copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2023-11-09): The claim that USPS is required to fund its pensions for 75 years in advance is commonly cited across the internet and in articles spanning back several years, largely in relation to mentions of the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, or PAEA. USPS has long maintained that PAEA’s pension pre-funding requirements "contributes significantly to postal losses." The relevant portion of PAEA appeared to be this one: [...] Then there is the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA), which some have taken to calling "the most insane law" ever passed by Congress. The law requires the Postal Service, which receives no taxpayer subsidies, to prefund its retirees’ health benefits up to the year 2056. This is a $5 billion per year cost; it is a requirement that no other entity, private or public, has to make. If that doesn’t meet the definition of insanity, I don’t know what does. Without this obligation, the Post Office actually turns a profit. Some have called this a "manufactured crisis." It’s also significant that lots of companies benefit from a burden that makes the USPS less competitive; these same companies might also would benefit from full USPS privatization, a goal that has been pushed by several conservative think tanks for years.
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2018-04-02): No, the Postal Service isn't losing a fortune on Amazon [...] Amazon isn’t causing the United States Postal Service to lose a fortune. In fact, it’s contributing to its biggest growth sector, package delivery. Deals like the one with Amazon brought in $7 billion in fiscal year 2017. While we don’t know the deal USPS crafted with Amazon, we know it’s not losing money. A 2006 law codified profitability into law, and an independent regulatory commission that reviews their deals annually gave it a green light on March 29.
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2018-04-04): Only fools, or worse, are saying that our money losing Post Office makes money with Amazon. THEY LOSE A FORTUNE, and this will be changed. Also, our fully tax paying retailers are closing stores all over the country...not a level playing field! [...] The USPS posted a $2.7 billion net loss in 2017, marking its eleventh straight year of financial decline. It has averted bankruptcy only by defaulting on the mandate to prepay retiree health benefits, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. But the balance sheet also showed that although first-class and marketing mail revenues were down from the previous year, shipping and package delivery revenues were up. A significant portion of those gains were attributable to deals with companies like Amazon.com. [...] The USPS has been on a financially unsustainable path for years and could conceivably reach the point of requiring a government bailout unless lawmakers take action to revise the statutes governing its management, particularly with regard to issues such as funding retiree health benefits. However, the notion that this state of affairs stems from losses attributable to a sweetheart deal with Amazon.com strays far from the defensible fact. By law, the USPS is required, at minimum, to break even on the deal.
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2018-04-03): There is little to these claims. While the postal service is struggling, it's not because of Amazon. In fact, package delivery is one of the few lines of business that's growing. The postal service has lost money for 11 straight years, mostly because of pension and health care costs. In 2017, the service lost $800 million on $69.7 billion operating revenue. Under a 2006 law, it must pre-fund 75 years' worth of retiree health benefits. Neither the government nor private companies are required to do that. (It has defaulted on those payments periodically, with the last one made in 2015). [...] The 2006 law also mandated that each line of business within the postal service set its prices at least high enough to break even. In other words, for the postal service to lose money on package delivery would be against the law.
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2023-11-15): The US Postal Service lost $6.5 billion in its just-completed fiscal year, delivering a blow to the service’s hopes of a financial turnaround. The Postal Service had projected it would break even in the fiscal year that ended September 30, on its way to annual profits this year and going forward. Its results are particularly disappointing because it received a bump in its revenue earlier this year when shippers shifted package volume away from UPS because of the threat of a strike there. [...] The Postal Service reported net income of $56 billion in the previous fiscal year but that was primarily due to the non-cash gain of nearly $57 billion from 2022 legislation that changed the way it accounted for its retiree health care expenses.
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2021-02-02): A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would provide the Postal Service much-needed financial relief by doing away with a mandate that required it to prepay retirement benefits decades in advance. [...] The report noted that the agency’s liabilities had drastically increased because of the mandate, showing that the Postal Service's debt had grown to more than 200 percent of its revenue since the passage of the 2006 law. [...] "That USPS is forced to prefund its employee pensions 50 years into the future is an insanity that is the No. 1 cause of the Post Office’s financial problems," Pascrell told NBC News. Abolishing this anchor is supported by an overwhelming majority of Congress. We must pass this not just to save USPS now but preserve it for the next century."
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2021-05-25): But, according to James O’Rourke, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, the postal service’s money troubles have little to do with low prices and much more to do with a stifling congressional mandate. "The Trump administration is mistaken about its claim that the postal service is losing money ‘every time they hand out a package for Amazon and other Internet companies,’" O’Rourke said. "The current agreement with Amazon, and presumably other online merchants, is, at the very least, a break-even arrangement. The reason the postal service is losing money is because of a congressionally mandated retirement healthcare funding program that no other government agency is required to observe. This creates a $6.5 billion annual shortfall that could easily be avoided." [...] "First, repeal the pre-funding mandate and use the accumulated reserves to fund future pay-as-you-go costs," he said. "That reserve now has about $47 billion on deposit. Second, adopt generally accepted accounting principles to determine postal service liabilities. Nearly every for-profit business in this country does exactly that. And third, provide Medicare for future USPS retirees. This is precisely what military retirees are required to participate in."
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2018-04-04): Fact Check: Is The Post Office Losing Money By Delivering Packages For Amazon? [...] Plunkett says no one really knows what kind of deal Amazon made with the Postal Service because the details are sealed. But he says contrary to what the president tweeted - that they lose a fortune - the Postal Service does not lose money delivering Amazon's or anyone else's packages. [...] PLUNKETT: Amazon probably looks very different from the rest of the Postal Service's shipping business because they have enough volume in their own network of distribution centers, so the vast majority of their packages are being entered locally, and they're very cost-efficient for the Postal Service to handle for the most part.
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2018-04-04): Only fools, or worse, are saying that our money losing Post Office makes money with Amazon. THEY LOSE A FORTUNE, and this will be changed. Also, our fully tax paying retailers are closing stores all over the country…not a level playing field! [...] Trump’s claim that Amazon costs the USPS money can’t be sufficiently validated or disproven. Amazon’s agreements with the agency are confidential. Publicly available information on its finances is not detailed enough to determine whether the Postal Service even makes a profit delivering packages in general. [...] Amazon says the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) has found that its contracts with the USPS are profitable. A PRC report released Thursday found that all but four of the Postal Service’s 846 negotiated service agreements with various companies bring in enough revenue to cover their costs.
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2020-04-15): There’s also some confusion over whether the Postal Service was forced to prepay benefits "for 75 years," as the Facebook post said. The language of the law doesn’t mention 75 years, and Partenheimer said the Postal Service has not used that timeframe to describe the requirement. [...] A Facebook post said: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. The Postal Service isn’t losing money from its deal with Amazon. But the 2006 law requiring the pre-funding of health benefits for future retirees — not pensions — has put a financial strain on the Postal Service and hurt its ability to turn a profit in some recent years.
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2018-04-16): Passed by a Republican-led Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush, the PAEA gave the Postal Service new accounting and funding rules for its retiree pension and health benefits. Up until 2006, the USPS funded those obligations on a pay-as-you-go-basis, pulling out of its pension fund and adding to it as retirees' costs came in. But the PAEA required the Postal Service to calculate all of its likely pension costs over the next 75 years, and then sock away enough money between 2007 and 2016 to cover most of them. [...] Eventually, the burden became too great, and the USPS began defaulting on the PAEA payments in 2012. But the damage was done. The Postal Service lost $62.4 billion between 2007 and 2016, and its own Inspector General attributed $54.8 billion of that to prefunding retiree benefits. Without the PAEA, the Postal Service wouldn't be doing stellar. (Though you could plausibly blame many of its remaining struggles on the Great Recession.) But it probably would've spent at least part of the last decade making comfortable profits. [...] In fact, it gets worse. The PAEA also required the Postal Service to invest its retiree funds exclusively in government bonds. Once again, this is a rather unusual practice. While it mitigates risk, it's also a great way to earn really low returns. Then the USPS has to set aside even more money to achieve the same benefit level. Baker calculated that just getting rid of this requirement could make the Postal Service profitable again.
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2022-07-15): Biden made the comments during a visit to Massachusetts and as a historic heat wave batters Europe and the United States. Some 100 million Americans from New York City to Las Vegas will be under heat warnings this week. [...] One prominent bill lawmakers passed was lifting the 36-year-old moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants in 2026. [...] The law expires in 2022.
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (1999-01-01): Contact Us & Location NSO Security Team News RSS Feed netone.site cms by
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2022-07-15): Adam Dexter of West Central FS in Williamsfield IL and his customer Grant Strom of Brimfield. [...] One prominent bill lawmakers passed was lifting the 36-year-old moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants in 2026. [...] Regulatory Alert, Regulatory Alert
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2024-10-06): From left to right: [...] KEN BURGESS, partner, health care section leader, Poyner Spruill Photo by Bryan Regan
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2019-05-06): 5284 Accesses 10 Citations 20 [...] Similar content being viewed by others [...] Norbert Gaillard, Richard J. Michalek
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2022-11-13): Why California's EV-Rebate Proposition Lost (kron4.com) 122 [...] So what happened? Before the election the New York Times described the fight: On one side, environmentalists have teamed up with firefighters, Democrats and Lyft, the ride-share company, which has poured more than $45 million into its campaign to pass a climate initiative. On the other, [Democrat] Governor Gavin Newsom has aligned himself with California billionaires, teachers and Republicans in opposition.... [...] On the other side of the country, Massachusetts voters approved a new 4% tax on those making more than $1 million for transportation and education funding, broadly speaking. And New Yorkers OK'd $4.2 billion in bond sales to fund climate change mitigation and resiliency programs.
Claim: "The Postal Service is not losing money because of Amazon. It’s losing money because in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a law forcing it to prepay its pensions for 75 years, which no other corporation does ... Without this law, the Postal Service would be turning a profit.” (AFL-CIO, 2020-04-13)
Evidence (2020-04-15): Stand up for the facts! Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help.
Claim: North Carolina is "in the small minority of states that requires an absentee ballot to be signed by two witnesses or a notary public." (Jay Chaudhuri, 2020-04-10)
Evidence (2020-04-10): Jay Chaudhuri and Natasha Marcus, North Carolina state Senators, want to make it easier for people to vote absentee by mail. In an op-ed, they claim that NC is in the "small minority" of states that require two witnesses to sign an absentee ballot. That's true. NC is one of only three states that require the ballots to be signed by two witnesses if a notary isn't available.
Claim: North Carolina is "in the small minority of states that requires an absentee ballot to be signed by two witnesses or a notary public." (Jay Chaudhuri, 2020-04-10)
Evidence (2024-01-01): North Carolina - - One notary public or two witnesses must be in your presence when you mark your absentee ballot. They should only observe you marking your ballot, not how you vote. [...] - One notary public or two witnesses must be in your presence when you mark your absentee ballot. They should only observe you marking your ballot, not how you vote. [...] - You must have two witnesses or a Notary Public witness your absentee ballot signature.
Claim: North Carolina is "in the small minority of states that requires an absentee ballot to be signed by two witnesses or a notary public." (Jay Chaudhuri, 2020-04-10)
Evidence (2024-04-23): Twenty states require that you provide an excuse/reason for seeking to vote by absentee ballot. [...] Election officials treat absentee ballots the same as a regular ballot. [...] - The following states accept absentee ballots postmarked on Election Day but delivered after Election Day: Alaska, California, Iowa, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.
Claim: North Carolina is "in the small minority of states that requires an absentee ballot to be signed by two witnesses or a notary public." (Jay Chaudhuri, 2020-04-10)
Evidence (2024-02-05): Your ballot will come in the mail. You fill it out like a normal ballot, but you need to have witnesses: Either a notary public or two witnesses must be with you when you mark the ballot. (Because of the pandemic, during the 2020 elections only one witness was required.) A lot of other states use signature verification. They match the signature on the ballot to the one on file with an individual's voter registration. But signatures can change over time, and "matching" can be subjective. So North Carolia requires the witnesses or notary to verify that it's really you casting your ballot. Witnesses should verify that you marked the ballot yourself, but they should not see how you voted.
Claim: North Carolina is "in the small minority of states that requires an absentee ballot to be signed by two witnesses or a notary public." (Jay Chaudhuri, 2020-04-10)
Evidence (2024-10-04): And yet, this November, North Carolinians will vote whether to approve a constitutional amendment that emphasizes that "(o)nly a citizen of the United States" can vote in the state. [...] North Carolina is one of eight states with a noncitizen voting constitutional amendment question on the ballot in 2024. The others are Wisconsin, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kentucky and South Carolina. [...] In North Carolina, the State Board of Elections has an investigations division that looks into cases of potential voter fraud. If they find merit to claims brought to them by observers, elections officials, voters, parties, campaigns or anyone else, they refer the case to prosecutors.
Claim: North Carolina is "in the small minority of states that requires an absentee ballot to be signed by two witnesses or a notary public." (Jay Chaudhuri, 2020-04-10)
Evidence (2022-10-25): North Carolina registered voters can vote by absentee ballot through the steps below. [...] 2. Fill out and complete your absentee ballot when it arrives in the mail. (You MUST mark your ballot in the presence of a notary public or two witnesses.) [...] 5. If you want a notary instead of two witnesses, you can schedule an appointment with Student Legal Services to have your voter absentee ballot notarized at no additional charge. The SLS office is located in the Popp Martin Student Union Suite 126. Remember that you will need to wait to fill out your ballot until your notary appointment with SLS.
Claim: North Carolina is "in the small minority of states that requires an absentee ballot to be signed by two witnesses or a notary public." (Jay Chaudhuri, 2020-04-10)
Evidence (2024-09-10): After you submit an absentee ballot request form, an absentee ballot will be mailed to you. Mark your absentee ballot in the presence of two witnesses (or one notary public). The witnesses should NOT violate your privacy (i.e., watch your voting choices) while you vote. [...] North Carolina allows voters to "cure" or fix some issues with their absentee ballot so that they will still count. The Board of Elections will contact you to cure errors that involve signature issues or failing to correctly attach a copy of their ID or the ID exception form. You will not have the opportunity to cure issues related to the two required witness signatures (or notary public) or if your envelope was unsealed when it arrived at the Board of Elections. Voters with ballots with these types of issues will be notified that their absentee ballot did not count. If time allows, they can vote a new absentee ballot or vote in person instead. Any North Carolina registered voter may request and receive a mail-in "absentee" ballot. No special circumstance is needed.