General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKirsten Gillibrand Unveils A Public Option For Banking
The bill brings to Congress for the first time a policy idea that has already won the support of liberal economists and anti-poverty activists: Turning the nation’s sprawling network of U.S. Postal Service facilities into places where working-class and low-income Americans who lack adequate access to commercial banking can obtain low-cost, short-term loans.
The central goal of the bill is to replace risky financial products like payday loans, which can trap borrowers in prolonged cycles of debt, with regulated alternatives.
“This is a solution to take on payday lenders, to take on the problems that the unbanked have all across the country. It’s a solution whose time has come,” Gillibrand said in an interview with HuffPost.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kirsten-gillibrand-postal-banking-bill_us_5ae07f9fe4b07be4d4c6feae
Democrats getting the job done!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LexVegas
(6,099 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
HelenWheels
(2,284 posts)She cut Al Franken off at the knees. Probably did this as Al would have been Dems first choice for Presidential run something she wants.
LexVegas
(6,099 posts)Liberalagogo
(1,770 posts)n/t
LexVegas
(6,099 posts)
Liberalagogo
(1,770 posts)n/t
AH
LexVegas
(6,099 posts)
Liberalagogo
(1,770 posts)AH
LexVegas
(6,099 posts)
LakeArenal
(28,846 posts)Okay start on me now.
I have more: 😜😉😬🤗😃😀😚😘
💤🆗⬆️⬇️↪️🔁☮️❣️📌🛎🦀🐓🐇
Got more so I’m ready to go....
SergeStorms
(19,204 posts)I guess some people don't know quality when they see it, and make too much of mediocrity when they hear it.
sheshe2
(83,925 posts)
warmfeet
(3,321 posts) 
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)haele
(12,679 posts)....
Got something against satirist/politicians?
Haele
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Do you not remember him from SNL?
LexVegas
(6,099 posts)
Squinch
(51,016 posts)
notdarkyet
(2,226 posts)Seems he’s had this idea for along time.
Squinch
(51,016 posts)first time the legislation has been initiated. In order for anything to happen, more is required than "having an idea."
SMH.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)proposed it earlier that year.
Squinch
(51,016 posts)And though BS and Warren repeated the idea, this is the first effort to actually make it happen legislatively.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)and I don't appreciate her stealing others' ideas (Bernie talked about this). She should've teamed up with him.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)instead of just talking about it. You don't get things done by talking about it, you get them done by passing laws.
Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)You whine about trashing a Democrat while not caring about a Democrat get trashed out of office.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
ashling
(25,771 posts)with the support of Senator Al Franken.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)because he's Franken.
Imagine if he hadn't resigned and been replaced by a Democrat, we would have forgotten that the Republican majorities vote with the psychopath in the White House.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)I don’t understand why he didn’t stand up to the plot/gillibrand’s error in judgement/whatever you want to call it.
The perfect storm at the time— the heady feeling of women finally being taken seriously about misogyny and sexism with #MeToo — a political assassination engineered by the pukes....
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)by Gillibrand and those women who don't like to be groped.
If Al wasn't guilty, then he should have demanded an investigation. He resigned. He obviopusly thought that resignation was the right thing for him to do. I won't second guess him.
This Al Franken love fest should stop being used as a backdoor way to attack Gillibrand and the Democratic Senators who stood with her.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)That republican water can get really heavy.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)Republican water is.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Water weighs a little over 8 pounds per gallon. I see a lot of it in some of the posts here. Maybe you would know if republican water is heavier than other water. Even at 8 pounds some of these posts have to get weary carrying so much of it, trotting it all the way from breitbart over to here.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)but I guess you were just trying to get your word count up.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)It was also a number of men among the pitchfork-brandishers.
I think it was an unfortunate moment in time, that the gop used and the Democrats felt virtuous in the bracing energy of the #MeToo movement.
Unfortunately it was a big set-up, and gop trolls claimed offense at socially acceptable interactions by Franken. None of the women were willing to stand up to investigation, and a number remained anonymous.
I don’t know why he resigned except perhaps he just wanted to avoid distracting drama centered on him, when he knows very well there are more acute problems that need the attention. Seems like an act of humility in the face of larger forces, to me.
Franken’s record of respect and support for women and our legislative needs outshines the scum thrown at him. Hundreds of women who actually interact with him were vocal about his good character.
Sorry you seem to believe it—-flung scum has to stick somewhere, I guess.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)and the majority of Democratic Senators for something Franken did, because some of the Senators were men.(sarcasm) Senator Tina Smith is the Democrat in Franken's old seat. I'll bet she also has a good record of respect and support for women.
Yes, I do think the number of accusers and Franken's resignation both point toward there being some truth in some of the accusations.
Since I respect Franken, I'm confident that he made what he believed to be the correct decision. It's time to stop blaming other Democrats.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)That would be an indicator, but it’s not there.
Please tell me which accusation/s you find credible. Credibility—the key word here. The primary accuser—a trumpanzee radio host and professional sexual tease, retracted her complaint at the prospect of investigation.
As for bloc loyalty—yes unfortunately Dems aren’t conservative, we don’t take to one ideology, and loyalty oaths and we don’t take to silence when a wrong has been committed. Including wrongs of temporary hysteria.
Will I vote —and encourage others —for all those Dems? Yes of course. I’ll note and support their generally good well researched legislative decisions that are in Our interest. There’s Zero of that coming from the pukes.
Will I ignore the fact that no legal process determining guilt or innocence was conducted, and it was a giant ambush to get rid of the most effective “confronter” in the Senate hearings? Nope, won’t forget.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)the investigation actually started. It isn't about criminal guilt, as far as I know he wasn't accused of criminal acts.
He gave up. If he was innocent, he is responsible for depriving his supporters of the Senator they elected to stand up for them. He wouldn't even stand up for himself.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)when we allegedly had someone accused of wrong doing on ''our side''. Although allegations against Roy Moore were far more severe .. Gillibrand led the attack and lobbied other Democratic Senators on the removal of Franken. I personally feel we needed Al Franken in office. His discrepancy was harmless, and he apologized for his actions. His fervor will be missed.
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)There were eight allegations
Four were from anonymous accusers that was never substantiated
Three were from lying trumpanzees, so you know you they're garbage
And one was from an attention seeker whose accusation basically boils down to this:
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)If he were innocent then he was easily intimidated to resign. In either case, Gillibrand is not at fault.
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)He knew he was wasting his time trying to defend himself. His own party shivved him and refused to give him a chance to defend himself, just like you are doing now.
And, yes, she is a ringleader of the backstabbers, and I'm betting she will own up to leading the charge against Franken. The party doesn't need the likes of her.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)elected official over the many (including Gillibrand) who did not resign. Franken's resignation can't be blamed on other Democrats, no matter how hard you try.
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)who chose to step aside for the good of the party that failed to support him instead of waging war with idiots who are still scared of optics in the Trump era. What they did to Franken was unforgivable.
The only reason why the bullshit accusations stopped is because they got sloppy trying to do the same thing to Chuck Schumer.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)who said he should leave are still Senators. The people who think that the majority of Democratic Senators are fair game because of Franken are now working against the Democratic party. Franken took himself out, he is gone, he is not coming back.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Do you have any proof of that?
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)there are people who think it could be. LOL
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Cult of personality. And I thought that was only a problem on the right.
Gillibrand has lost her (D) card in my eyes. #ShameOnGillibrand
FSogol
(45,529 posts)wryter2000
(46,082 posts)Great idea!
mythology
(9,527 posts)I'm curious about the math of a roughly 2% interest rate, but if the CBO estimates it to be enough, that would be great.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)banks, but no one who goes to the Post Office and already has to spend an eternity in line to get some postage stamps, or mail a package wants to wait even longer while someone is getting a mortgage loan, or opening up a savings account. Keep the government's grubby hands off our Post Offices.
Secondly, when I was in the military, I worked in our local Finance Center as a Cashier in the Disbursing Section where they keep all the cash, (so I know a little something about the security necessary to secure large quantities of cash. Also my daughter worked for Bank of America for several years so I know something about their security as well. This would require that every Post Office to be redesigned and the rebuilding of a large portion of every post office to include a secure vault to store large quantities of cash.
Next new banks built in California, are locating their banks in shopping centers, not off streets, to make it more difficult for bank robbers to run in, hold up the place and make a quick getaway. So to make the post offices not quite such easy targets, they will have to spend money to either to make entering/exiting not so quick and easy and also provide additional security. Also, my daughter's bank in Atlanta, GA was robbed many times when she worked there, (GA doesn't seem to make it difficult like CA does for robbers to run in and make a quick getaway) without being noticed. No one should have to know the terrifying experience of someone rushing into a post office and hopping over the counter or having a gun pointed at your head, or at the head of a cashier and threatening to kill her if she doesn't hurry up. I assure you it's an experience you never forget and it changes you forever.
Also, it just seems to be a STUPID idea with all the commercial banks and credit unions available for the federal government to try and get in the banking business. Why do we need to reinvent the wheel by getting the government involved in banking? Mortgage loan rates are set by the cost of capital (the Treasury Rate) and people's credit history and are competitive already. So do we want or need to convert post offices into banks unless we want the government to get into the business of subsidizing the cost of loans to those customers who either have no credit or bad credit.
Finally, the private market is working. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. WalMart, of all places have money centers inside them, that you can use to buy inexpensive money orders or to wire/send money across the country in minutes. We do not need to create a government. The GOP has been trying to privatize the post office and the public has fought back with this idea for years. Turning the Post Office into a bank will not make our lives any easier. Quite the contrary, they will make the post office less efficient and give the GOP more to bitch about.
Congress already has enough to do, and the job they have they don't do so well. Congress needs to do the job we sent them to Washington to do, and keep their HANDS OFF our Post Offices. Turning Post Offices into banks will not improve service, but will make it worse. Tell Congress to do their job and keep their grubby hands off our Post Offices.
Squinch
(51,016 posts)they can hire some more people.
And no, the private market is not working. Banks are incredibly expensive, and some of us don't want to use Walmart.
FreeState
(10,584 posts)it was easy and the lines were no longer than US bank lines (which is what the post office is like here usually).
Squinch
(51,016 posts)politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)There may be good reasons that something works in other countries but that doesn't mean we need it here. My problem is we've got plenty of problems here, so why are members of Congress worrying about things that are not broken, and not trying to fix the things that are broken. The GOP is trying to dismantle Obamacare and back when Trump was trying to kill it, the Dems in Congress were saying that there were fixes that Obamacare needed but we didn't need to get rid of the entire thing. Well I haven't seen the Dems introduce any fixes to Obamacare since the Trump administration began. The Repugs introduced some, nothing new though, like allowing insurance companies to sell worthless policies across state lines. So where are the Dems suggestions for 'fixing' Obamacare. Even if they are not in power, that doesn't mean that they can't present ideas.
Where are the Dems with any new ideas regarding lowering drug costs. I read an article today on DU where a Wall St Banker guy had said that we shouldn't be looking to cure diseases because the real money was in treating diseases, not curing them. They were sending this message out to their clients to discourage them from investing in and "CURES" for diseases. I haven't heard anything out of Congress related to that today. They should be outraged. Everyone needs to read this and then contact your Congressman or Congresswoman now that the cat is out of the bag.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210542552
According to a great new report by Lee Camp on Truthdig, Wall Street bankers actually believe that curing diseases here in the United States is bad for business.
According to an analyst with Goldman Sachs, analyst by the name of Salveen Richter, this is what he had to say in a recent report for Goldman Sachs. “Is curing patients a sustainable business model? The potential to deliver one-shot cures is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies. While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”
Sustained cash flow is what bankers and pharmaceutical companies, that’s what they value more than they value your life. They admitted that. That’s what’s right there, in their own documents.
They want sustained cash flow, they want chronic illnesses, illnesses that make you have to go in for therapy once a month, or twice a month, or every other month, whatever it is, as long as you keep coming back for more. If they cure you, you’re done. You don’t go back. You don’t have to spend money, you don’t have to get more test run, you don’t have to buy more medicine. They’re out of their cash flow. It’s not sustainable. And now you understand why in the United States it seems like we’re not curing anything anymore. ...
...But we now have confirmed evidence that Wall Street bankers, pharmaceutical companies, and everybody involved in medicine here in the United States, they value the money that you pay for coming back, and back, and back, and back, more than they value your life to develop a cure.
And that is the problem with for-profit medicine here in the United States, and none of that is going to change until we rein in these pharmaceutical companies, and we get the government somehow involved in this in a much better way, to prevent them from gouging us every time we go refill a prescription, and make sure that they’re actively working on trying to cure Americans and not just drain our wallets.
https://trofire.com/2018/04/25/wall-street-says-that-curing-diseases-is-bad-for-business/
bonniebgood
(943 posts)rpannier
(24,339 posts)We have Postal Banks (Post Offices also are banks)
They're run very well. I don't bank with the post office, but many people do and they think it's great
In fact, I use their teller machines when I'm not near an atm for my bank
I pay no fee for using them either
But... your concern is noted
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)
Bradshaw3
(7,529 posts)I wonder if it isn't positioning for the 2020 Democratic Presidential primary on her part. Maybe to deflect away from being branded as a New York big financial interest water carrier.
George II
(67,782 posts)Bradshaw3
(7,529 posts)Google searches turn up plenty of stories about her ties and corporate money from Goldman Sachs, Chase, Morgan Stanley etc. In fact she was the No. 1 recipient of Wall Street money in 2012:
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2011/11/scott-brown-outdoes-elizabeth-warren-on-wall-street-but-gillibrand-blows-them-both-away-000000
People might not like how she is portrayed but there is in fact ammunition for critics on this subject. That's why I made the point about her trying to counter that. I think she is very ambitious and trying to position herself for a run. That doesn't mean she is above criticism or posting of facts about her record.
George II
(67,782 posts)This is getting old, very old. She received ZERO from "Wall Street" and no "Wall Street money". NOT A PENNY.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with posting facts about her record, but the operative word is "facts".
Bradshaw3
(7,529 posts)Here is thre "operative" paragraph with the facts:
Gillibrand has raised $937,400 from the securities and investment sector, to Brown's $519,278, with Utah Senator Orrin Hatch a distant third at $259,671, according to Open Secrets.
I suppose you are trying semantics here rather than facts. A million dollars from the securities and investment sector - more than any other senator - is what they will attack her with. If you have FACTUAL information disputing that number go ahead. But being snarky or trying to deflect from the point with nothing to back it up undermines your statements, rather than disputes what I wrote, which is that those contributions could be used to make her look like a tool of Wall Street.
George II
(67,782 posts)...clarify even the claim in your highlighted sentence.
First, no individual can give more than $2700
Second, no business entity can give more that $0
Third, and maybe most importantly, when people contribute to a candidate, they must give the campaign their occupation and employer.
If a person cleans toilets in a bank branch in Utica, New York, that person must give his/her occupation AND employer (say ABC Bank)
So, that person is put in the big category of "securities and investment sector".
Do you know the employment demographics of New York State? I come from a family of eight, although none of us were in upper management or in the "securities and investment" sector specifically, six of us at one time in our lives worked for banks. I was in "data processing" (now IT), my brother was a clerk in the office, a brother and sister were tellers, etc.
If any of us contributed to a candidate, were were "buying influence" for the "securities and investment sector"? No, but they'd be categorized in that sector.
And Gillibrand, who serves New York State, is being compared to Brown and Orrin Hatch? That's ludicrous.
That's why people need to understand campaign finance laws and financial reporting.
Bradshaw3
(7,529 posts)So lay off the condescension and try to get the point: whether they come from individuals or companies that number will be used against her. Whether you like it nor not or want to qualify with things like the janitors on Wall Street are where she gets her money, voters are not going to buy that, just like they had a hard time believing HRC wasn't in bed with big money interests.
Then there is PAC money which she this year said she is no longer going to take. You can parse it all you want but she has taken money from Wall Street interests in the past. That's what she is going be to hit with and that's why people need to understand how elections are fought and won.
George II
(67,782 posts)....that's another story and not my problem.
Bradshaw3
(7,529 posts)The problem is not liking to hear facts that don't fit with a worldview. There are several on here with that problem.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I hope to see a lot more of it from many, many legislators.
Producing realistic, progressive legislation is their job, so I thought.
Bradshaw3
(7,529 posts)If they are just an opportunist, which is what she often looks like, then they could just as easily sway back against those positiions after getting elected and after pressure from powerful interests.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)So sh SHOULD represent their legitimate interests. That is how she or any other politician must work. I am sure attacks on Kirsten and other democrats who may run in 2020 is trying to clear the deck for you know who. The shit is so transparent.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)SergeStorms
(19,204 posts)but this is a definite non-starter in Congress. She has a better chance of convincing Donald Trump to stop his incessant "tweeting" than getting this to go anywhere in Congress. We may not like it, but it's true.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Never thought of that aspect.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 25, 2018, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Because if someone may, in the future, be running for re-election or higher office it's a craven "positioning" for a future election and "deflecting?"
I thought that we elect Demcrats do actually do what she is doing here.
So do you think that any progressive legislative action by someone who may be interested in getting elected or re-elected is suspect?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If this is "masking" I'd like to see a lot more of it...
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I also don't just dismiss good work and legislation by someone as craven self interest because I disagree with them on other issues.
I thought it was ridiculous for some to say that HRC was cravenly building support for a run by working closely and succesfully with legislators and progressive orgs, "inside the beltway" for decades.
And all that that was supposed to make her untrustworthy and an "insider," and not an accomplished progressive.
That's the sort of thing that I think will shoot us in the foot.
We need to praise progressive legislative action for being just that. I don't care what the 'motive' is.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I was referring to other posters in this thread.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)I'm much more concerned about any candidate who cozies up to Wall Street... if you're saying Gillibrand has a problem in this area that she's attempting to mask, that's a subject worthy of debate.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I hope to see a lot more "masking" like it...
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)That's not to the exclusion of the masking issue raised by the person I was responding to.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)elfin
(6,262 posts)Nevertheless, KG remains on my "Unforgiven" list. While I may have to vote for her if she gets a Pres. nomination, I will not donate, or work for her, or even put up a yard sign.
Even if she found the Ethics Committee practices faulty, she didn't even try to give AF a bit of due process. Her ambition deeply weakened the Senate.
My feelings are still raw.
mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)But I’ve forgiven because she’s our imperfect senator and we need her. On the whole she’s a good representative of our ideas. And you’re right this isn’t a new idea just a good one.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)100%
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)He was not fired.
I understand the frustration over what so many legislators did in that situation but the whole handling of the situation on Frankens part was a joke at best. Not his finest hour. I love Franken but there is a reality to the situation. He crumbled before the legislators jumped the gun on him.
Bluepinky
(2,276 posts)But Gillibrand and others called on him to resign right away. So he was actually forced to resign.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Exactly. That will always go over well in one of the greatest deliberative bodies in the world.
That is my point. I fully agree with how you describe his actions. He told his colleagues to wait. He also let them know he would not be fighting for himself as they waited.
Bluepinky
(2,276 posts)He publicly said he didn't remember some of the events the way they the accusers described them. He didn’t come out and say the women were lying because he’s too nice for that. His problem is that he is probably too nice for cutthroat Washington politics, which is a shame.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Competitively so, shall we say?
mopinko
(70,230 posts)why oh why dont people give credit where credit is due when they warm over these ideas?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)If so, why are you not giving credit where credit is due?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Autumn
(45,120 posts)together this could be done. It's a great idea.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)but, no matter. What's important is that Democrats get behind these good ideas and promote them as a united Party to convince the electorate why they should vote Democrats into office.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)they are on the same page.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)nicely on a whole host of progressive issues... Medicare for all, a guaranteed jobs program, swearing off dirty corporate campaign contributions to name a few.
This will only unite the Democratic Party, making it stronger, allowing us to appeal to more voters, yes, even across Party lines. It's called a winning strategy!!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)get a progressive, realistic bill crafted and introduced.
That's what legislators are sent there to do.
Talking is one thing, doing the work of legislating is another.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)signed on to Bernie's Medicare for all bill.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and getting legislation introduced are different things. Gillibrand is the first to get legislation introduced - which is why she deserves the credit for doing so.
Warren was the first I heard talk about it a few years ago, and wondered why it didn't go anywhere.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Squinch
(51,016 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Gillibrand has accomplished introducing legislation.
I think that all the Democrats working together can get this into law - for the reasons laid out in the article.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)they can get these things done.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But he may jump on.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)It's called working together.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Squinch
(51,016 posts)But apparently repeating an idea means one owns it forever after.
you are a woman.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)though it did not provide lending. The postal systems of a host of developed nations provide some basic banking services.
That's in the article.
Fullduplexxx
(7,870 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If she did, I missed it.
The article is about legislation that has been introduced.
Talking is one thing, getting legislation crafted is another.
And what are you suggesting that she "leave?"
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)MarvinGardens
(779 posts)Potential indentured servitude like student loans?
Access to a checking account through the post office is a great idea. Not having a checking account is a serious impediment nowadays. I am skeptical that government loans are a good thing for the poor.
How about a federal usury law? 20% interest and up should be criminal, and it once was, before the national banks were exempted from the state usury laws. Some states have tried to shut down the payday lenders, only to be thwarted when the lender incorporates in Delaware or South Dakota as a national bank. The feds should step in to end this practice.
As a matter of policy, our government should not be encouraging anyone, poor, middle class, or rich, to go into more debt or stay in debt.
KPN
(15,655 posts)definitely restore a federal usury law (at no greater than "x" percent above current inflation rate).
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)There will always be reasons - some good reasons - for borrowing money, particularly small amounts.
You think that they should remain at the mercy of payday lenders? You think that they should borrow way more than they need to get lower % fees and interest?
Small loans often don't return the costs when they have low interest rates - which is why for profit lenders charge minimum fees, and higher rates.
They will stop loaning if the fees are not enough to make a profit. Then many people who do need this money will have nowhere to go for a small loan.
The public will not expect to make a profit on these people. The pulbic can step in and provide this needed service without those fees.
And more post office locations will stay open. That is good.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)is going to go over with most voters.
I just don't think proposed legislation that if honestly discussed -- may require government subsidies unless high interest rates are charged to offset delinquencies -- will fare well.
I feel so sorry for people forced to use those places, even if they are just cashing a check and paying fees on that. I hope something better than payday loans is worked out, but I am skeptical the risk can be managed without charging high rates or requiring government subsidies (which will never pass a Congress that like to cut food stamps, etc.).
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)What other way is this need going to be fulfilled?
People talk about food assistance being a drain, when dollar for dollar, it's the best local economic stimulus there is.
If these people are paying their rent, paying their dental bills, paying their utilities, etc. rather than defaulting, that prevents losses.
The talking point that is the most compelling politically and makes this more attractive to both parties is that the primary victims of payday lenders are active duty military personnel. These places open up around military bases, and know that servicemen and women can be disciplined for defauting on debts. That puts payday lenders in front of food and medical bills in priority for payments from those who borrow.
It's one thing if "those loser poor people" are being soaked, but when it's our men and women in uniform, that's another thing entirely.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)likely require government subsidies to cover loan defaults and cashing of bad checks. I'm actually fine with that, but don't believe Congress will be, nor the typical voter. Those subsidies will be required with a small default rate, unless much higher interest rates are charged to everyone.
I agree 100% with the disdain for payday loans. Normally, I'd say just ban the dang places. But I know there are people who need a loan to make rent, etc., until a better alternative is found. But, however you cut it, they are high risk/cost places.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And if Democrats spotlight the effect that the industry has had on military families (yes, I know that the military has short term loan programs now) that still goes on, it will be politically beneficial.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and i don't believe Congress -- especially as it is currently constituted -- will allow subsidies. Wish it would, but there are probably other things more important to fight right now.
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)Sure, there are always occasional one-off issues where we might need a short term loan to pay the bills. If it's a recurring need, then loans are not the answer.
No.
No.
They will stop loaning if the fees are not enough to make a profit. Then many people who do need this money will have nowhere to go for a small loan.
The folks who have to pay usury rates on their loans either have bad credit, insufficient income to pay back the loan, or both. And every situation is different, but often people who are seeking these high interest loans are trying to solve a longer term problem (expenses exceeding income), with a short term solution (loan). Is a loan a good solution for someone with bad credit, or someone who lacks the income to pay it back? I think not.
If you have good credit, you can already borrow money at reasonable rates. If you have bad credit, a loan is gasoline on the fire. I'm not saying we shouldn't help people in those situations. I'm saying loans are not a good solution.
And again, I don't know the fine details of this proposal, but often government backed loans are treated like tax debt: If you default, you are screwed in numerous ways, and the bankruptcy courts cannot help you.
Lastly, I am all for keeping post office branches open, but this does not justify us doing something that is otherwise questionable. I would not advocate having post offices sell booze, cigarettes or lottery tickets either
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And if people have bad credit - say from a medical bill or loss of a job, they should just go homeless?
I'm not clear on what you think that the help there should be for someone with no credit card is who needs to get their car fixed to keep their job. Homelessness? Giving them money? Can you clarify?
I have a mortgage that I can't pay back immediately. I make payments. When a collection agency came after me to repay a $15,00o medical bill, they called me "irresponsible" because I had incurred costs that I could not write a check and pay $400 a month. I told them I would make a payment of $10 a month, and more when I was able to. They got their money. Just not in the time frame they wanted. By your standards I was someone that no one should ever loan money to, and doing so would have been pouring "gasoline on fire." Relatives helped by loaning me money, and I paid them back, despite your dire predictions....
I mean, if you think that loans are "gasoline on a fire" what other means is there to get people with bad credit help when they are against the wall? You seem to have a very low opinion of people with a "bad credit rating." Many are in dire straights because of medical bills, or student loans not character defects.
We are not talking thousands of dollars at a time. We are talking payday loans - a few hundred dollars. With low fees, more people could pay them back on time. Whether their financial issue is longer term or not - rent comes due every month, as do utilities.
You make it sound as if loaning people - with bad credit, anyway - is like selling them crack, and making it possible to keep their family under a roof, with the lights on, food in the refrigerator and gas in their car.
And yes, a secondary benefit (not a primary purpose) would be that more post offices would stay open.
Who said anything about "having post offices sell booze, cigarettes or lottery tickets?"
Strawman much?
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 25, 2018, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)
The post office bit was a strawman on my part, but I was really just joking. Allow me to point out a couple of your straw men.
Nope, never said that.
Never said that either.
Happy to answer. Homelessness? No. Giving them money? Yes, a much better solution than a loan.
Really, if it's a recurring problem, then the problem is that expenses exceed income. There are multiple possible solutions, I just don't think loans are one. All the good solutions involve raising income or reducing expenses. Raising income could come in the form of helping people find better paying jobs, better minimum / living wage laws, and income supplements (EITC, welfare payments, etc.; yes, giving them money.) There's less the government can do to help people reduce expenses. Free services can help. Encouraging debt increases expenses, rather than reducing them.
It sounds like you found a good solution. It's good you didn't borrow money at usury rates from one of these legal loan sharks to pay back that medical bill. You might never have gotten out from under that.
If we're going to have government help for folks "against a wall" as you describe, I'd much rather it be temporary relief that does not involve a loan that could haunt them possibly for years. A way to raise income, short or long term, as I previously stated, is a better solution.
You are mistaken if you think I have a low opinion of people with bad credit. Rather, I have a low opinion of those who loan them money at high interest rates.
I think debt is an important part of what keeps the poor and middle classes poorer, transferring wealth from the have-nots to the haves. What sort of lending and banking system we have could be a long and complex discussion. But we as a society should not actively encourage working class people to go into debt.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)So giving them money... and that's better than a loan.
And I found a "good solution" by borrowing money from relatives....because I am privileged to have relatives. I found a "good solution" by simply refusing to pay what the collection agency wanted, and yes that wrecked my credit rating.
You certainly are opposed to loaning them money at low interest rates. Like I had the privilege of doing. Your words don't show much respect for people with bad credit, as if they have no self control. I was able to get back on my feet with such - but you think that was "Pouring gasoline on fire." And yet, here I am unscorched.
The point of a loan is to pay for something - and in the case of "payday loans" it's usually to pay off a debt that comes sooner than payday - rent, not a vacation... And if a low interest loan gets them a college education? And if a low interest loan gets them out from under medical debt? And if a low interest loan keeps them from being evicted? Or a car in order to work. You view any sort of payment plan as somehow inherently immoral?
What's the alternative now to a low interest loan? A high interest loan. Or a gift.
What does this "temporary relief" involve? Is it like emergency shelter - like we have now that requires you be 1/4" from the ground before the safety net kicks in? Food assistance? Medicaid that you can't keep if you have more than $400 in savings or more than one car?
That sort of "temporary relief?"
I think you may the one who needs a bigger bale...
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)Do you think giving people money is bad? Why are you against helping people?
If the government loans people money to get them out of a bind, what should happen if they do not pay it back on time? Wage garnishment? Asset seizure? You'd do that to people who were down on their luck?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)who is seeking a payday loan.
Are you at Hogwarts?
Perhaps the demographics of those seeking payday loans makes you doubt that they intend to pay it back - or that they simply could "get increased income" instead?
https://www.finder.com/payday-loans-statistics
People ages 25 to 49 are more likely to use payday loans compared to other age groups. Senior citizens ages 70 and older are least likely to use payday loans.
No four-year college degree
Those who haven't completed a four-year college education are more likely to take out payday loans. Beyond that, there isn't much difference based on level of education.
African American
African Americans are twice as likely to take out a payday loan than people of other races/ethnicities.
Income: $15,000 - $25,000/year
Those with household incomes less than $40,000/year are almost three times more likely to take out a payday loan than those with higher incomes. People in households making between $15,000 and $25,000/year are the most likely to take out a payday loan.
Renter
Renters are more than twice more likely to use payday loans than homeowners.
Disabled
Those who are disabled or unemployed are more likely to use payday loans than those who are employed.
Parent
Parents are more likely to use payday loans than those without children.
And if the possibility of someone not paying back a loan on time is a dealbreaker, then why do loans even exist?
I don't think that you are familiar with the concept, "a good faith effort to make a payment" because student loans would not exist with out them. I know. I had one. I was late many times. There were no attempts to garnish wages, nor any attempt to seize my car. I also paid it back, as well as a large hospital bill that was turned over to a collection agency. Just not as quickly as they wanted.
And that was way more money than people trying to cover their rent or groceries are looking for.
There seems to be some disdain and suspicion of people who are economically stressed on DU as well as in the GOP, apparently.
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)who is seeking a payday loan.
No, what I am saying is that loans are not a good solution to people who are running short of money with any regularity. If someone does not have the income to cover their expenses, how can a loan *intended to cover living expenses* help them in the long term? They will get deeper and deeper into hock with the lender, will they not?
There is nothing magic about increased income. Either it comes from a better paying job, a second job, or a government transfer payment ("welfare"
of some sort.
You seem to be taking it as a personal attack that I do not think loans are a good way to help people who do are running short of money. You were helped by a loan that got you through a rough patch, so you are taking my disagreement with this policy personally. I have not told you about my personal experiences. I had student loans, and so did my wife. She regrets hers, and we still have them. I have a mortgage too. I have family who have gotten into trouble with credit card debt. What they absolutely do not need is more loans.
Debt is a fact of life in our economic system, but the goal of everyone should be to eventually to get out of it, to pay it off, right? Or do you disagree? As such, I do not think it's something our government should encourage people to take on more of.
Loans from the government can be particularly insidious, because they can be very difficult to discharge in the event the borrower is destitute, as I've mentioned repeatedly in this thread. In the current proposal, it is very important what the terms are. I could be convinced to support this proposal if no interest were charged, and if the loans were dischargable in bankruptcy as any other commercial loan would be.
...
There seems to be some disdain and suspicion of people who are economically stressed on DU as well as in the GOP, apparently.
Are you accusing me of racism?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That's a huge segment of the population and growing since 2008.
Like I said - since 2008 "better paying jobs" are harder to get. Otherwise, more people would have them. We are talking about people who can't get a "better paying job" before their rent comes due. As for "welfare" it's not available to many:
TANF recipients must engage in a certain number of work hours or work activities or risk their benefits being reduced or terminated
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/23/what-happens-when-your-pregnant-sister-in-law-is-paralyzed-in-an-accident-and-has-no-insurance/?utm_term=.072d52c5ec60
Tell me what options this person might have to pay a dental bill or car repair bill or other unexpected expense? A short term loan might be one of the only options to keep their head above water. I'm not saying that they should go into debt, but to cut off one of the few ways that they could manage an emergency is simply wrong. Do you think that these people want to be in debt???? Do you think that these people are happy or non-chalant about "running out of money on a regular basis?"
Strawman... I never stated that people should not be encouraged to pay off debt. That's like me accusing you of wanting people to be evicted...or have their car reposessed before payday. This is like anti-choicers saying that unplanned pregnancy "is a fact of life in our culture, but the goal of every woman should be to eventually to not have sex when they don't want to get pregnant, to avoid it right? Or do you disagree? As such, I do not think it's something our government should encourage women to do by making it available - especially those who have had unwanted pregnancies on a "regular basis" (more than once...)
Yes, I'm saying that short term loans are like abortion - yes, it's better that people avoid unplanned pregnancy, but abortion is something that women don't do frivolously, and restricting access is not going to address prevention.
Short term loans aren't something that people do frivolously. Perhaps a a first aid kit might "encourage" some people to be more reckless, but you still keep them available.
You are the one simply stating that loans, even short term, small loans are bad, and access to them is bad. Another comparison - saying that we should not help people with electric bills this month - or on a regular basis - because it helps "big coal," and that's bad for the earth and we need to focusing on getting people onto solar and wind power. Many people are just one car breakdown or dental bill away from needing assistance "on a long term basis" - it's expensive being poor, and people don't seem to acknowledge that. One way it's expensive is because they don't have the minimum to keep in a fee-free account - and post office banking is one way to mitigate that:
https://www.alternet.org/economy/8-ways-being-poor-wildly-expensive-america
The current system has not offered the solution of "a better paying job" or "welfare" to these people who need a short term loan to avoid going under this week or more often - until all these solutions and alternatives that you say exist somehow appear for them.
Another strawman. Race was only one demographic of payday borrowers, but you decided to focus on that one... You seem to make sweeping statements about "people with bad credit ratings" or "running out of money regularly" as somehow monolithic, and needing limited access to loans as behavior modification. I wanted you to know that the demographic you were generalizing about is more diverse than you have indicated you think.
Is that clearer?
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)Sorry that I cannot respond more fully today. In short:
I agree, good jobs are harder to come by today than before 2008.
I agree, public assistance is inadequate.
The answer to those problems is, well, lets fix those problems. We are Democrats, and that's what we try to do. Fixing those things is in the party platform is it not?
I disagree with your abortion analogy here, because:
...is a false statement, whereas I agree that abortion is not something people do frivolously. Some people would never frivolously borrow money, and it sounds like you fall into that category. Others do it habitually. Some who declare bankruptcy had a run of bad luck. Others dug the hole themselves.
So let's say we offer these federal loans to poorer folks who don't qualify for traditional credit. Most will have credit scores of 650 or lower, right? Let's say we give each person a credit limit of $2000. Many will use it just as you say, as a lifeline, and will pay it back. Some will find those better jobs and no longer need the service. But in 10 years or so, a sizable fraction of them, I'll say 20%, will have maxed out their credit and be delinquent on the loans. Now they are $2000 in hock to the government in addition to their other problems.
So now what do you do? The most merciful thing is to let the loan be discharged in bankruptcy. If that is allowed, it would make this whole thing less onerous in my opinion. And if we do it that way, then to a subset of the borrowers, we're really just giving the money away, which is what I said we should do in the first place.
In case you missed it, in my original post on this thread, I agreed with free or cheap checking accounts offered at the post office. Just not loans.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Do you have some sources for that claim?
Sources that can rebut this?
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865632237/Why-people-who-use-payday-loans-arent-financially-stupid-just-desperate.html
The lack of respect indicated in your posts for the judgement and dignity of those who truly are in a corner an have no other option than payday loans to prevent eviction or to simply feed their kids for a few days may not be mean spirited, but it is certainly uninformed.
Sort of like the self styled financial guru who posited that her experience indicated that "so simple" to get out of student loan debt...
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/column/jourdan-vian-being-rich-is-a-simple-answer-to-student/article_e382cb6b-1289-5624-a7f6-44d510465999.html
And part of the function of a bank is to loan money. Interest on loans, even low interest, is one way bank covers costs, like salaries. It's not evil, nor inherently bad. Usury is, yes, and I think any time that people in need can access low interest loans instead of usurious high interest loans, that is a move in the right direction.
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 27, 2018, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)
Sources that can rebut this?
All I need to falsify your statement is to find one person who used a credit card for something frivolous. It's trivially easy. I'd offer some family members of mine, but you might not accept a personal anecdote. So here, we can see that 15% of Americans use a credit card at a coffee shop.
https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-card-use-availability-statistics-1276.php
Some nonzero percentage of them will carry a balance, so in essence they are borrowing money to visit a coffee shop. But it's immaterial to my arguments, what the reason is for people taking small short term loans. What is material is whether they can pay back the loan. And who do payday lenders cater to? People who have been deemed by the traditional lenders, including credit card companies, to be bad risks, I.e. likely unable to pay back the loan.
And I don't need to rebut your first link because it doesn't discredit any of the points I am trying to make. I never said people are using payday lenders because they are "financially stupid" (from the article title). What I said was, some might have a one-off emergency, but many have expenses that exceed their income. Your article doesn't refute that. If a person can't afford to replace a broken water heater, then they can't afford the house they are living in. If they can't afford to fix their car when it breaks, they can't afford the car. If they can't afford to take their kids to the dentist, then that's a basic living expense that they can't afford, and IMO the answer is to have social insurance or welfare to cover it, *not* loans for the thing the parent couldn't afford in the first place.
Here's a link to another article that distills down some statistics from a Pew report on payday lending:
(Added link on edit.)
https://www.pymnts.com/news/alternative-financial-services/2017/pew-charitable-trusts-payday-lending-figures-short-term-loans-cfpb-regulation/
Most payday loans are rolled over, however, and those consumers who do not pay them off immediately (or close to it) tend to see their loans last for 112 days, or 3-4 months.
...
The average borrower is neither unbanked nor financially destitute, since borrowers must have access to both a checking account and a job to even qualify for a payday loan. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, the average borrower is a white female aged 25 to 44 with at least one child, at least one credit card account and a full-time job with a salary between $30,000 and $50,000 per year.
Most of the borrowers are also part of the 47 percent club: the 47 percent of Americans who the Federal Reserve estimates could not cobble together $400 to pay for an emergency. The most common reason borrowers take out a payday loan is to cover the essential: repairing their car so that they can get to work.
...
As for rates, lending is a risky business for any borrower, and lenders underwrite risk and price for it. Short-term lenders don’t charge high rates for love of usury — short-term lenders lend to people with less than stellar credit and a 20 percent default rate. Banks loans, by contrast, have a default rate of roughly 3 percent.
So there you have it: Payday loan borrowers have a 20% default rate. So if those borrowers become borrowers on federal loans instead, 1 in 5 will become delinquent on those loans. How we handle those delinquencies is important. If they are treated the same as tax or student loan delinquencies are treated, then this is wholly unacceptable and one of my major concerns with this proposal.
You have argued repeatedly that people seeking short term loans really, badly, need them. Certainly this is true of many, but if they have no obvious way to pay back the loans, then it doesn't matter. Loaning money to someone who can't pay it back is creating another, possibly worse problem down the road. We should focus on improving our welfare / social insurance system to address poverty, not loans.
In your posts, you have downplayed concerns that borrowers could default on these loans at appreciable rates. I hope I have shown that it is a real concern, not "uninformed".
You have implied that I am disrespectful, or dislike, or have some sort of ax to grind against the folks who find themselves in these situations. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't want to establish a program that will create more problems, I.e a new student-loan-esq debt crisis that impacts the poor and working classes.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Do you have the second link that you talk about?
Where?
With usurious intererest and fees, are you surprised?
That's what offering low interest alternatives is meant to alleviate.
Is that clearer?
I am simply reading your posts, and your posts display that.
There is a clear a huge difference between student loans and payday loans - in those that are seeking them, in the amounts that are borrowed, and in the mechanisms by which they are offered. To include them in a slippery slope that joins non-usurious short term loans in a catastrophic scenario isn't realistic or informed.
Is that clearer?
Tell me - do you think that student loans are also something that are onerous and should not be "encouraged?"
If so, what are your alternatives? Other than "get a better paying job" or "temporary assistance?"
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)Also added to previous post on edit.
You have downplayed my concerns about default mostly by not addressing them when I raised them, instead repeatedly addressing need which I was not disputing. In one instance you said that you did not suffer late payment consequences because you made a good faith effort to pay. Are you saying that no one who owes the government money has their wages garnished or assets seized?
I don't think so, but your straw man assertions that I said poor people have a character defect, which I didn't, or that I compared debt to smoking crack, which I didn't; those assertions of yours are intended to make it look as though I am disparaging the poor.
OK, how about this:
Loans are capped at a reasonable amount. Say $1000.
Interest is CPI plus 1%.
They are treated the same as private debt in the event of bankruptcy.
Would you agree to that?
Student loans: glad you asked. Again, it all comes down to ability to pay. The problem with the current system is that only need is considered. We should also look at the major of study and the career plans of the student, compared with the amount they plan to borrow. Based on their estimated salary, the loan amount should be capped so that the student will be able to pay off the loan in 10 years with reasonable payments. Also, it should be easier to discharge the loans in the event of hardship.
Also, states need to kick in more for in state tuition like they once did. This would go a long way to reducing need.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)No wonder you didn't include the link in your post.
https://www.pymnts.com/about/
Your quote didn't have anything to do with the Pew Stats. The "statistics" in that Pew Poll are what people think about payday lenders, with pymnts.com's "facts" (that you quoted) that don't cite their source.
Big red flag.
No wonder you have the opinions you do of people with poor credit ratings, considering where you get your information. Do you work in the industry by any chance? Certainly low interest loans from non-profit public sources aren't in the interest of the payments industry.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Gillibrand apparently doesn't know much about banking.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)But first, let's change our bankruptcy laws so that student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. A student loan, a mistake perhaps made when we are very young, should not bind an unlucky, perhaps sick adult, for life.
People who lost their jobs and homes and had to declare bankruptcy still had to jump additional hoops to escape the shackles of student loans. It's just wrong. It discourages young people from striving to do their best, to get real degrees and technical training. It's a way of keeping the poor and lower middle class young people in their places, and it is wrong.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last I heard, more than one bill could be introduced.
Has that changed?
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)If not, and if they are instead treated like student loans, do you still support the proposal?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And I don't see how it would affect student loans, or their status in bankruptcy.
Can you clarify why it would?
Is Sophia4 unable to reply?
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)Would these federal loans in the current proposal be dischargable in bankruptcy? I realize the answer may be currently unavailable, but it's important.
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)It's been like that for years in Italy.
I still dont forget what she did to Franken.
progressoid
(49,999 posts)IluvPitties
(3,181 posts)KPN
(15,655 posts)Maybe she will recover from the Franken mess -- we shall see.
lark
(23,158 posts)I really can't stand her now and so hope she doesn't end up being he general nominee in 2020 because I'd have to vote for her. I will gladly support in every way possible any progressive challenger who didn't jump on the witch hunt for Franken and disregard the truth that it was a total rw set up to rid of their most implacable foe in the Senate. She helped Stone and Hannity accomplish getting rid of Franken without any effort whatsoever to find out the truth.
KPN
(15,655 posts)She has a long way to go. I don't feel like piggy backing on past proposals already made by Warren and Sanders will sufficiently convince me, but we shall see. I would most likely vote for her if she was the party's nominee, but I think she's got a pretty big uphill battle.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)People can talk about it for years - but getting some actual legislation going is something more.
No disrespect to either Senator, but why do you think that Warren and Sanders didn't do this?
KPN
(15,655 posts)I suspect for two reasons:
1) they don't see viability in it at the present time; and
2) they see the actual legislation as something that comes later and aren't really all that concerned about who gets credit, i.e., they both see more up-front bang for the buck in being vocal advocates on the national stages that they both enjoy.
There's no question that both are aware of the power they wield just by verbalizing ideas. That's a valuable asset and function, wouldn't you agree?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)as well. Many NGOs talk about and advocate for progressive ideas as well. But crafting legislation is something else entirely.
The thing is, Gillibrand is doing what legislators are supposed to do - craft legislation. That is a big leap from simply talking about it, or proposing the idea, which many, many others outside of congress can do.
I am responding to people who somehow think that Gillibrand is being given credit for something someone else DID, when no, she is accomplishing something new.
And the fact that our active duty military are the prime targets for payday lenders gives this bipartisan appeal, so I'm not sure why it has taken this long to make it to legislation.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/11/25/payday-lenders-find-loopholes-to-target-troops.html
And indeed, there is some legislation that is not viable. Especially when it has been introduced and voted down for decades. When I have talked about such futile legislative efforts, sometimes I am met with, "Well, we have to dream big, and this inspires people! You just hate the politician who is supporting it!!" Much like the impeachment votes when we don't have the majority, or countless votes to repeal and replace Obamacare during the Obama administration....
We have countless NGOs who speak on issues and advocate. The job of legislators is to legislate - yes, speaking and advocating is part of the job, but their priority is legislation. That is what Gillibrand has accomplished, here, and whatever I think of her, it's progressive action, and I hope that it moves forward.
KPN
(15,655 posts)Gillibrand is not going to have success with this bill and we all know it. The public generally does not here about most minority bills that are introduced, especially those that have little to no chance of passing or are not around issues that already have high public awareness/visibility.
Warren and Sanders have had far more impact re: public awareness/building than this proposed bill will in my opinion.
Let's just say we disagree on this point -- as usual.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Got it.
I've been 'splained it, so it must be so.
Ligyron
(7,639 posts)KG can kiss my ass.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Did Liz Warren get legislation crafted on this?
If she did I missed it.
No disrespect to either Senator - but talking is one thing, legislation is another.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Who helped implement the idea at the state level over one hundred years ago. Still in place today.
I'm curious as to why their point was it being an idea stolen from Warren when it has been discussed, as Warren did, for over a century.
Edit: Corrected pronouns as I thought it was the same person replying. Thank you.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But no one complains that a politician who talks about it, or introduces legislation of "piggybacking" on the ideas of Canada or the UK.
Talking about something is one thing. Getting legislation crafted is another thing entirely.
Squinch
(51,016 posts)from the Inspector General of the post office who put it out in a white paper a couple of years before BS or Warren ever mentioned it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)So, I guess she and Liz "stole" the idea from the Post Office...
progressoid
(49,999 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The article is about legislation.
No disrespect to the other Senators, but this is concrete progressive legislative action, not simply talking about it.
Talking about it is good, but introducing legislation is a step further. A big step further.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)awesomerwb1
(4,268 posts)Not a fan of hers, but ok.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) awesomerwb1
(4,268 posts)And about the legislation being introduced.....it might just be a symbolic gesture fully knowing it has no chance to pass.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And couldn't have "symbolic" legislation have been introduced back in 2013, when Warren was talking about it?
Did you read the article? She's got an awful lot of detail to simply be introducing a "symbolic" bill.
awesomerwb1
(4,268 posts)1- Yes
2-It could have many many pages of "detail" but if she knows it has no chance to pass, it's mostly "symbolic", to have something to bring up in 2020.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)but perhaps want to use a vote to smear people who vote against it as non-progressive.
I don't see any reason to think she believes this.
Did you read the article? It states why she chose now to introduce it.
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)The postal infrastructure is already in place. Republicans want to require people to work for all sorts of benefits but offer no solutions. With the proliferation of Amazon and other online retailers, the Post Office seems to be a perfect place to start to offer all kinds of goods and services and jobs to everyone,not just the poor. I love typos the idea. The banks already use the Federal Reserve systems for low or no cost loans, how about doing the same for working people. I’m not a financial expert but it seems the post office offers unlimited opportunities for expansion, not privatization like the R’s want.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)If this is going to be implemented it's going to cost a lot of money to 'do right'.
What I mean by that is that P.O.'s are going to get pretty slammed, and lines there can already really kinda suck and annoy people who have to wait in them. It's going to REALLY annoy Old Mr. and Mrs White if they find themselves stuck in line behind (mostly poor) people who are monopolizing the postal workers with banking issues ...
Bottom-line it's not going to be a good scene if steps aren't taken to separate the aspects of the 'business' ... the banking aspect probably shouldn't be done at the regular 'post office' windows (there's also privacy issues), so they're going need to build addt'l banking facilities in each PO, and up the staffing levels. That will cost a LOOOOT of money, esp. if it's literally every post office.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)The idea sounds good on paper, but implementation is going to be a nightmare, and damn expensive. This is not the kind of thing that our government has historically done well.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Payday lenders cluster around military bases, because they know that active duty military can be disciplined for defaulting on a debt.
They know that they can hold someone afraid of that over a barrel, and make them put the payday lender ahead of medical bills, rent, utilities etc.
Also, there is a cost involved when someone doesn't pay their bills - collections, evictions, etc.
Post offices already handle passport applications and appointments, and busy post offices already deal with that. And office supply stores handle a lot of package posting now for "Old Mr and Mrs White."
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Banking services could be a large business for the USPS, they will likely allocate resources to support it. Glad to see Kristen taking the lead on this by introducing concrete legislation, and not just talking about it or claiming to support it.
floWteiuQ
(82 posts)Love it!
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)BobTheSubgenius
(11,567 posts)Absolutely predatory, and if lawmakers have done away with laws against usury, I haven't heard about it.
So...perfectly in line with this administration.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)I appreciate all of them for supporting it, introducing it, educating people about, all of that stuff. And they all deserve credit for that.
It’s not a new idea, though. USPS ran banking services from 1907 until 1966, when the banking industry bribed the correct politicians (excuse me: “lobbied,” not bribed).
It’s not even an uncommon one. France still has postal banking. I know this for a fact, because I prefer to use their ATMs when I’m in Paris. Yet France still manages to have a healthy banking system. There’s a difference between capitalism and plain old greed; many Americans have forgotten that.
We should be looking all over the world for what works and then copy those thins shameslesly. In fact, that’s a major contributor to why the US became such a powerhouse. But now we’ve closed oiurselves off and just say “We’re number one!”
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Not everything that has been accomplished in other countries can be replicated here - for many reasons, different culture, they started it decades earlier and didn't have to replace something already enmeshed in the economy, or infrastructure, built it from scratch after WW2, etc.
However, this is not a huge change to current financial infrastructure, banking, or even post office facilities. All of the financial models for these loans and accounts currently exist, and the Post Office does financial transactions such as money orders already.
It won't even need to affect the current banking system - credit unions don't.
And as a political plus - the payday/title loan industry preys on our military in particular.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Thanks Sen. Gillibrand! 
PatrickforO
(14,592 posts)Franken.
Not all the way, but it is a start.
Good policy move. I will be calling my Senators to support it.
HenryWallace
(332 posts)Who the hell cares who gets credit for it! It's the issues themselves that count.
We need to celebrate the shift in the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse
See: Overton Window [link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window|]
We have Legislators who once held guarded, triangulated positions who are now openly advocating solid, rational and bold long-term solutions; you now, the kind of successful policies that have broad support and will ultimately lead to electoral success for all Democrats.
Rabrrrrrr
(58,352 posts)We can pat ourselves on the back all we want for how we're helping the poor, but until we actually create a system in which poor people are not a necessity, we're hypocrites.
LIVING WAGE LAW NOW!
Sancho
(9,070 posts)
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Is this part of her 2020 platform?
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)I had a postal savings account, starting in elementary school and extending right through high school graduation in 1963. I closed the account then to pay for my first semester at college. Back then, it was enough to pay all fees and buy all of my books and supplies.
https://about.usps.com/publications/pub100/pub100_025.htm
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
Squinch
(51,016 posts)about privacy: would a government entity holding my financial information be a good thing?
I support the idea but would probably stick with my credit union.
Mel
(2,835 posts)Sponsor: Rep. Richmond, Cedric L. [D-LA-2] (Introduced 07/23/2014)
Committees: House - Oversight and Government Reform
Latest Action: House - 07/23/2014 Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (All Actions)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5179
Shown Here
Introduced in House (07/23/2014)
Providing Opportunities for Savings, Transactions, and Lending Act of 2014 or the POSTAL Act of 2014 - Expands the specific powers of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to include the provision of basic financial services, including: (1) small-dollar loans; (2) checking accounts, interest-bearing savings accounts, and services relating to international money transfers, each of which may be provided by the USPS alone or in partnership with depository institutions and credit unions; (3) other basic financial services as appropriate in the public interest; and (4) the creation of a Postal Card that allows users to engage in such financial services.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)
mudstump
(342 posts)ideas. After what she pulled with Senator Franken she’s toast with me.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)This is actual legislation. Whatever you think of Gillibrand, no one has gotten as far as crafting legislation as she has done here.
No one has claimed that she "came up with the idea."
And Bernie certainly didn't invent the concept of single payer, did he? Last I heard, that didn't matter to anyone crediting him with moving it forward....
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)“Sen. Franken has said that he will be making an announcement about his political future tomorrow. The right thing is for him to resign,” Sanders, I-Vt., who ran for president as a Democrat in the 2016 elections, said in a statement issued Wednesday afternoon.
Sanders called for him to resign and on the next day, Franken did. So do you feel the same way about Sanders as you do about Gillibrand? Or do you have an excuse why it's so bad for Gillibrand, but not as bad for Sanders?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)What does Al Franken have to do with anything other than be your strawman?
I pointed out that people give Bernie credit for his action on ideas that he didn't come up with, and Gilibrand is creating actual legislation to move ideas forward.
Is that clearer?
Whatever you think about Sanders OR Gilibrand OR any progressive legislator when they create realistic, researched progressive legislation that no one has put forth, where the idea came from doesn't change that.
Bellyache all you want, this issue needed action, and I am glad someone finally DID something about it.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)"After what [Gillibrand] pulled with Senator Franken she’s toast with me."
That person brought up Franken ... and you replied to it as well. So what I've brought up is no strawman. I've seen a lot of animosity towards Gillibrand about this, with none towards Sanders around here. I'd like to know why the difference.
Response to SFnomad (Reply #146)
ehrnst This message was self-deleted by its author.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)If you look at my post #143, to the right it states ... "Response to mudstump (Reply #138)"
It was right below your reply, at the same level. If I had replied to you, it would be indented, just like your replies to me have been.
I apologize.
and indeed, I have noticed that while Gillibrand is being criticized for "taking Bernie's idea as her own" or otherwise dismissed as trying to present Warren and Bernie's "idea" as her own, (which she isn't) this isn't done when Bernie is given all credit for single payer - an idea that originated, and had legislation that was first attempted in the 1940s under Truman, debated in the 70's and proposed as legislation by John Cornyn repeatedly since 2002.
Because reasons...
Rabrrrrrr
(58,352 posts)So can't pin the creativity on him.
And I say that as one who supported Bernie and really really wanted him to win. But we can't attribute all good things to him and only him to the detriment of the rest of the party and the movement.
Squinch
(51,016 posts)post office proposed in a white paper a year or two before BS mentioned it in the primary.
SunSeeker
(51,715 posts)
Ferrets are Cool
(21,110 posts)KrazyinKS
(291 posts)But the banking idea is a good one. Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water so to speak.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)….will support her in it, though I'm still mad as hell at her for Franken.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)Response to Kirk Lover (Reply #166)
Post removed
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)Carry on though.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Carry on, though...doin' what you do best: whining.
Notice that I spit back at you the same immature and negative bs you spouted at me? I hate to go low like that, but for negative people, that's all they understand. Rudeness, negativity, cussing (because you don't know how to communicate intelligently).
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Lots of creative fucking from the fucking fucker of flying fucks.
Oh yeah. Shit too.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Maggiemayhem
(811 posts)Let alone the lack of security. A woman had her throat slit in our low crime in the country post office. The murderer has never been found because there were no cameras. Not sure if there are even 15 years later. I will say I’ve never seen a payday lender here, just cash for gold places.They even took out our local mail distribution sorting center and our mail goes all the way to Baltimore for that. Our post office is extremely busy as it is. I will really have to study this before I make an opinion one way or the other.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Like passport application processing. Some are just counters in the basement of an office building and aren't open other than lunch.
There's no reason to expect that all PO's will become full service walk in centers, any more than bank branch offices in grocery stores are.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)is because it cannot be implemented without a lot of work. It sounds good. It seems to make for good campaign fodder, but notice there is nothing in her proposal about where the funds would come from or how it would be regulated or what staffing would be necessary for it to work. Just like when Bernie used it, it makes for a great stump speech, but without putting the work behind the idea it is only political grandstanding.
Further. This thread shows that KG has burned her bridges with too many Democrats. She once ran as a conservative. I like that she works our side of the street now, but she has some bridges to rebuild that would involve apologies and admission of being duped. I don't see those from her. Senator from New York is a nice title. She can do some good there. But she showed poor judgement chasing the headlines and may have cost us a Senate seat. She should just keep hers and try to make amends.
haele
(12,679 posts)Not sure about loans or credit card, but I've heard of using post office as a credit-union style community savings and checking type bank that can also manage a few tax deferred accounts has been floated since the 1980's - and I'm sure it's been around longer.
Post offices already handle money orders and bonds for the public; it wouldn't be too difficult to include some sort of ATM service in the box lobbies that can handle various types of accounts (including some service/investment accounts - basic IRAs and CDs, tax free education accounts, HSAs, or money market), and making/disbursing debt cards is easy.
Other countries do it, why can't we?
With more government services using electronic fund transfers, it would be much easier for people who are borderline homeless, always on the move, or perhaps with credit problems that big banks and payday lenders take advantage of to manage their income and payments to the various federal loan programs to through a fee-free/low minimal fee post office bank.
Haele
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts) JCanete
(5,272 posts)offer nothing of big consequence IN ORDER TO win back Congress and the Senate? Where are posts about unicorns? Something like this would be huge, and I hope we see EVERY democratic senator come on board.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)There is a reason that she brought it up at this time.
Perhaps you missed that.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)passabilitiy of this sort of legislation now? Maybe I did miss it.
This is what I see, and I agree with her.
"
Asked why leading congressional Democrats have embraced sweeping economic reforms once considered marginal in Congress, Gillibrand said, “You need bold ideas to fix some of the structural challenges that we have in our economy today."
Of course we needed them yesterday too.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Is that clearer?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)they will never consider? Really?
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)How competent is the Post Office at collecting loans?
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)A Short History of Postal Banking
As the debate over reinstituting postal banking heats up, we should know we had it. And it worked.
By Mehrsa Baradaran
Aug. 18, 2014
Every other developed country in the world has postal banking, and we actually did too.
It is important to remember this forgotten history as we begin to talk seriously about reviving postal banking because the system worked and it worked well.
Postal banking, which existed in the United States from 1911 to 1966, was in fact so central to our banking system that it was almost the alternative to federal deposit insurance, and served as such from 1911 until 1933.
The system prevented many bank runs during a turbulent time in the nation’s banking history—essentially performing central banking functions before the Federal Reserve was up to the task. Postal banking helped fund two world wars and reduced a massive government deficit after the Great Depression.
Postal banks started in Great Britain in 1861 and, from the outset, the primary goal was financial inclusion.
But in the U.S., postal banking had other uses as well:
In 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant’s postmaster general, John Creswell, proposed post office savings banks to pay for a new telegraph system.
President Grant himself endorsed the postal banks as a way to free up hoarded money in far-flung regions of the country.
But the nation’s bankers opposed it. They objected to the notion that all the deposits would go directly to the Treasury.
Everyone feared centralized bank power, and localism in banking was as sacred as the Constitution at the time.
The American Bankers Association objected to the competition with the federal government. Ideological opponents called it communist, socialist, and paternalistic.
While they claimed that the private markets and savings banks were sufficient, in fact 98 percent of all savings banks were in the five northeastern states, leaving the South and the West virtually unbanked.
Very good read..
Smilo
(1,944 posts)used to do this, not sure if they still do.
It makes absolute sense. So expect a fight from the gop.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Long overdue.
NOMOGOP
(87 posts)It is interesting that among the charges Cohen is rumored to be facing is bank fraud, which carries a prison sentence of up to 30 years. Seems if you lie to a bank your in really big trouble. If the bank lies to you however, they get a really big bailout and "get out of jail free forever" card. Wonder how that happened
oberliner
(58,724 posts)She is one of our very best.