• CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 hours ago

    DeJoy is still there, yes? Isn’t it weird how an unelected asshat like fElon can fire employees of the government who were basically nonpartisan, not to mention dismantle agencies, as part of a fake “agency”.

    But somehow, in 4 years of the Biden administration a partisan hack like DeJoy kept his job…

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Um, I’m watching time and time again how the cons, even as a minority, were able to slow things down, demand concessions, etc., in Congress. I’m also watching how an unelected, non-government employee with no clearance and no confirmation like fElon, running a fictional agency, is able to declare that an entire REAL AGENCY is being dismantled.

        So…why couldn’t Biden fire that partisan hack? He just watched donvict break all kinds of norms for four years during his residency, like having “acting” cabinet members w/o any confirmations and then attempting a coup while stoking an insurrection, so I doubt too many people but the stupid and useless Tone Police were going to do anything about him firing DeJoy.

        • Freefall@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Oh, I woulda been fine with him using “official acts” against certain people. It is less “well they do it so we can do it” and more “we should be destroying them for doing it”. Voters don’t care and people in power are paid off.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Because it’s far harder to build than to destroy. That’s the simple answer.

          Democrats actually want to govern. They might be fucking stupid sometimes, but they (generally, obv there are exceptions) want the US to be successful in the long run. And because of that, they’re beholden to mores that the Trump side could not care less about.

          • Freefall@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 hours ago

            The lack of punishment for not wanting to actually govern, and instead abuse power, is the frustrating part. The illusion of checks and balances is broken and I am not sure we will get to learn from this and rebuild.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    I guess a broken clock can be right twice a day, this one was actually a good idea.

    Congress should re implement this one for a little while.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    The Congress shall have Power…To establish Post Offices and post Roads

    The Post Office has the constitutional authority to designate mail routes. The Post Office is also empowered to construct or designate post offices with the implied authority to carry, deliver, and regulate the mail of the United States as a whole. The Postal Power also includes the power to designate certain materials as non-mailable, and to pass statutes criminalizing abuses of the postal system (such as mail fraud and armed robbery of post offices).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause

  • Dragomus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Want your package from chaina? Pay the tariffs!

    ~…then very humbly ask the Chinese government to refund you those tariff costs…~

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      I still don’t completely understand how online purchases for such end up working out. Say I buy a dog kennel. The dog kennel was purchased by an importer who pays the tariffs directly to the Treasury, and they mark the price of the product up when they sell it to me so they cover their lost profit. Maybe I misunderstood you last sentence, but no one should be having to ask China to pay anything as they didn’t have to pay anything more or less. They could reduce their price to help incentivise the purchases made by the importer to avoid lost sales, but they should only lose sales if the kennel was less than 25% difference in price to start with. Which a lot of importers seem to be saying that the price is usually 300%.

      Idk, time will tell

    • Great Blue Heron@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      The way I read it, the entrepreneur is Bezos - he has his own planes etc. and does not need USPS. You have to buy Chinese stuff from him now. (I have not researched the subject in depth - this is just my take on the headline)

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Bezos would still be subject tot he same import tariffs, the same Customs issues.

        The way I read it is they just created a huge new workload for Customs without funding the resources to do it. Unless we make huge changes to how sites like Amazon works, now Customs needs to have an input in every one of the millions of packages directly sent from over seas every day.

        USPS is smart to say there’s no way to make it work all of the sudden, but it ought to affect everyone.

        …… I see a more recent post that some form of sanity prevailed. If we’re going to instigate trade wars out of spite, let’s at least have a transition where we can try to figure out how to make it work

    • Mereo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      No so, from the article:

      Daniel, the owner of a trucking company based in Alberta, Canada, who asked to only use his first name for privacy reasons, tells WIRED that two of his company’s trucks were turned away at the US border in New York and Montana today because they contained packages originally from China. After speaking with a US Customs and Border Protection agent in Montana, the company was able to get a third truck into Washington state by removing all packages from China, Daniel says.

    • CarbonBasedNPU@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      might be safer to do it from Cuba at least there you know what bullshit you’ll be dealing with next month.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      How did Bezos let this happen? Didn’t he buy his way into the administration for reasons?

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s probably part of the plan. They want the post office gone to make room for private companies. Fuck all the people that live in remote areas where it isn’t profitable to have mail I guess.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Chinese packages are a net negative for the post office, you can probably find articles about that from Trump’s first term.

        • Empricorn@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          Everything they do is a “net negative”! My company’s IT and HR departments don’t generate any revenue at all…

        • BertramDitore@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          The USPS was never intended to turn a profit. It’s not a business. Its entire purpose is to deliver mail to every American, regardless of where they’re located. Making that profitable was never realistic nor necessary for a government service.

              • bjorney@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 day ago

                The UN Postal Union sets guidelines for international mail that dictates developing countries shouldn’t have to pay full price to send mail to developed countries. Basically if it costs $30 to ship something from a developing country, they would charge $20 and the destination country would pay for the shortfall (dollar values not real). China was a much smaller economy when this agreement was drafted.

                The US renegotiated this agreement with the United postal union in 2019/2020 but there were still come compromises made - while the amount of subsidization is minimal compared to 10 years ago, USPS still allegedly eats some losses on every package from China.

                Basically Trump is mad because the deal he personally negotiated 5 years ago wasn’t good enough. Same thing that happened with his trade agreement with Canada

                • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  12 hours ago

                  You’re ignoring the fact that the person who ordered the thing is in America, and are acting like this is a subsidy for China.

                  Not everything is zero-sum.

          • bjorney@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 day ago

            Just because it’s a service doesn’t make the comment you are replying to any less correct. Cancelling inbound chinese shipments is negatively affecting quality of service, NOT revenue

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 day ago

            Just because it’s a service doesn’t mean it has to operate at a loss. Water is a service too, but you can’t bankrupt the water company by using 300x as much water.

            • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 day ago

              Services can still cost money. Utilities, such as water, cost money but if the government is running them they do not need to produce profit.

              Republicans framing the postal service as a failed business venture is purposeful.

              • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 day ago

                Whether it’s public or private has no real bearing on my point though. Water consumption is priced to cover the cost of delivering the water. That isn’t the case in international shipping, the more packages from China for the USPS, the more money they lose.

                • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  the entire premise of your “point” is mind-bogglingly wrong. the USPS doesn’t make money, it costs money, just like any other org run by the government

                  how much revenue is the US military raking in? or are they “operating at a loss” too?

                  talking about ending the USPS because it’s “losing money” is the most bone-headed bullshit take on anything, ever. period

      • teamevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Which the stupid Republicans will use to continue to try to privatize something that should never have been privatized and should never be privatized The Republicans are the Nazis now and they need to be stopped

        • reddig33@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Education? Medical care? Oh, no you’re talking about privatizing the post office. It gets so confusing since Republicans want to privatize well, everything.