Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

5 thoughts on “Senate Socialists Bailout Buffoonery Continues

  1. Dave Timmons

    Ed, the same could be said of your comment which would lead me to tell you that “It would help if you did some research before you write.”

    The author quoted the Postmaster General and has the numbers of increased borrowing the govt will take on in your name.

    Perhaps you could enlighten us with your version of the facts. So far, all you’ve done is say that the article is incorrect and provided no rebuttal of your own.

  2. ed siemers

    The author is completely off base here. It would help if you did some research before you write. Reading his/her other articles also made me laugh. If these were any further right they’d fall off the edge.

    1. Paula Martin

      The USPS doesn’t need a 41 Billion Dollar bailout even though the Banks and Wall got those.
      In 2006 CONGRESS passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. Sounds good, huh? Read on.The PAEA (HR6407) MANDATED that the USPS FUND 75 years of retiree health benefits in 10 years at payments of 5.5 Billion a year. Any business or government agency that would be forced to do the same would end up unable to take in additional revenue to cover 75 years of retiree health benefits. Think about this. The USPS is required to cover retiree health benefits up until 2081 paid for in 10 to a new ON BUDGET FUND the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF);
      What the Post Office needs is to have HR6407 and go back to being solvent as it was before when it’s income matched it’s expenses.
      I’m for voting NO on S1789 but for different reasons.

      1. Paula Martin

        Correction on my post.
        What the 3rd line from the bottom should say is:
        What the Post Office needs is to have HR6407 RESCINDED
        and go back to being solvent as it was before
        What a difference in meaning one word can make.

        reply

Comments are closed.