Postal Service Community Financial Lending Act of 2015 (Law'd)

[Talleyrand]

AYE

I agree with Windjammer that another amendment to cut down on the total funding should be introduced as soon as we pass this general framework though.

[TNF]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

All right. In the meantime, then, what are some numbers we can agree on?

$50 million for training and $75 million for services, including a new public outreach component (it's no use making these changes if no one knows about them)?

[Talleyrand]

All right. In the meantime, then, what are some numbers we can agree on?

$50 million for training and $75 million for services, including a new public outreach component (it's no use making these changes if no one knows about them)?

Both those numbers sound reasonable; I think we can effectively fund the DoIA's program without spending a half a billion.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY - my issue with the amendment is the dollars attached. We should be able to get these down.

[Adam Griffin]

Why would we cut the amount allocated to services? One quarter for every Atlasian man, woman and child to lend/invest is going to go a long way, I'm sure...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why would we cut the amount allocated to services? One quarter for every Atlasian man, woman and child to lend/invest is going to go a long way, I'm sure...

Or provide an argument for your numbers - it's not about the per-person amount, it's about why this amount is necessary.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Most people will not be flocking to the post office to get a loan, I'm sure...

And once the system makes money off of interest payments and the like, there will be more there to spend. Financial institutions exist to earn profit... I hope our system here would be able to eventually pay for itself as well...

[Adam Griffin]

Why would we cut the amount allocated to services? One quarter for every Atlasian man, woman and child to lend/invest is going to go a long way, I'm sure...

Or provide an argument for your numbers - it's not about the per-person amount, it's about why this amount is necessary.

Minimum capital requirements exist in almost every state for new banks and financial institutions. It is not uncommon for the state to require community banks to have $10-20 million in capital to even open their doors. In many cases, this is for one branch in a small town or city. Yet somehow, we're actually considering opening similar services across the entire nation at (hundreds? thousands?) of well-frequented locations, and somehow, we're coming to the conclusion that $75 million is sufficient. Even if it is purely small-dollar loans, the scale of this would be massive. Think about how many small towns would suddenly have a "bank" that currently do not: what percentage of people would frequent their Post Office instead of driving to another town for a small loan (presumably from some quasi-predatory lender)?

Banks have a three-year failure rate of 0.1%: there's a reason for that. That reason, among others, is that sufficient capital is available to ensure that the bank is capable of serving the needs of the community.

Most people will not be flocking to the post office to get a loan, I'm sure...

And once the system makes money off of interest payments and the like, there will be more there to spend. Financial institutions exist to earn profit... I hope our system here would be able to eventually pay for itself as well...

Even after your oh-so-convenient lurch away from the reactionary right, I can't imagine that you have all that much interest in truly seeing a program like this be successful. Self-fulfilling prophecy? This program has the potential to be quite revolutionary in rural areas in particular; I imagine that the concept (combined with sufficient marketing dollars, which I plan to introduce later) will be quite a bit more successful than you might think.

Also, who said anything about USPS not charging interest or being self-sufficient? Is there straw sticking out from under my sleeve? The incremental infusion of additional capital is obviously included to accelerate any projected market growth of what has the ability in the long-term to become a formidable public banking institution.

[windjammer]

Well, maybe we should contact the GM about which costs need to be effectively needed.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Griffin:

The purpose of this legislation is to provide small loans to people who can't easily access banks. I see no reason why I should root against that. If interest is being charged just like it would be charged anywhere else, people who already happily do business with other financial institutions aren't going to have any reason to switch over to USPS. Yes, people in rural areas might find it more convenient to bank at a post office, but these places aren't going to be giving out mortgages or significant LOCs. These small loans (maybe we specify that the loans can't exceed $1,000) won't be a big burden, opening and maintaining accounts doesn't really cost anything, and interest payments and loan repayment should keep the upfront capital (the amount I suggested) relatively freed up. We don't need to spend a fortune here.

Then again, your vision for this program is not what I believe most of us bargained for. The post office is the post office. Small loans and account services for people who really need them are one thing, but if we're voting to turn USPS into a "formidable public banking institution" as you indicate, I'll have to rethink my support. The government shouldn't be a full-service truck stop for city folk who are unsatisfied with the plethora of solid banking options they have just around the corner. It should give small loans to people who can't currently access them; that's it. The point, as I understood it, was not to create a mega two-tiered financial system that the fringe left could circle-jerk over.

And the willingness of others in this chamber to bring down the amount of your proposed appropriations leaves me hopeful that at least a few people will agree with me.


Windjammer:

As someone who has been in the position of receiving requests for estimates, I think maybe it's better not to bother the GM unless we think it's super-necessary. But that's just me.

[windjammer]

The result of the votes:
Aye: Griffin, TNF, Lief, Talleyrand
Nay: Polnut, Hagrid, Cris
Non voting: SWE, Cranberry

Griffin's amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Senator Cris]

My amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[Talleyrand]

To counter Griffin's point, if the DoIA feels that the amount of funding is insufficient when this program is being implemented, we can always appropriate more at that time.

[Cranberry]

I do believe that the opinion articulated as well by Griffin as well as by Nix, that we will need some many fundings for that program if we want it to be realistically implemented, is the one I will concur with. I say it open and now, I don't know much about this subjects, whatever capital accumulations are needed for banks and monetary institutes need to function properly, and that makes talking (trying to be) cleverly in a foreign language quite the impossible here, so I will have to join either one opinion, and this one does make more sense to me.

Thus, I will object to Cris's amendment. 

[windjammer]

Senators, a vote is now open on Cris' amendment.
Please, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[windjammer]

Nay, I basically agree with Griffin, Nix and Cranberry.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

ABSTAIN

[Cranberry]

Nay

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[TNF]

Nay

[Lief 🗽]

Nay

[Talleyrand]

AYE