[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2014-February-27, 10:47, said:

Winston, no one except you has brought up welfare queens. Let us, instead, look at what Bill actually said and discuss whether it is credible. My source of information is my own childhood.



My first example of course is my biological mother, she did exactly what Bill suggests can be done./ But let us move slightly forward in time. i grew up in a fairly small house, very small by modern standards. Sometime near the end of the war there was a housing shortage and my parents rented out the top floor to Art, Marie, and their daughter Norma. Very cramped, surely illegal again by modern standards and they soon moved, I suppose to better accommodations. A few years later, Marie is back with Norma and another daughter Jeannie. No Art, and there were seriously good reasons for this. Marie got a job, she and the girls lived in the cramped upstairs quarters, and she developed a relationship with Eddie. Eddie was a good guy, treated her well, treated the girls well, sometimes included me in their family activities. She and the girls stayed for maybe three years. All this time she was seeing one guy, Eddie, a good guy who, among other differences from her ex-husband Art, didn't beat her.

Did they get married and live happily ever after? I can't tell you if they did or didn't. She and the kids moved out, i wish them well. The time they spent with us I saw very difficult circumstances, a relationship with one guy, a good guy, a working woman taking care of her kids, and no out of wedlock additions. Good luck to them, i hope it went well.


My childhood provided all the examples I need. Read whatever sources you want, but if they say that those on the edge have no opportubity to choose, what you are reading is every bit as much of a fantasy as the idea that everyone on welfare is a cheat.

The nuances of language is often misunderstood in written language - what seems implied to me was not meant as such and what I write that seems straightforward to me seems an implication of something else entirely different to you.

I don't think any of us needs to write a defense so I will not offer an explanation of what I see as a misunderstanding - the only explanation I would offer is that our personal experiences are such a small sample that to make any conclusion of a larger group based on it cannot be trusted.

Personal responsibility is something with which I concur - blame, not so much.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2014-February-26, 15:00, said:

Have you considered that your position calls for nearly perfect decision-making from the poor (with no room for human errors of judgement) while not acknowledging that the better off have the luxury of paying for errors?

I do not believe it is impossible to escape poverty - but I think it ridiculous to reward the wealthiest individuals while not offering as much help as possible to the less fortunate.

At the least, offer everyone some kind of equal footing with guaranteed healthcare, an education and adequate food and housing.

Offer them all the help you like - with your money. If you offer people help with other peoples' money, you're either stealing or conning. Now if you want to get a bunch of people together to pool whatever they'd like to offer, and even to solicit contributions from yet more people, that's fine. It's called a charity. But when you lobby a bunch of politicians to take money from "everybody" to help some people, well, that's stealing too.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-27, 22:51, said:

Offer them all the help you like - with your money. If you offer people help with other peoples' money, you're either stealing or conning. Now if you want to get a bunch of people together to pool whatever they'd like to offer, and even to solicit contributions from yet more people, that's fine. It's called a charity. But when you lobby a bunch of politicians to take money from "everybody" to help some people, well, that's stealing too.

Not sure how the Post Office offering check-cashing services could meet anyone's definition of stealing. Business is business.

[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2014-February-27, 23:27, said:

Not sure how the Post Office offering check-cashing services could meet anyone's definition of stealing. Business is business.

Blackshoe was obviously talking about tax-supported aid. He (and I) have both said in this thread that if it is self-sustaining on its own revenue, we are fine with it.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-27, 22:51, said:

Offer them all the help you like - with your money. If you offer people help with other peoples' money, you're either stealing or conning. Now if you want to get a bunch of people together to pool whatever they'd like to offer, and even to solicit contributions from yet more people, that's fine. It's called a charity. But when you lobby a bunch of politicians to take money from "everybody" to help some people, well, that's stealing too.

Why should we take a local approach, haphazard and inconsistent, to solve a national problem?

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2014-February-28, 07:32, said:

Blackshoe was obviously talking about tax-supported aid. He (and I) have both said in this thread that if it is self-sustaining on its own revenue, we are fine with it.

Tax-supported aid has nothing to do with stealing either.

[kenberg]

The originally cited article leads, I think, to some confusion. Let me pull out a quote:

Quote

Many Americans said they were interested in using such services at least some of the time. Eight percent said they would do so often, 23 percent said they would do so sometimes, and 21 percent said they would on rare occasions. Only 37 percent said they would never use those services at a post office. (Another 10 percent said they weren't sure.

At first glance, I would say that the interesting number is not the 37% that would never use it but rather the 8% who would do so often. Really I can't see why anyone would say that they would never use it. A new Walgreen's opened nearby. I don't much use it but why would I announce that I would never use it? But the 92% who do not say that they would use it often seem to have about the same view of the proposed service that I have of the new Walgreen's. Who needs it, but if it's there I might use it.

But, a huge but, if we are speaking of providing a needed service for the poor, there is no reason anyone should care a whit whether I and this other 92% would or would not use it. It is not being designes for our use. I never expect to use a drug treatment center. That is irrelevant to whether it is a good idea to have a drug treatment center.

In my view the article is badly written and the Inspector General's report is terribly written. Part of the time they are speaking of the need to help the poor, in which case whether I would use facility is irrelevant, at other times they are speaking of how much money they can make by coming in with these services, in which case it is very relevant to ask if I and others would be customers. The IG report is particularly bad in this regard. It spews out numbers, often completely irrelevant numbers such as how many of the underserved have some college education. It sometimes speaks of the need to help the poor, it sometimes speaks of making a lot of money, it sometimes speaks of giving the Post Office something to do. I didn't see anywhere that it promises to cure the common cold, but perhaps i just missed it.

So I don't trust the article and i don't trust the report. I have no objection to helping poor people. I don't object in principle and I don't object (here Blackshoe and I probably part company) to my tax dollars being used to do so. But it would be nice if they could get their story straight as to whether the proposal is to use tax dollars to help the poor or the proposal is designed to make a lot of money for the post office.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2014-February-28, 08:37, said:

The originally cited article leads, I think, to some confusion. Let me pull out a quote:



At first glance, I would say that the interesting number is not the 37% that would never use it but rather the 8% who would do so often. Really I can't see why anyone would say that they would never use it. A new Walgreen's opened nearby. I don't much use it but why would I announce that I would never use it? But the 92% who do not say that they would use it often seem to have about the same view of the proposed service that I have of the new Walgreen's. Who needs it, but if it's there I might use it.

But, a huge but, if we are speaking of providing a needed service for the poor, there is no reason anyone should care a whit whether I and this other 92% would or would not use it. It is not being designes for our use. I never expect to use a drug treatment center. That is irrelevant to whether it is a good idea to have a drug treatment center.

In my view the article is badly written and the Inspector General's report is terribly written. Part of the time they are speaking of the need to help the poor, in which case whether I would use facility is irrelevant, at other times they are speaking of how much money they can make by coming in with these services, in which case it is very relevant to ask if I and others would be customers. The IG report is particularly bad in this regard. It spews out numbers, often completely irrelevant numbers such as how many of the underserved have some college education. It sometimes speaks of the need to help the poor, it sometimes speaks of making a lot of money, it sometimes speaks of giving the Post Office something to do. I didn't see anywhere that it promises to cure the common cold, but perhaps i just missed it.

So I don't trust the article and i don't trust the report. I have no objection to helping poor people. I don't object in principle and I don't object to my tax dollars being used to do so. But it would be nice if they could get their story straight as to whether the proposal is to use tax dollars to help the poor or the proposal is designed to make a lot of money for the post office.

Thanks for a reasoned and reasonable reply and stance (which, IMO, you can counted on to provide.)

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2014-February-28, 07:32, said:

Blackshoe was obviously talking about tax-supported aid. He (and I) have both said in this thread that if it is self-sustaining on its own revenue, we are fine with it.

Obviously, the difference in opinions is based on an answer to the question: to what extent does government provide? Blackshoe has made his stance known before, and as I do not want to misstate him I will only say in broad terms that I understand his belief to be in minimal government - security, national defense, and such - and little or zero in the way of government/social intermingling.

Where is your government line in the sand? Why must check-cashing for the poor turn a profit before it is a good service to provide? We already have check-cashing for profit and that business service is part of the problem of poverty.

For myself, I used to follow a belief system closely related to Blackshoe - I thought Ayn Rand was brilliant. I now recognize in my old self that I followed a belief that idealized fantasy could somehow magically transform reality - and I have since learned that reality does not change based on what I believe. Life deals with reality. Life is lived as a practical matter with real problems that require practical solutions. I do not think government is the answer to all problems, but I now recognize that national concerns are best addressed with a national response, i.e., a governmental response.

I think I have matured in my thinking processes. You may think differently.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2014-February-28, 08:37, said:

I have no objection to helping poor people. I don't object in principle and I don't object (here Blackshoe and I probably part company) to my tax dollars being used to do so. But it would be nice if they could get their story straight as to whether the proposal is to use tax dollars to help the poor or the proposal is designed to make a lot of money for the post office.

Providing Non-Bank Financial Services for the Underserved

There is no confusion in the actual report. There is not one sentence in the proposal about using tax dollars to help the poor. There is nothing in the report that could reasonably lead anyone to come to the conclusion that the proposal would lead to using tax dollars to help the poor.

There is no inherent conflict in taking advantage of a business opportunity that at the same time helps the poor, and no reason to think that such a business could not be profitable. It might not be profitable of course, and that is a relevant issue.

But there is no need to get the story straight about whether or not the proposal is about using tax dollars to support the poor because no one could reasonably suppose that it is.

[awm]

Poverty and bad decisions is a complicated issue. On one level, I think it's true that poor people are often poor because of bad decisions.

The problem is that a lot of these decisions are reasonable in the short-term and only look bad in the long term. For example, dropping out of high school to get a job results in short-term income that will help the family, whereas staying in school through college will accumulate short-term debt but will likely result in a long-term higher net income. Having a teenage pregnancy might be a way to establish some stability in life and encourage a boyfriend to stick around (short-term benefit) but will have long-term effects on education and job prospects as well as the expense of raising a kid. Unhealthy food is cheaper in the short-run but might lead to long-term health expenses that are higher. An old used car is cheaper in the short-run but might lead to higher costs for gas and repairs over the long-term. Renting a house is cheaper than buying in the short-term (no down payment to deal with) but more expensive in the long run. And so forth.

Poor people make these bad decisions for a number of reasons. The simplest is a lack of capital. If your family is starving right now, staying in school for six more years to have a higher income in the future just isn't a reasonable decision. If you can't afford the down payment to buy a house, you just have to rent or be homeless. If you can't afford birth control, you're more likely to have a teen pregnancy. People from wealthy families don't have these sorts of issues -- they can borrow money from parents or other relatives to make ends meet until their long-term decisions start paying off. A second reason is lack of education. If everyone you know is making these kinds of decisions, it's sometimes hard to see the alternatives. And unfortunately there is a very high correlation between the quality of schools and the affluence of the community, so there's not much help from that direction either. A third reason is stress; poor people tend to live pretty high-stress lives, always wondering where their next rent check is coming from, and being under constant pressure tends to lead to worse decision-making (which I'm sure we've all experienced at the bridge table). A fourth point is that wealthy people make bad decisions too (see Justin Bieber, Tiger Woods, any number of other celebrities) but their finances are such that they can pay the price and move on.

So yes, poor people make bad decisions. But the lack of a financial safety net and a strong education system are massive factors in those bad decisions.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2014-February-28, 09:21, said:

Providing Non-Bank Financial Services for the Underserved

There is no confusion in the actual report. There is not one sentence in the proposal about using tax dollars to help the poor. There is nothing in the report that could reasonably lead anyone to come to the conclusion that the proposal would lead to using tax dollars to help the poor.

There is no inherent conflict in taking advantage of a business opportunity that at the same time helps the poor, and no reason to think that such a business could not be profitable. It might not be profitable of course, and that is a relevant issue.

But there is no need to get the story straight about whether or not the proposal is about using tax dollars to support the poor because no one could reasonably suppose that it is.

In tone, there is a great deal of conflict. The article, not the report but I think that she got the numbers from footnoted references in it, says that only 8% would use it often. This is relevant and negative if it is a business opportunity, irrelevant if it is a help the poor program. So we should see this how?

I see the IG report as one big sales pitch, tossing in everything imaginable to make it fly.

Sample question: Suppose, after reviewing his numbers, it appears that his estimated profits are highly unlikely to appear. I think that this is very likely to happen. Do we then scrap it because it is not a successful business model? All the talk about helping the poor would suggest to me that he thinks the answer to that question is no. But who knows? Buy now, read the fine print later.

Anyway, I'll be gone for the week-end. You guys can figure it out.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2014-February-28, 08:37, said:

At first glance, I would say that the interesting number is not the 37% that would never use it but rather the 8% who would do so often. Really I can't see why anyone would say that they would never use it. A new Walgreen's opened nearby. I don't much use it but why would I announce that I would never use it? But the 92% who do not say that they would use it often seem to have about the same view of the proposed service that I have of the new Walgreen's. Who needs it, but if it's there I might use it.

I think I can honestly say that there are some businesses in town that I never expect to use. I've never used a check-cashing or bill-paying service -- I deposit checks into my bank account via an ATM, I pay bills mostly with my bank's online bill-pay service, and before that I wrote checks and mailed them. If I were answering the survey, I would check "never". Perhaps circumstances would change and some day I might need to use them, but I don't anticipate it (often surveys like this include a time frame, e.g. "How many times do you expect to use this service in the next year?", so you can be more confident of your answer).

Quote

In my view the article is badly written and the Inspector General's report is terribly written. Part of the time they are speaking of the need to help the poor, in which case whether I would use facility is irrelevant, at other times they are speaking of how much money they can make by coming in with these services, in which case it is very relevant to ask if I and others would be customers. The IG report is particularly bad in this regard. It spews out numbers, often completely irrelevant numbers such as how many of the underserved have some college education. It sometimes speaks of the need to help the poor, it sometimes speaks of making a lot of money, it sometimes speaks of giving the Post Office something to do. I didn't see anywhere that it promises to cure the common cold, but perhaps i just missed it.

The Post Office is already having financial difficulties. So I think they have to present this in a way that it's not likely to make things even worse, and might even help, while also performing a public good.

Although the USPS is a federal agency, it's not funded by taxpayer dollars. It's supposed to be self-sustaining, but it lost $5 billion last year on $66 billion revenue.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2014-February-28, 11:03, said:

Sample question: Suppose, after reviewing his numbers, it appears that his estimated profits are highly unlikely to appear. I think that this is very likely to happen.

As I read it, the plan would be to test the idea on a small scale to determine the answer. Seems reasonable to me. Obviously I don't know how the tests would turn out, but it seems likely to me that careful planning and management could show a profit in the right locations.

kenberg, on 2014-February-28, 11:03, said:

Sample question: Suppose, after reviewing his numbers, it appears that his estimated profits are highly unlikely to appear. I think that this is very likely to happen. Do we then scrap it because it is not a successful business model?

Of course. That is the purpose of the tests. No business stays afloat by introducing or expanding unprofitable services. Nothing in the report suggests otherwise.

kenberg, on 2014-February-28, 11:03, said:

Sample question: Suppose, after reviewing his numbers, it appears that his estimated profits are highly unlikely to appear. I think that this is very likely to happen. Do we then scrap it because it is not a successful business model? All the talk about helping the poor would suggest to me that he thinks the answer to that question is no.

The poor are discussed because every business must identify its potential customer base. Helping the poor by providing an alternative to usury clearly has the potential to be profitable. Whether or not the profits can in fact be realized has yet to be determined, hence the tests. But it would be a very poor report indeed that did not go into some detail about the potential customer base.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2014-February-28, 12:39, said:

The poor are discussed because every business must identify its potential customer base. Helping the poor by providing an alternative to usury clearly has the potential to be profitable. Whether or not the profits can in fact be realized has yet to be determined, hence the tests. But it would be a very poor report indeed that did not go into some detail about the potential customer base.

This is one way to looking at it, but I do not see it at all as a dispassionate business analysis, I suppose we will just continue to see this differently. Some will see it as a business analysis, I, and I expect others, will see it as a sales pitch. There can be and often id an overlap between honest analysis and a sales pitch but I see this far moe as a sales pitch and i don't trust him at all. Which is a bit odd, because i am not particularly opposed to the plan. I mentioned early on that we used the Post Office a while back as a way so send some money. Somehow Becky knew about this service and found it easy and inexpensive.

But I don't like a snow job, and that's the way I see this report. I will await further analysis by people who have the time to go into a detailed review of his figure, Call me suspicious. Very.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2014-March-01, 06:50, said:

But I don't like a snow job, and that's the way I see this report. I will await further analysis by people who have the time to go into a detailed review of his figure, Call me suspicious. Very.

Usually I can understand your comments even when I disagree. Here you have me baffled. It would help if you identified your suspected target of the IG's "snow job" what you see as the purpose of it.

Clearly the US Congress is not about to start funding the US Postal Service at all, let alone for the purpose of helping the poor. To survive, the USPS must become profitable, and I don't see what motivation the IG could have in proposing adding services other than to add profits. And looking at the numbers dispassionately from a business perspective, his is certainly a reasonable proposal.

If nothing changes, we will lose the USPS because it can't continue losing money indefinitely. I'd really hate to see that, as it would be just another sign of the rapid decline of the US infrastructure. The USPS does not get subsidies (nor does it pay taxes), but it is legally required to provide universal service at uniform prices. To survive, it must find a way to increase revenues to (more than) offset the decline in the use of first-class mail.

The US Congress has blocked the USPS from providing services that post offices in other countries use to stay profitable. It will almost surely block the current proposal as well, even though the same kinds of services have, in fact, been profitable for post offices elsewhere. The businesses that make money by abusing the poor in the US have strong lobbies and have bought and paid for enough congressional representatives to block any measures that might lesson that abuse.

I confess that I've always found it more valuable to pay more attention to the substance of a proposal than to its tone. Few people in the US can write clearly at all, let alone produce a tone that complements the substance.

[barmar]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-01, 10:33, said:

The businesses that make money by abusing the poor in the US have strong lobbies and have bought and paid for enough congressional representatives to block any measures that might lesson that abuse.

I thought the point of this proposal is that legitimate businesses aren't going into the poor areas. The poor are getting these services from loan sharks, black markets, etc. If they have a strong lobby, we have another problem.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-March-01, 16:36, said:

I thought the point of this proposal is that legitimate businesses aren't going into the poor areas. The poor are getting these services from loan sharks, black markets, etc. If they have a strong lobby, we have another problem.

Well, yes. I think that was at least one point. But this is what I was geting at. Is it a proposal to make money or is it a proposal to help people? Of course sometimes you can do both. Sometimes.

As to who he is trying to snow? Well, it's directed at someone. If they do not need congressional authority, then they could just do it. But I did not see tis as "Here is what we are going to do, just thought you might like to know" but rather as "We want to do this and her are some reasons you should approve it". And I think the reasons need checking, a lot of checking. So the argument is directed toward tose whose approval he needs. Since Senator Warren is involved, I suppose this is the Senate. I hope they check it out thoroughly, because, based on my reading of the presentation, I don't trust him.

[mike777]

guys the usps is not funded by taxpayers


the usps can borrow billions and billions from the treasury.

the usps cannot fail....
Now continue

[mike777]

barmar, on 2014-March-01, 16:36, said:

I thought the point of this proposal is that legitimate businesses aren't going into the poor areas. The poor are getting these services from loan sharks, black markets, etc. If they have a strong lobby, we have another problem.

Yes but you need to continue this thought process.....you know programing better than us.

START: THE POOR ARE POOR. You point out a lack of legitimate going into these services...but govt ok?