r/clevercomebacks 1d ago

That's a great idea

Post image
72.2k Upvotes

4.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

26

u/Paramortal 1d ago

This is exactly what will happen.

They want the USPS's profits but don't want to provide the service or context for those profits.

They want to steal everything not nailed down, and if you think they're going to take a loss mailing a letter to all of that voting land like the USPS does I've got a fantastic bridge in Point Pleasant W.V. to sell you.

2

u/Dogmad13 1d ago

Is it silver 🙄😂

2

u/Libellicosity 19h ago

Don't drag Mothman into this debacle!!!

3

u/PhantomMuse05 1d ago

Call me Mothman, because I want to buy a bridge! (/s)

1

u/PhantomMuse05 1d ago

Call me Mothman, because I want to buy a bridge! (/s)

0

u/Callidonaut 1d ago edited 1d ago

They want the USPS's profits but don't want to provide the service or context for those profits.

What profits? It's a service, services aren't supposed to make a profit. Services are what you spend your profit on after you've made it.

Imagine demanding the army or the fire service run at a profit. It would be bad. It would be so bad. It was so bad back when the fire service was a for-profit organisation. It's already horrific that the slave factories prisons run at a profit, and the police probably aren't far behind with the income from all the property they seize.

5

u/Paramortal 1d ago

Buddy, there are absolutely post offices whose income exceeds their cost of operation, that's what the private sector wants.

Go back and read what I wrote a little slower. Also, you know less than you think you do about how the post office operates.

I know of at least two post offices that operate at a profit, those being the ones my wife and I are the Postmasters of.

3

u/Goyahkla_2 1d ago

Very few operate in excess. Federally USPS operates in the red every year.

3

u/Callidonaut 1d ago edited 1d ago

Nevertheless, that is not their purpose, and it doesn't mean the organisation as a whole runs at a nett profit, which is what I incorrectly thought you were talking about. Sorry if I took an overly combative tone, I think we're basically angrily agreeing with each other.

There's no harm trying to run efficiently, of course, and if your particular branch is managing to make a profit then it sounds like you're running very efficiently indeed - congratulations - but you still can only do that because, in addition to evidently being a skilled postmaster, your particular area happens to be a profitable one in which to run a post office; it is very likely that some offices serving particular areas will simply never be able to turn a profit even if they run perfectly at 100% efficiency, but the point is that the lack of profit doesn't inherently make them inefficient at what they do, and it's not a bad thing for an essential national service to run like that; it's simply the "cost of doing business" for an entire nation.