Post removed

[hlthe2b]

1. I find this attitude abysmal.By this argument, rural areas/ inner cities would not have electricity

nor water. Perhaps you've never read about how electricity (rural electric utilities) were created under FDR--not to mention the efforts to bring telephone to these underserved communities.

Do you also think only the very wealthy should be able to drive on our highways?

[democrattotheend]

6. Sorry, but after the way red state Republicans dismissed coronavirus as a "New York problem"

And to this day refuse to provide aid our state and cities desperately need, it's hard not to be pissed off about all the ways we subsidize the red state voters who supposedly believe in small government. More importantly, though, I think fewer people would vote Republican if they actually had to feel the consequences of the policies Republicans advocate for.

[hlthe2b]

9. Please tell me that you are very young and have read no history.

[democrattotheend]

14. I'm not that young

And I've read plenty of history. Enough to be sick to death of red states bleeding us dry while blaming us for all of the nation's problems and turning their back when we desperately need help.

[hlthe2b]

15. You clearly have not. Tell me how did the entire country get an interstate highway system, water

supplies, electricity, phone service? You clearly have no clue.

[democrattotheend]

17. Public works programs

Which I support, but I'm also cognizant of the fact that those programs mostly benefited rural areas where it was not profitable to build the infrastructure. Cities mostly had electricity before the WPA. I support public works programs and I agree that certain things should be public services rather than strictly profit-driven, but I am fed up with Republicans who run on "small government" platforms and complain that they don't want taxpayer dollars spent on "blue state bailouts" while they continue to take blue state tax dollars to keep their state economies and infrastructure afloat.

[hlthe2b]

18. And THAT is why we support the US POSTAL SERVICE. You contracit your own comment earlier.

[democrattotheend]

25. As you can hopefully discern from my edited OP

The post was mostly sarcastic. I don't actually think we should privatize the post office. I just find it ironic that the same Republicans who want to do so are the ones whose constituents would likely pay the highest price for it. Just like they reject the idea of the railroad as a public service and complain about "bailing out Amtrak", yet intervene to prevent Amtrak from cutting unprofitable routes in mostly red areas. Amtrak is profitable in the Northeast, but we pay higher fares than we should to subsidize all the "unprofitable" routes in the rest of the country. I'm sick of them having it both ways - wanting government services to be run like a business unless it hurts their states/areas, in which case they have no problem sucking on the blue state teat to subsidize them.

[hlthe2b]

12. You REALLY SHOULD be sorry.

Republicans talk this way, not Democrats/Liberals/Progressives.

[democrattotheend]

22. At a certain point, it's hard not to feel the same way

When our transit system that the city is so dependent on is facing ruin and vital state and city services are being cut and our pleas for help are dismissed as "blue state bailouts", it's hard not to feel resentful of all the ways that blue staters subsidize the same red staters who claim to be for small government.

[hlthe2b]

23. So you want to punish those in red areas--just because of where they live

And perhaps because they have failed to prosper under regressive political leaders? So we should refuse food and support to those who live among
Republicans whether they are or not? You are regurgitating the same stances Trump is only in reverse. Are you really suggesting we seek to hurt others so you can best prosper.

[democrattotheend]

26. No, I'm not

I edited my OP to clarify that I don't actually think we should privatize the Postal Service. But I do think we should point out that Republican voters stand to lose the most from the policies their leaders advocate. Amtrak is another example - I believe that railroad should be a public service, not a profit-maker. But Republicans constantly push back on "bailing out Amtrak", while at the same time forcing Amtrak to operate non-profitable routes to their home states. I'm sick of them having it both ways - either they want these entities to be a public service (as they should be), or if they want them to be a business, they ought to let them run like a business - even if that means their constituents get the short end of the stick (the likely outcome of this being that their constituents stop electing Republicans). The uniform rates across geographic areas is one of many examples of how the USPS is not actually allowed to operate like a business. The 75-year pre-funded pension scheme is another requirement that Republicans imposed, despite the fact that no private business has similar requirements.

[hlthe2b]

28. We subsidize all the time. AmTrak is an excellent example. So, you want money for Amtrak but nothing

to ensure rural and inner-city areas get their mail, their ballots to vote, to have electricity, poor children have access to the internet and education?

Equality means sharing burdens. Not just for your Amtrak system but for rural people in your blue state, poor children in your blue inner cities, poor elderly throughout the country. Nowhere more than in infrastructure is it necessarry we all share the costs, no matter where the project is located.

You can't just pick one "deserving" winner and let the rest be left to fend for themselvess. Again, that is what Republicans try to do.

[democrattotheend]

32. Inner city areas would still get mail

It's the rural areas that cost USPS a lot.

I agree 100% about burden sharing, public services, etc. But Republicans don't, yet they benefit the most from many government programs.

I don't actually want to see USPS privatized, but part of me says that if Republicans got their way on things like that, their constituents would be forced to see that policies advocated by Republicans screw them over, and maybe they'd stop voting for Republicans.

[hlthe2b]

34. It goes in cycles. California would not be what it is, nor NYC without tremendous help from

throughout the US when they were creating their cities and infrastructure. Frankly, the entire West would not be what it is without the transcontinental railway that started the industrialization and growth of cities throughout the country. That railroad could NEVER have been built without tax dollars as was the interstate highway system in the 50s, yet it didn't even include spur lines in many regions of the country.

I'm going to leave it there and just BEG you to read some history. I honestly think you really would think quite differently if you understood how these issues developed. But, I'd also encourage you to think about those you would deprive and how that would diminish or destroy our entire way of being and in fact what we have stood for more than two hundred years.

[stopbush]

2. Thank you for outlining the reasons against privatizing the USPS.

[Sherman A1]

3. No

Absolutely No.

[doc03]

4. Won't privatizing the USPS put a lot of people out of work, reduce service, cut wages and

what about the postal workers pensions?

[fescuerescue]

16. their pensions are probably the most secure pensions of any pensions

But yes it would devastate that workforce.

[drray23]

5. what part of service dont you understand ,?

the usps is a service, not a business. Its mandated by the constitution.
Do you also lament that the pentagon is not making money ?

[democrattotheend]

10. I agree that it is a service, not a business

But I find it ironic that those who want it to be run more like a business represent districts that would be hurt the most if it were.

[Demsrule86]

31. Who cares what they think...it is a very bad idea...and Trump is going to figure out

it is not a popular idea.

[airmid]

7. My small crafting business would be completely destroyed. It is suffering now

with longer waits for packaging and supply. How dare I live rurally I guess.

[Freethinker65]

8. That is not how they privatize.

They will sell off the most profitable portions for less than what they are worth and the US taxpayer will be responsible for funding only the unprofitable parts left. Pensions will be raided to pay off the ever increasing deficits from now having no profitable publicly owned USPS services left.

[doc03]

21. Trump would put Wilber Ross in charge of privatizing he has vast experiance in

screwing over the workers in other industries.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

11. hell no

[unblock]

13. No. It's in the constitution, and it's something that links all of us together.

Really, the only people who want the post office to go away are the executives and owners of fedex and ups.

The whole rest of the country likes it, or doesn't mind it. It takes no tax money and it's cheap and easy to use.

Republicans are only complaining because they want fedex and ups campaign dollars.

[SheltieLover]

19. This!👆

Ty, Unblock. Well said. 👍

[crickets]

24. Thank you. nt

[JHB]

20. I have to recommend that you take that part of yourself and gently but firmly...

...club it to death, chainsaw its remains into pieces, bury those pieces in jars of Holy Water at widely separated sites, then nuke the sites from orbit because it's the only way to be sure.

Seriously, we already have one party devoted to destroying everything knitting this country together, and leering over it out of sheer spite. They're called Republicans.

Get a grip.

[Hekate]

27. NO!

[Demsrule86]

29. Absolutely not...and the post office is constitutionally mandate...they are not like other

businesses.

[stillcool]

30. I think we're heading to a place...

where the states won't have the 'united' part in front of them anymore. The red states really hate the blue states, and the blue states hate who the red states vote for. Nothing "united" about any of it.

[democrattotheend]

33. Sadly, I agree

As much as I want to still believe in what President Obama said about how "there is not a red America and a blue America, there is the United States of America", it really doesn't feel that way anymore. Not when we have a president who openly admits that he only cares about people and states that voted for him, and our pleas for help are dismissed as "blue state bailouts" despite the fact that blue state taxpayers have been subsidizing the red states for years.