Bernie Sanders Plan: Turn Post Offices into Banks

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dear Toddsterpatriot
What's wrong with replacing welfare, public housing vouchers etc.
with loans that people have to have a plan for paying back in order to qualify?

That's how microcredit programs work that are successful:
they not only provide microloans but require business planning and mentorship to make sure the participants can pay back their loans before receiving more credit next time.

I agree with you that if we keep setting up govt programs the same way, of course they will fail. The taxpayers keep bailing out the losses so there is no motivation to stop the waste and corruption.

Clearly, Sanders would not propose more of the same.
Why not set it up to succeed not fail.

Why not make sure none of the same problems with
public housing, public schools, etc. happen here.

Perhaps there should be collateral on all loans.
Hold property as collateral, and start looking at the property
the govt seizes from racketeering and organized crime.
Why can't that be used to leverage investments and loans
off that capital, and start rewarding citizens for investing in
sustainable solutions that pay off in the long run. NOT MORE
of the same problems funding handout programs that keep
consuming more and more money with no plan or no end in sight.

Isn't the point of reform NOT to make the same mistakes over and over?

Why not set this up to FIX the problems, not repeat them. Duh!

What's wrong with replacing welfare, public housing vouchers etc.
with loans that people have to have a plan for paying back in order to qualify?

Those are great ideas. Poor people could deposit their money in a Post Office bank account.
Then the government could loan the money to other poor people with no jobs or housing.
The profits will roll in very quickly.

Dear Toddsterpatriot
Under the RICO laws on racketeering and organized crime,
crime victims and communities especially trafficking victims can
claim property as restitution that was abused for trafficking drugs or people, especially if children were involved.

so if the taxpayers and crime victims who are owed restitution
for abuses against us ORGANIZE and CLAIM property against
these debts and damages from crime and corruption,
we COULD set up land trusts and bank against the value of
the property as COLLATERAL on financing and credit to develop
and rebuild our communities, school districts and cities.

This is how developers use money to make money.
Why can't poor people get mentoring help from more experienced
CEO's to set up endowments to fund nonprofits this way?

Sure beats depending on govt and charity handouts.
What if all nonprofits that serve the poor OWN their own
properties like a campus, so that they become self-sustaining
based on financially renewable income each month from
rentals and loans to teach people how to manage independently.

Why can't the same model used to make millions for investors
be used to make millions for nonprofits that teach the poor how
to get out of poverty and gradually learn ownership and management
so they move up the scale instead of staying stuck in poverty.

so if the taxpayers and crime victims who are owed restitution
for abuses against us ORGANIZE and CLAIM property against
these debts and damages from crime and corruption,

How does the crime victim get restitution from the crackhead who already smoked
what he stole?

we COULD set up land trusts and bank against the value of
the property as COLLATERAL on financing and credit to develop
and rebuild our communities, school districts and cities.

Jesse Jackson would be happy to manage that collateral for a small 20% annual fee.

 

[g5000]

Postal savings system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some government postal banks have proven so profitable, they were bought by private interests. Germany, for example.

How profitable was ours?

It was so profitable, the postal savings system was accused of "profiteering".

Anything else?

 

[Arizona Willie]

Bernie Sanders's Highly Sensible Plan to Turn Post Offices Into Banks

Another liberal Democrat friend of mine, who still plans to vote for Hillary,
pointed out this plan of Bernie Sanders to revamp Post Offices as Banks.

Bernie Sanders has a plan to reinvent the post office. Hillary Clinton should steal it.

I thought revamping the PO and VA would make good jobs for Veterans.
If any money is lost in the transition, it would go toward Vets anyway.
With the right people in charge, surely they could make one of these ideas work.

Bernie Sanders has a pretty revolutionary idea to change America’s post offices

Why not create jobs for Vets saving historic sites and businesses by turning them
into schools for on the job training in production and management. Why not revamp
the VA to provide sustainable health care through medical schools and internships, etc.

========
This is nothing new.

When I was young ( now that's a long time ago ) the banks ( ooops I meant Post Office ) did sell Savings Bonds and had some kind of savings accounts too as I recall.

It was usually a young kids first experience with financial things.

Of course, back then, people went to the Post Office much more often. There was no email -- gasp!!!! --- yes kiddies there was a time in human history when people didn't walk around with a plastic box glued to their ear or have to check their email every 30 seconds.

 

[whitehall]

Kind of reminds me of the time (mostly democrat) congress people used the congressional post office as a bank for quick cash. Post Offices have a hard time competing with services like UPS and Fed Ex because there is no incentive in the federal government to work hard enough to make a profit. Look what the "partnership" between government and the private sector did to the mortgage industry. The guy who was in charge of monitoring Fannie Mae told his bosses (the American public) that Fannie was doing fine when it was on the verge of collapse and no criminal charges were ever filed. God help us if the federal government ever takes over the banks. You would be better off burying your money in the backyard before the socialist democratic republic confiscates it "for the greater good".

 

[g5000]

Kind of reminds me of the time (mostly democrat) congress people used the congressional post office as a bank for quick cash. Post Offices have a hard time competing with services like UPS and Fed Ex because there is no incentive in the federal government to work hard enough to make a profit. Look what the "partnership" between government and the private sector did to the mortgage industry. The guy who was in charge of monitoring Fannie Mae told his bosses (the American public) that Fannie was doing fine when it was on the verge of collapse and no criminal charges were ever filed. God help us if the federal government ever takes over the banks. You would be better off burying your money in the backyard before the socialist democratic republic confiscates it "for the greater good".

The USPS's biggest competitor is e-mail, not UPS or FedEx.

E-mail killed the Post Office.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Kind of reminds me of the time (mostly democrat) congress people used the congressional post office as a bank for quick cash. Post Offices have a hard time competing with services like UPS and Fed Ex because there is no incentive in the federal government to work hard enough to make a profit. Look what the "partnership" between government and the private sector did to the mortgage industry. The guy who was in charge of monitoring Fannie Mae told his bosses (the American public) that Fannie was doing fine when it was on the verge of collapse and no criminal charges were ever filed. God help us if the federal government ever takes over the banks. You would be better off burying your money in the backyard before the socialist democratic republic confiscates it "for the greater good".

The USPS's biggest competitor is e-mail, not UPS or FedEx.

E-mail killed the Post Office.

=====
You can send a 1 oz letter via the USPS for less than a buck but the same letter sent via Fed - Ex or UPS would be over $17.

And righties hate the post office and want to privatize it.

I wonder why.

 

[bripat9643]

Kind of reminds me of the time (mostly democrat) congress people used the congressional post office as a bank for quick cash. Post Offices have a hard time competing with services like UPS and Fed Ex because there is no incentive in the federal government to work hard enough to make a profit. Look what the "partnership" between government and the private sector did to the mortgage industry. The guy who was in charge of monitoring Fannie Mae told his bosses (the American public) that Fannie was doing fine when it was on the verge of collapse and no criminal charges were ever filed. God help us if the federal government ever takes over the banks. You would be better off burying your money in the backyard before the socialist democratic republic confiscates it "for the greater good".

The USPS's biggest competitor is e-mail, not UPS or FedEx.

E-mail killed the Post Office.

=====
You can send a 1 oz letter via the USPS for less than a buck but the same letter sent via Fed - Ex or UPS would be over $17.

And righties hate the post office and want to privatize it.

I wonder why.

It would be far less than $17, but FEDEX and UPS are required by law to charge a certain minimum price, so you observation is irrelevant.

 

[g5000]

Kind of reminds me of the time (mostly democrat) congress people used the congressional post office as a bank for quick cash. Post Offices have a hard time competing with services like UPS and Fed Ex because there is no incentive in the federal government to work hard enough to make a profit. Look what the "partnership" between government and the private sector did to the mortgage industry. The guy who was in charge of monitoring Fannie Mae told his bosses (the American public) that Fannie was doing fine when it was on the verge of collapse and no criminal charges were ever filed. God help us if the federal government ever takes over the banks. You would be better off burying your money in the backyard before the socialist democratic republic confiscates it "for the greater good".

The USPS's biggest competitor is e-mail, not UPS or FedEx.

E-mail killed the Post Office.

=====
You can send a 1 oz letter via the USPS for less than a buck but the same letter sent via Fed - Ex or UPS would be over $17.

And righties hate the post office and want to privatize it.

I wonder why.

The USPS takes three days. FedEx is overnight.

You are paying for speed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Postal savings system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some government postal banks have proven so profitable, they were bought by private interests. Germany, for example.

How profitable was ours?

It was so profitable, the postal savings system was accused of "profiteering".

Anything else?

Of course, profits in 1920 must have been the reason to eliminate it in 1967.

 

[g5000]

Postal savings system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some government postal banks have proven so profitable, they were bought by private interests. Germany, for example.

How profitable was ours?

It was so profitable, the postal savings system was accused of "profiteering".

Anything else?

Of course, profits in 1920 must have been the reason to eliminate it in 1967.

It ended because private banks began offering higher interest rates on savings after WWII. They became competitive with the postal savings system.

 

[blastoff]

Let's see. A whole new federal program that will metastasize into yet another sprawling and wholely inefficient bureaucracy that'll be in charge of our banking system. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Postal savings system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some government postal banks have proven so profitable, they were bought by private interests. Germany, for example.

How profitable was ours?

It was so profitable, the postal savings system was accused of "profiteering".

Anything else?

Excellent idea!
We could use the tiny balances to finance homes in low income neighborhoods.
Probably pay off the Post Office unfunded liabilities in no time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Postal savings system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some government postal banks have proven so profitable, they were bought by private interests. Germany, for example.

How profitable was ours?

It was so profitable, the postal savings system was accused of "profiteering".

Anything else?

Of course, profits in 1920 must have been the reason to eliminate it in 1967.

It ended because private banks began offering higher interest rates on savings after WWII. They became competitive with the postal savings system.

That's your route to profitability? Offer lower rates on savings than private banks?

 

[g5000]

The idea that a government postal savings system is not profitable has been thoroughly debunked now. It was profitable in the US, and it is wildly profitable in Europe.

So you guys are going to have to come up with another objection that is viable. It's obvious you are only objecting due to bias and not for any rational reasons.

 

[g5000]

Postal savings system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some government postal banks have proven so profitable, they were bought by private interests. Germany, for example.

How profitable was ours?

It was so profitable, the postal savings system was accused of "profiteering".

Anything else?

Of course, profits in 1920 must have been the reason to eliminate it in 1967.

It ended because private banks began offering higher interest rates on savings after WWII. They became competitive with the postal savings system.

That's your route to profitability? Offer lower rates on savings than private banks?

The whole point Sanders is making is that there are millions of individuals who don't have a private bank account, and are cut off from many modern financial services as a result. Direct deposit, for example. Such people have to resort to these bloodsucking check cashing services which charge high fees.

The postal banking system would not compete with private banks. It would be supplemental.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The idea that a government postal savings system is not profitable has been thoroughly debunked now. It was profitable in the US, and it is wildly profitable in Europe.

So you guys are going to have to come up with another objection that is viable. It's obvious you are only objecting due to bias and not for any rational reasons.

Yes, hiring extra government union employees to staff the Post Office banks to service their tiny accounts will make lots of money. Even after the government mandates higher than market rate interest on deposits and lower than market rate loans, especially to low income and minority customers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How profitable was ours?

It was so profitable, the postal savings system was accused of "profiteering".

Anything else?

Of course, profits in 1920 must have been the reason to eliminate it in 1967.

It ended because private banks began offering higher interest rates on savings after WWII. They became competitive with the postal savings system.

That's your route to profitability? Offer lower rates on savings than private banks?

The whole point Sanders is making is that there are millions of individuals who don't have a private bank account, and are cut off from many modern financial services as a result. Direct deposit, for example. Such people have to resort to these bloodsucking check cashing services which charge high fees.

The postal banking system would not compete with private banks. It would be supplemental.

Yes, it's sad that poor people have no money to open bank accounts.
Will the Post Office be providing these check cashing services for free?
And as asked above, will they require photo id of their poor, minority customers?

 

[Arianrhod]

It was so profitable, the postal savings system was accused of "profiteering".

Anything else?

Of course, profits in 1920 must have been the reason to eliminate it in 1967.

It ended because private banks began offering higher interest rates on savings after WWII. They became competitive with the postal savings system.

That's your route to profitability? Offer lower rates on savings than private banks?

The whole point Sanders is making is that there are millions of individuals who don't have a private bank account, and are cut off from many modern financial services as a result. Direct deposit, for example. Such people have to resort to these bloodsucking check cashing services which charge high fees.

The postal banking system would not compete with private banks. It would be supplemental.

Yes, it's sad that poor people have no money to open bank accounts.
Will the Post Office be providing these check cashing services for free?
And as asked above, will they require photo id of their poor, minority customers?

What's sad is that you feel compelled to ask so many questions that could be answered by reading the information at the links.

 

[g5000]

Will the Post Office be providing these check cashing services for free?

They would charge a nominal fee, much lower than what is charged at the current neighborhood ripoff joints.

And as asked above, will they require photo id of their poor, minority customers?

Trying to make an apples and oranges fallacy now, are we?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course, profits in 1920 must have been the reason to eliminate it in 1967.

It ended because private banks began offering higher interest rates on savings after WWII. They became competitive with the postal savings system.

That's your route to profitability? Offer lower rates on savings than private banks?

The whole point Sanders is making is that there are millions of individuals who don't have a private bank account, and are cut off from many modern financial services as a result. Direct deposit, for example. Such people have to resort to these bloodsucking check cashing services which charge high fees.

The postal banking system would not compete with private banks. It would be supplemental.

Yes, it's sad that poor people have no money to open bank accounts.
Will the Post Office be providing these check cashing services for free?
And as asked above, will they require photo id of their poor, minority customers?

What's sad is that you feel compelled to ask so many questions that could be answered by reading the information at the links.

The links in the op did not answer my questions.