I still don't get why government run entities need a union? It makes no sense to me? If someone could show me why then I get it, but considering all the choices one has to find employment, then why is one forced into union laborship?

There's a huge amount of hypocrisy with pro-union politicians.

Federal politicians don't want unions at the Federal level, because they know that unions are best kept at the state level. That way, they can still get the benefits of union kickbacks, votes and campaign funds, but don't have to deal with unions practically setting up shop in their office and running things like you have with state government unions.

Obama and his staff run their mouth and get involved in the debate about scaling back collective bargaining, but then he turns around and freezes government worker's pay at the Federal level.

We need to feature amendments to constitutions with respect to government unions.

Government unions "negotiate" and "bargain" with the same politicians that they contribute campaign funds toward and the politician negotiates and bargains in bad faith with the taxpayer.

So what you end up with, is a system where the union members, union reps and the politician win and the taxpayer loses.

Similarly, at the Federal level, what you end up with is the entitlement recipient, the government bureacrat, the lobbyist and the politician wins, and the few who actually pay taxes and bear the burden lose.

Brilliant.

Unfortunately, the tax paying, non-union citizens are losing ground (in numbers).

Personally I like the idea of delivering mail every other day, instead of every day.

Does anyone actually check their mailbox every single day? For reasons other than boredom? Like something useful is actually in there??

For people that for some reason need daily mail retrieval (like corporations receiving checks into accounting), they could simply use a PO Box, and all PO Boxes would continue to receive mail daily (they are 1000x more efficient).

I'm also all for the idea of significantly raising the cost of a stamp. Let's just make it 1.50 or something and get it over with.

The real trouble is the bulk mail. The junk mail. I don't know anyone that isn't retired and over the age of 50 that actually looks through that crap anyway. Everyone else just wads it up as the junk is flying everywhere on your walk from the mailbox to your house, and tosses it in the trash.

So those bulk mailer guys will likely go away when the price triples. But that is fine, they need to modernize.

Mike

Feel free to take a look at it yourself, it’s right here.

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

It documents Wall Street bailouts by the Fed that dwarf the $700 billion TARP, and everything else you’ve heard about.

I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I’m dramatizing or amplifying what this GAO report says, so I’m just going to list some of my favorite parts, by page number.

Page 131 – The total lending for the Fed’s “broad-based emergency programs” was $16,115,000,000,000. That’s right, more than $16 trillion. The four largest recipients, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, received more than a trillion dollars each. The 5th largest recipient was Barclays PLC. The 8th was the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC. The 9th was Deutsche Bank AG. The 10th was UBS AG. These four institutions each got between a quarter of a trillion and a trillion dollars. None of them is an American bank.

Pages 133 & 137 – Some of these “broad-based emergency program” loans were long-term, and some were short-term. But the “term-adjusted borrowing” was equivalent to a total of $1,139,000,000,000 more than one year. That’s more than $1 trillion out the door. Lending for these programs in fact peaked at more than $1 trillion.

Pages 135 & 196 – Sixty percent of the $738 billion “Commercial Paper Funding Facility” went to the subsidiaries of foreign banks. 36% of the $71 billion Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility also went to subsidiaries of foreign banks.

Page 205 – Separate and apart from these “broad-based emergency program” loans were another $10,057,000,000,000 in “currency swaps.” In the “currency swaps,” the Fed handed dollars to foreign central banks, no strings attached, to fund bailouts in other countries. The Fed’s only “collateral” was a corresponding amount of foreign currency, which never left the Fed’s books (even to be deposited to earn interest), plus a promise to repay. But the Fed agreed to give back the foreign currency at the original exchange rate, even if the foreign currency appreciated in value during the period of the swap. These currency swaps and the “broad-based emergency program” loans, together, totaled more than $26 trillion. That’s almost $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. That’s an amount equal to more than seven years of federal spending -- on the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, and everything else. And around twice American’s total GNP.

Page 201 – Here again, these “swaps” were of varying length, but on Dec. 4, 2008, there were $588,000,000,000 outstanding. That’s almost $2,000 for every American. All sent to foreign countries. That’s more than twenty times as much as our foreign aid budget.

Page 129 – In October 2008, the Fed gave $60,000,000,000 to the Swiss National Bank with the specific understanding that the money would be used to bail out UBS, a Swiss bank. Not an American bank. A Swiss bank.

Pages 3 & 4 – In addition to the “broad-based programs,” and in addition to the “currency swaps,” there have been hundreds of billions of dollars in Fed loans called “assistance to individual institutions.” This has included Bear Stearns, AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and “some primary dealers.” The Fed decided unilaterally who received this “assistance,” and who didn’t.

Pages 101 & 173 – You may have heard somewhere that these were riskless transactions, where the Fed always had enough collateral to avoid losses. Not true. The “Maiden Lane I” bailout fund was in the hole for almost two years.

Page 4 – You also may have heard somewhere that all this money was paid back. Not true. The GAO lists five Fed bailout programs that still have amounts outstanding, including $909,000,000,000 (just under a trillion dollars) for the Fed’s Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program alone. That’s almost $3,000 for every American.

Page 126 – In contemporaneous documents, the Fed apparently did not even take a stab at explaining why it helped some banks (like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) and not others. After the fact, the Fed referred vaguely to “strains in the financial markets,” “transitional credit,” and the Fed’s all-time favorite rationale for everything it does, “increasing liquidity.”

81 different places in the GAO report – The Fed applied nothing even resembling a consistent policy toward valuing the assets that it acquired. Sometimes it asked its counterparty to take a “haircut” (discount), sometimes it didn’t. Having read the whole report, I see no rhyme or reason to those decisions, with billions upon billions of dollars at stake.

Page 2 – As massive as these enumerated Fed bailouts were, there were yet more. The GAO did not even endeavor to analyze the Fed’s discount window lending, or its single-tranche term repurchase agreements.