ICBMnet: 40 42 57 N/74 03 54 W ATTnet: 1-201-451-5959
KWILCOX@AUVM.BITNET (ken wilcox) (02/10/90)
On Thu, 8 Feb 90 15:41:00 CST Valentine M. Smith said: >Yesterday, I heard the cost of a stamp would rise to .30 by February of next >year. Do we have to pay for the Postal Services inefficiencies and wastes? Do >you think the increase is too high? Only 5: eh? well to get service across country for 30: and door-to-door delivery. It seems cheap to me. When I was In Britian it cost me twice as much to send a letter back here than it was to send one to Britian. We have it on the cheap. Be thankful! Ken wilcox
ACS_POLLOCK@UWRF.BITNET (02/11/90)
re: the NYTimes article and the stamp surplus covering the debt
Don't it just figure? If this is a *real* story (one that isn't hushed
up???) i would like to retract my previous statements about not minding
paying thirty cents. Thinking in terms of quantities and economies
of scale, how much would it cost to ship a one ounce letter (vs the
25 cents we are now charged) and why do we have to pay the same charge
for intracity as intercity delivery??? (That is something the heavyduty
mailer types should be *very* upset about, Larry)
Nah, i changed my mind again, i want to retract the thirty cent is okay
for a stamp regardless of the story getting squashed or not ;-)
-rob-
go go moynie rah rah stop the tax increases!!! "No new taxes" = more of
the same old
ones, eh???