Just for you Ray F

http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel...ubsidized.html

Read this and then tell us the post office is not subsidized one way or the
other.

"Draco" wrote in message
...
On Oct 3, 10:55 pm, "mikey4" wrote:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel...ffice-is-subsi...

Read this and then tell us the post office is not subsidized one way or
the
other.

Getting rid of the subsidies will only do one thing, raise the price
of mail three or four times the current cost. Do you want to send a
letter to your friend across town for a dollar? or five? No where else
in the world does the price of a first class letter cost under 50
cents and go as far.

There is no doubt that for the "good" of the country some enties need to be
subsidized however that was not the orignal argument.

The post office does that and still looses money. LOL

"Draco" wrote in message
...
On Oct 3, 10:55 pm, "mikey4" wrote:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel...ffice-is-subsi...

Read this and then tell us the post office is not subsidized one way or
the
other.

Getting rid of the subsidies will only do one thing, raise the price
of mail three or four times the current cost. Do you want to send a
letter to your friend across town for a dollar? or five? No where else
in the world does the price of a first class letter cost under 50
cents and go as far. The post office does that and still looses money.

As near as I can tell, the only reason the USPS still exists is because
there are a group of people (over 70 years old) who do not own computers,
and these poor souls still have to send letters by first class mail. But
these are fast disappearing, and in another ten years of so, 95% or more of
the population will own and use computers, and send all of their
correspondence with them. In my opinion, the sooner the USPS leaves the
scene the better, since they are the ones responsible for cutting down the
rain forests in order to create junk mail, and this is killing the planet,
as well as choking my garbage trucks with paper.

"Draco" wrote in message
...
On Oct 3, 10:55 pm, "mikey4" wrote:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel...ffice-is-subsi...

Read this and then tell us the post office is not subsidized one way or
the
other.

Getting rid of the subsidies will only do one thing, raise the price
of mail three or four times the current cost. Do you want to send a
letter to your friend across town for a dollar? or five? No where else
in the world does the price of a first class letter cost under 50
cents and go as far. The post office does that and still looses money.

Actually here in Australia it is AUD$0.55, that is around USD$0.45.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Draco" wrote in message
...
On Oct 3, 10:55 pm, "mikey4" wrote:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel...ffice-is-subsi...

Read this and then tell us the post office is not subsidized one way or
the
other.

Getting rid of the subsidies will only do one thing, raise the price
of mail three or four times the current cost. Do you want to send a
letter to your friend across town for a dollar? or five? No where else
in the world does the price of a first class letter cost under 50
cents and go as far. The post office does that and still looses money.

As near as I can tell, the only reason the USPS still exists is because
there are a group of people (over 70 years old) who do not own computers,
and these poor souls still have to send letters by first class mail. But
these are fast disappearing, and in another ten years of so, 95% or more
of the population will own and use computers, and send all of their
correspondence with them. In my opinion, the sooner the USPS leaves the
scene the better, since they are the ones responsible for cutting down the
rain forests in order to create junk mail, and this is killing the planet,
as well as choking my garbage trucks with paper.

That is sad that you have no recycling in your area, here we certainly get
far to much junk paper but it at least all gets recycled, in fact our
recycling bin is twice the size of our normal bin..

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Draco" wrote in message
...
On Oct 3, 10:55 pm, "mikey4" wrote:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel...ffice-is-subsi...

Read this and then tell us the post office is not subsidized one way or
the
other.

Getting rid of the subsidies will only do one thing, raise the price
of mail three or four times the current cost. Do you want to send a
letter to your friend across town for a dollar? or five? No where else
in the world does the price of a first class letter cost under 50
cents and go as far. The post office does that and still looses money.

As near as I can tell, the only reason the USPS still exists is because
there are a group of people (over 70 years old) who do not own computers,
and these poor souls still have to send letters by first class mail. But
these are fast disappearing, and in another ten years of so, 95% or more
of the population will own and use computers, and send all of their
correspondence with them. In my opinion, the sooner the USPS leaves the
scene the better, since they are the ones responsible for cutting down
the rain forests in order to create junk mail, and this is killing the
planet, as well as choking my garbage trucks with paper.

That is sad that you have no recycling in your area, here we certainly get
far to much junk paper but it at least all gets recycled, in fact our
recycling bin is twice the size of our normal bin..

I do have recycling in my area, and I had it in California before I retired,
too. But I know that it doesn't exist in many other areas of this country,
and even here, it doesn't do a very good job of recycling paper products.
They are still cutting down the rain forests big time, and it is damaging to
both the wildlife there, and the earth's ability to control its climate.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 21:31:31 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote:
: As near as I can tell, the only reason the USPS still exists is because
: there are a group of people (over 70 years old) who do not own computers,
: and these poor souls still have to send letters by first class mail. But
: these are fast disappearing, and in another ten years of so, 95% or more
: of the population will own and use computers, and send all of their
: correspondence with them. In my opinion, the sooner the USPS leaves the
: scene the better, since they are the ones responsible for cutting down the
: rain forests in order to create junk mail, and this is killing the planet,
: as well as choking my garbage trucks with paper.

Your sneering putdown of people over 70 is offensive. I'll be 72 next week,
and it's very likely that I know more about computers than you.

I'm drowning in junk mail too, and I dislike it as much as you do. But most
paper is made from trees grown as a crop, like corn or pumpkins, not from rain
forests. My guess is that you knew that, but ignored that inconvenient truth
because it didn't support your screed.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 21:31:31 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote:
: As near as I can tell, the only reason the USPS still exists is because
: there are a group of people (over 70 years old) who do not own
computers,
: and these poor souls still have to send letters by first class mail. But
: these are fast disappearing, and in another ten years of so, 95% or more
: of the population will own and use computers, and send all of their
: correspondence with them. In my opinion, the sooner the USPS leaves the
: scene the better, since they are the ones responsible for cutting down
the
: rain forests in order to create junk mail, and this is killing the
planet,
: as well as choking my garbage trucks with paper.

Your sneering putdown of people over 70 is offensive. I'll be 72 next
week,
and it's very likely that I know more about computers than you.

I'm drowning in junk mail too, and I dislike it as much as you do. But
most
paper is made from trees grown as a crop, like corn or pumpkins, not from
rain
forests. My guess is that you knew that, but ignored that inconvenient
truth
because it didn't support your screed.

Bob

I am 74. I speak of the average non-computer user.....I am a senior citizen,
and I play in a band that plays dance music for two different senior citizen
clubs in my area. About half the seniors in my band do not own
computers......Everyone I know who is under 60 years old does own and
regularly operate a home computer.

I don't know where most of the junk mail paper comes from.....Pumpkins? LOL!
Perhaps you are correct! But I do know that they are cutting down the rain
forests big time in places like Africa and South America. I have seen
statistics that tell me about the thousands of acres a day that are
disappearing. If they aren't using the wood for paper, then they are using
it for fuel, or guitars, or furniture, but whatever they are using it for,
once gone, it can no longer convert carbon dioxide gas back into carbon
(plant life) and oxygen to the air. Photosynthesis only works in living
plant life. It doesn't really matter to the earth whether the photosynthesis
is being carried out by pumpkins or rain forest, as long as it's taking
place. Whenever a plant dies, that is a little less photosynthesis that will
happen. We had better start keeping track of the earth's ability to convert
greenhouse gases back into carbon and oxygen, or we will be in big trouble
very soon.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 21:31:31 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:
: As near as I can tell, the only reason the USPS still exists is because
: there are a group of people (over 70 years old) who do not own
computers,
: and these poor souls still have to send letters by first class mail.
But
: these are fast disappearing, and in another ten years of so, 95% or
more
: of the population will own and use computers, and send all of their
: correspondence with them. In my opinion, the sooner the USPS leaves the
: scene the better, since they are the ones responsible for cutting down
the
: rain forests in order to create junk mail, and this is killing the
planet,
: as well as choking my garbage trucks with paper.

Your sneering putdown of people over 70 is offensive. I'll be 72 next
week,
and it's very likely that I know more about computers than you.

I'm drowning in junk mail too, and I dislike it as much as you do. But
most
paper is made from trees grown as a crop, like corn or pumpkins, not from
rain
forests. My guess is that you knew that, but ignored that inconvenient
truth
because it didn't support your screed.

Bob

I am 74. I speak of the average non-computer user.....I am a senior
citizen, and I play in a band that plays dance music for two different
senior citizen clubs in my area. About half the seniors in my band do not
own computers......Everyone I know who is under 60 years old does own and
regularly operate a home computer.

I don't know where most of the junk mail paper comes from.....Pumpkins?
LOL! Perhaps you are correct! But I do know that they are cutting down the
rain forests big time in places like Africa and South America. I have seen
statistics that tell me about the thousands of acres a day that are
disappearing. If they aren't using the wood for paper, then they are using
it for fuel, or guitars, or furniture, but whatever they are using it for,
once gone, it can no longer convert carbon dioxide gas back into carbon
(plant life) and oxygen to the air. Photosynthesis only works in living
plant life. It doesn't really matter to the earth whether the
photosynthesis is being carried out by pumpkins or rain forest, as long as
it's taking place. Whenever a plant dies, that is a little less
photosynthesis that will happen. We had better start keeping track of the
earth's ability to convert greenhouse gases back into carbon and oxygen,
or we will be in big trouble very soon.

When I think about it, the photosynthesis happens when the plants regenerate
themselves back into plant matter (wood) and oxygen is released as a
by-product.....So cutting them down isn't the problem. If they were allowed
to regenerate, well, that's when the photosynthesis happens. but if you just
cut them down, and then build houses or parking lots on the land, then
that's where the damage occurs.....IOW, growing crops, eating the crops, and
then re-growing more crops is good for the earth's ability to clear the CO2
out of the air. It's clearing the land for other purposes than re-growing
crops on it that's bad. So, if they clear the rain forests and don't grow
anything else where they were, than they are destroying the earth's ability
to keep the greenhouse gasses down. But if they clear the rainforests and
grow crops on the cleared land, then I don't see that it makes much
difference.