triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: shipping

To: "Fred Thomas" <vafred@erols.com>, "scott s." <75270_3703a@csi.com>, "Triumph list" <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: shipping
From: "Phil Ethier" <pethier@isd.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:03:40 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Thomas <vafred@erols.com>
To: scott s. <75270_3703a@csi.com>; Triumph list <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2001 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: shipping


>Since I was informed last week by some listers the USPO was not subsidized,
>I would like to clarify my statement, on the NBC evening news this very
>evening, I quote "The USPO" only "LOST" 2.2 billion dollars this year on
top
>of "ALL" the rate increases, well who pays (subsidizes) for that loss ??/
>"FT"

I have had a tough time finding any source giving numbers for any subsidy to
the USPS.  This is as close as I have come so far:


This is as excerpt from http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0301/030601w1.htm
===============
The modern day Postal Service was created in 1970 under the Postal
Reorganization Act. The law created a businesslike entity requiring USPS to
break even. It gets less than one percent of its budget from the Treasury.
Instead, revenue comes from the sale of stamps and other mailing services.
Increased competition from foreign posts, private shippers and the Internet
is eating away at the agencys bottom line. An economic downturn is also
having its impact, slowing the growth in the volume of mail.
================

///  triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
///  To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
///  with nothing in it but
///
///     unsubscribe triumphs
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>