bbauska wrote:I asked him what restraints he would put on.

I missed that bit, if it exists. What I saw was you state that he has three positions:

bbauska wrote:You won't accept limits on assistance.
You won't accept equality on assistance.
You won't accept termination of those who violate the assistance rules.

ironically the post this was in started with:

bbauska wrote:RickyP,
You do not know what I think. I don't know what others think.

When he did not rise to the straw man bait, you then deigned to ask whether he agreed with your statements of his beliefs, and he answered.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Do you agree with the points I made about your view of Government Assistance?

No.

At that point I don't see you asking what restraints he would put on, but he did express opposition to people who are on high incomes getting welfare.

I see your position as being much more dogmatic than practical.

I choose "standard-based" rather than dogmatic, but thank you for the compliment.

It was kind of you to notice.

freeman3 wrote:DF, I mainly posted it for general information. I posted it here because (1) that if income concentration continues we will probably see more cities struggling to get by,

It is also a feature of changes in the economy. The US is very large, and what happened over time is that towns and cities often got established or expanded as a result of a key industry. If that key industry dies out (or gets outsourced), then the town can die. And when cities and big towns die they take a long time about it, and people find it hard to get out (because their homes are worth little, and they find it hard to earn the money.

And the city authorities may not have much ability to do anything - it may be that some of these cities in the study have poor management, but it strikes me that there is little opportunity if the main local employer goes - an employer that up to then will likely have 'built' the town and had massive influence locally.

(2) I thought there was an interesting discussion regarding what are minimal government services that a city should provide its inhabitants,

Indeed it is. There is a lot (by which I mean huge amounts) of discussion about what the Federal government should and should not do, and that interfaces with the debate about what State governments should and should not do. But Cities and Counties, not so much

(3)what should we as a society do regarding these cities that have lost jobs, population, have decliing tax bases, declining property losses so that these cities do not turn into horrible places to live.

Especially if the city has few resources.

Also, what happens when the wealthier inhabitants of Detroit move out into suburbs and work in the City--but pay no taxes to the City of Detroit. Or how about when suburbs adopt zoning so that they only have wealthier inhabitants meaning no apartment buidlings--see Lakewood example or La Canada) so that major cities have problems raising enough taxes for services?

Policies adopted by some cities can impact their neighbours and the State (and the Federal government).

geojanes

Many people attribute that tax (along with the absolutely terrible City services) as a contributor to the out-migration of jobs and residents.

Really? Had nothing to do with the failing auto industry? I understand that one of Detroits problems is that the State of Michagan cut its transfer paymetn to the City a few years ago...

Cities are the front line supplier of most important everyday services. They depend upon a share of state revenue in the US do they not?
Without the ability to raise their own revenue services decay .... Self feeding loop.Without some out side investment any city caught in this loop is in serious trouble. That investment could be private industry, or it could be government infrastructure ...
However, there is also a lack of sanity in Detroit. Canada has been trying to build another bridge across from Windsort. The private owner of the only bridge has been fighting this tooth and nail to protect his tolls and otehr revenue. It got to the point where Canada would pay the whole shot, AND offer a loan for construction of the customs plaza required on the Detroit side. The loan would hae been paid off by receipts from bridge tolls....
Imagine the jobs created by the work? But the monopoly by the private owner of the bridge continues..
the situation is portrayed in this humourous segment from the Daily Show
http://detroit.jalopnik.com/i-the-daily ... tr-5974802


...

bbauska

My feelings were not hurt.

Thats nice.

bbauska

I felt we explained our positions, and we were both entrenched.
You want no limits, no time restraints or little consequences for violations of rules. We disagree.

Well, snce you persist in arguing with views I haven't actually expressed, I guess I better understand how you can say ...

I don't know what others think

.
after several pages of debate you just can't process ...

You are indeed tilting at widnmills. Those in your mind.

There's also your magical thinking that you keep repeating. Term limits on welfare for instance...
What evidence do you have that when a person who is receiving benefits stops rceiving them their employment condition suddenly changes?
What evidence do you have that when some body recieivng food assistance is cut off that they suddenly find a legal way to feed themselves?
There are more intelligent ways to offer people the ability to improve themselves than hadn outs ... But often handouts are required to keep people alive and well, while they work to improve themselves.
I get it that you think everyome should be treated the same when it comes to "benefits". In fact I absolutely agree with you in two areas"
- health care
- access to education.
These ARE the two greatest factors in improving the lot of the poor and working poor and getting their children out of poverty. And even sometimes the adults themselves...
But they can't be hungry and going to school, or homeless and secure enough to learn...

The US has greater poverty than any other western democracy. And greater wealth too. Mostly because of the dogma (standards) that are applied to social programs... Despite spending more than any other nation, the effcts of all this spending are not felt to the same extent that lower spedning, in socalled socailist nations, actually has....
Thats because the programs are aimed at actually proven effective programs... Rather than blindly applying "standards" that you beleive are fair.
I'd rather have effective programs than worry about fairness, because in the end effectivveness is fairest for all involved.
I'll illustrate how that might work in Bbauska's world.
A child in a poor family goes to his school, and deos well in his school, even thought the school is substandard because it resides in a poor district with lower funding ... Then his family reaches the end of their benefits due to your abitrary term limits. Suddenly he is hungry half the time and his grades drop as he suffers from concentration problems ...
I'f keep the benfits gpoing Bbauska. In the rihest state in the world theirs no reason why hiunger should exist just because some people can't abide others getting what they perceive as "undeserved handouts".
You want to save money to pay for that? Deal with the "undeserved handouts" to corporations and undertaxed wealthy individuals. (Like not paying the same tax rate on social insurance as middle class or poor people, and paying lower tax on investment income... (I mean Bbbauska, a bucks a buck rght?)

rickyp wrote:geojanes

Many people attribute that tax (along with the absolutely terrible City services) as a contributor to the out-migration of jobs and residents.

Really? Had nothing to do with the failing auto industry?

Very little. The Detroit area remains the home of the domestic auto industry. It's not like Pittsburgh or Youngstown, where industries disappeared. The auto industry has changed dramatically, but it is still there, and employs vast numbers of people, nearly all of whom live outside the City of Detroit.

Out-migration is primarily driven by poor race relations, crime, the worst city services imaginable, unbelievably bad schools, and incredibly high taxes considering that tax-payers get nothing of value for those taxes.

Consider this: if you're a victim of a crime in Detroit the first time, you're likely to call the police, but then you'll find out that they're either going to victimize you as well, and/or they'll look for some reason to arrest you. After that, you just don't call any more. There are three groups in Detroit: criminals, police and the people they prey upon. That's not the environment many people voluntarily stay in to raise a family.

I note your position.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Is poverty in the US as big a problem as you all make it out to be? How much time have you spent in the homes of poor Americans?

I have often been in the homes of poor Americans. I would argue it is much worse to be poor now than it’s ever been. To be clear, I don’t mean material comforts. Poor people today usually have electricity, plumbing, and a basic floor of services that were not typical to the poor even 50 years ago. The problem today is that once you’re in the poverty spiral it is so difficult to get out of it.

Is it? I'm not convinced.

Lots of jobs today require the applicant have a credit check: bad credit often means no job.

So, being poor means "bad credit?" I thought credit was, in large measure, based on behavior. You know--bouncing checks, missing payments, etc. Can't one be poor and responsible?

If you don’t have a regular job it is difficult to open a bank account, and if you do, you’re likely faced with the choice of being charged through the roof or living life unbanked.

Recently dealt with someone in this situation. I found it enlightening. I think I'll post about it here in a reply separate from this.

If you have crappy credit you’re likely paying a ton on your car note, and you need a car because you likely live in a place with no or little public transit.

Is that true? I know Appalachia and other areas have extreme poverty, but they also have lower costs of living. Yet, many poor live in big cities. I'd say it's pretty easy to get around DC, NYC, Chicago, Boston, and other major cities without a car. In fact, in some of them it's easier without a car.

Unlike during most of our history, it is now OK to exploit poor people. I've written about this elsewhere on this thread: exorbitant rates on all kinds of financial services, high sin taxes and legal, government sponsored gambling.

I agree with this. It's sad that it is so prominent in liberal States.

I call the lottery a tax on the poor and the dumb. Lotteries keep about 50% of money taken in. Casinos take in about 12%. Which one is "organized crime?"

Our "great leader" (Governor Patrick) loves to stick it to the poor. He raises sales taxes, tolls, and is looking to expand gambling. Awesome!

Taxes on cigarettes are unreasonable. And, I say that as someone whose father died from complications of smoking cigarettes. When people are going to smoke and you zap them for $7 or more a pack, you are encouraging crime. Oh, I know the idea is to lower smoking. But, there is a floor to this--we will, sadly, never get to 100% non-smokers. So, why turn smokers into crooks? The taxes are crazy, so people work around them--and against the law.

The feedback loops that keep people stuck in poverty is really what’s new with today’s poverty. [EDIT] Oh, and crappy public educations (primary, secondary and collegiate) are making poverty a multi-generational affair.

Don't leave out public housing and public assistance, which for some people is as problematic as bad schools. For some people, taking away the "pressure" of surviving takes away their motivation to succeed. That's just a fact. If you have experience with a LOT of poor people, you've seen this in SOME of them.

It's like Civil Service: some people work hard; others content themselves to collect paychecks and keep "the Man" off their back--they do just enough to get by. They have no incentive to do more. Similarly, for a small segment of our society, free housing and free food are enough for them. I think that's sad.

National Geographic had a wonderful article on hunger in America. The letter from the editor had a story about problem of closing school in some districts for snow days: it means most of their students don’t eat that day. There are a lot of personal stories in the article. It’s worth a read if you think about the issue and have the time:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/hunger/

I'll read it. My suspicion before reading is that many of the problems are caused by parents. My sister was a school teacher in an area with many poor kids. Kids as young as 9 had probation officers. In each and every "sad case," the parents were all but non-existent.

So, recently, I had a young man call the office looking for money. These kind of calls are not unusual. His situation: a minimal job, a fiance and a child. He had no car, no checking account, etc.

As I talked to him, I recognized a little of the young me in him. Ostensibly, we had nothing in common: he was black and from the South. But, we both suffered from the lack of parental input in our lives. He never knew his father. His stepfather had been a good influence on him, but had died several years ago.

Now, he is a college graduate. What did he major in? Interdisciplinary studies.

He told me that and I saw red. What kind of counselor would let a kid major in that?

So, he's 29. He's not paid his student loans or taxes for 4 years. His family can't help him.

I want to help him, but just giving him money will not solve his problems.

I ask about his work. He says he works forty hours a week. Great!

Well, not exactly. It's a telemarketing job. I asked what made this job so unpredictable. After all, he told me they would send him home if "things aren't going well" (meaning he wasn't making quota). I told him it was a pretty lame job.

But, he's limited. He can't drive to work. So, I asked where he lived. It just so happened I had a connection to the owners of a McDonald's close to where he lived. He told me he had never been able to get a job there. I made a call. He started the next week. I was in the process of getting him another job when he found a second one: working at a dry cleaner.

Now, I have to tell you who the telemarketing company was hired by: The DNC and the DCCC. That's right; the same people waging this war for increased pay, etc. are employing people for minimum wage and not even paying them that.

Oh, I know--they don't hire them directly. Sure. I'm sure that would have worked if I would have substituted "Mitt Romney" for "DNC" or "DCCC."

I finally had to back off. This kid was taking all my time and every week was a high-wire act. He wasn't doing exactly as I was telling him with money (I'd given him some money in case he got evicted and told him to hold onto it. He gave it to his landlord). I negotiated with his landlord to stave off eviction. I had to do that a couple of times, actually. Eventually, all I was doing was worrying about this kid. I tried to get him to realize he needed to get right with the IRS, etc.

I've not talked to him since.

The biggest problem: he didn't know how to handle money. He was willing to work hard, but had painted himself into a corner with the student loans (and not paying them, etc.).

He's not the only one in the situation he's in--or similar. It's not a "government problem." It's a "parenting problem." He needed to learn how the world really works, not how the advertising world works.

Americans have become really dumb consumers. We spend more than we make. We save nothing and have no idea what to do when "emergencies" pop up except to . . . borrow more money.

Why is this young man in poverty?

Not a lack of education. He's got a Bachelor's degree!

It was not drugs either. I met with him. He's a good kid.

It's because he's got a criminal record.

With a little direction and some common sense, he'll be fine.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:Lots of jobs today require the applicant have a credit check: bad credit often means no job.

So, being poor means "bad credit?" I thought credit was, in large measure, based on behavior. You know--bouncing checks, missing payments, etc. Can't one be poor and responsible?

Of course one can be poor have have good credit. But I'm sure you know that when you're poor you often face difficult choices: feed and cloth the children, pay the rent and utilities, or pay the car note, especially when there's a job loss or some emergency involved. It's a lot easier to be poor and single than poor with kids, because many parents become wedged between a rock and a hard place and often their credit gets screwed. I'm sure you've seen this happen if you know many poor folk.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:If you don’t have a regular job it is difficult to open a bank account, and if you do, you’re likely faced with the choice of being charged through the roof or living life unbanked.

Recently dealt with someone in this situation. I found it enlightening. I think I'll post about it here in a reply separate from this.

I'd love to hear it. When I first moved to NYC I tried opening a bank account and I was astounded. I had just moved and I had a big wad of cash in my hand and the bank essentially wouldn't take it. It was crazy. I later found out that my employer at the time had a relationship with a bank and they vouched for me, and with that voucher there was no problem.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:If you have crappy credit you’re likely paying a ton on your car note, and you need a car because you likely live in a place with no or little public transit.

Is that true? I know Appalachia and other areas have extreme poverty, but they also have lower costs of living. Yet, many poor live in big cities. I'd say it's pretty easy to get around DC, NYC, Chicago, Boston, and other major cities without a car. In fact, in some of them it's easier without a car.

Don't leave out public housing and public assistance, which for some people is as problematic as bad schools. For some people, taking away the "pressure" of surviving takes away their motivation to succeed. That's just a fact. If you have experience with a LOT of poor people, you've seen this in SOME of them.

Sure, in some places where transit is good, you don't need a car, but that's not most of America. So I know poor people in Detroit, and that transit system is virtually non-existent. To be a functioning member of the economy you need a car there. And it was a purposeful policy decision; the interurban tracks were ripped up; the streetcar tracks paved over and all the roadway was given to the car. With some notable exceptions transit in America has suffered a huge deficit since America decided to build Interstate highways. Likewise public housing, which has been shedding units by the thousands every year since the 1980s, and public assistance is actually pretty hard to get with the exception of SNAP and the Earned Income tax credit.

The three things here you mention: transit, public housing and public assistance, are things that have been shrinking and shrinking, and those disappearing resources is one of the reasons it is harder to be poor now.

But I also agree, there are some people who if you give them a little bit, that will be enough and it will undercut ambition. No doubt. A good buddy of mine when he lost his job, and could collect unemployment, he was on vacation for the first 12 weeks, and only then did he start looking for a job. I recall my first professional job in Detroit there was a colleague who was a black nationalist, and one thing that really surprised me was that she railed against pubic housing and public assistance as a way that the establishment kept poor people poor by sapping their ambition. But it's nearly impossible to get public housing today. The waiting list in NYC is over 10 years long: good luck! And you'll learn if you read that NatGeo article that only about a 1/4 of the people who qualify for section 8 vouchers get them because there's not enough money.

I'm not saying I know the solution, I'm just saying it's hard to be poor in America today, harder than it's been in the recent past, and it's really easy to get into a spiral that keeps you poor.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, recently, I had a young man call the office looking for money. These kind of calls are not unusual. His situation: a minimal job, a fiance and a child. He had no car, no checking account, etc.

Thanks for posting this story. You've done more than most people will do in a lifetime to help someone.

The biggest problem: he didn't know how to handle money. He was willing to work hard, but had painted himself into a corner with the student loans (and not paying them, etc.).

He's not the only one in the situation he's in--or similar. It's not a "government problem." It's a "parenting problem." He needed to learn how the world really works, not how the advertising world works.

Americans have become really dumb consumers. We spend more than we make. We save nothing and have no idea what to do when "emergencies" pop up except to . . . borrow more money.

I agree, except I would qualify your comments by using "many" and "some" because not all people are like that. But poor people are usually in their lot in life for a reason, and there is no shortage of stupid people making stupid decisions. I would argue that it's easier today to make stupid decisions, like that student loan, which will follow this guy around for the rest of his life.

The challenge is what to do about it. Parenting problems often become government problems, but that's usually the worst choice for all involved. The best thing is doing what you're doing with this young man, but it's hard to help individuals. It's ironic: it's easy to be charitable in America, to give money to this cause or that, but it's really hard to help individuals, where our help can probably do the most good. But you've managed to make an impact, and that's a good thing.

geojanes wrote:Sure, in some places where transit is good, you don't need a car, but that's not most of America. So I know poor people in Detroit, and that transit system is virtually non-existent. To be a functioning member of the economy you need a car there. And it was a purposeful policy decision; the interurban tracks were ripped up; the streetcar tracks paved over and all the roadway was given to the car. With some notable exceptions transit in America has suffered a huge deficit since America decided to build Interstate highways.

Here's what I know: even in cities like Boston there are still poor people. How can that be? I also know that many, many of the cities and States you are talking about have been controlled and dominated by Democrats for decades. So, how come the wonderful public transportation systems have not been imposed? Even here in MA, our money goes to tolls. If you're in Boston, sure, you can use public transportation. In the rest of the quasi-people's republic? Nah.

Honestly, anyone with a job in the US has little excuse for being poor. It's all about learning how to live within your means--actually, on less than what you make.

If I'd have known this thirty years ago, I would, literally, be rich today. However, like many Americans, I bought the "see it, get it" mentality.You know . . . the one where the only question you have to answer is "What kind of monthly payment are you looking for?"

When we pay cash for stuff, we spend less and . . . we can't overspend. It's impossible to spend cash you don't have.

Likewise public housing, which has been shedding units by the thousands every year since the 1980s, and public assistance is actually pretty hard to get with the exception of SNAP and the Earned Income tax credit.

Again, ever been to public housing? It's horrible. That's what happens when you have a landlord who doesn't care about his property and tenants who care less.

Public housing is a bad idea.

The three things here you mention: transit, public housing and public assistance, are things that have been shrinking and shrinking, and those disappearing resources is one of the reasons it is harder to be poor now.

Public assistance has not been shrinking.

But I also agree, there are some people who if you give them a little bit, that will be enough and it will undercut ambition. No doubt. A good buddy of mine when he lost his job, and could collect unemployment, he was on vacation for the first 12 weeks, and only then did he start looking for a job. I recall my first professional job in Detroit there was a colleague who was a black nationalist, and one thing that really surprised me was that she railed against pubic housing and public assistance as a way that the establishment kept poor people poor by sapping their ambition. But it's nearly impossible to get public housing today. The waiting list in NYC is over 10 years long: good luck! And you'll learn if you read that NatGeo article that only about a 1/4 of the people who qualify for section 8 vouchers get them because there's not enough money.

Again, I know something about people in section 8. I know a woman who is a drug addict in section 8 housing. When I first met her, she was single, had three kids, and a good job. She was drug-free. She now has five kids and has lost custody of all five. She has no job.

Another couple has been waiting for section 8. The husband has a criminal record. If he'd come around to marry one of my daughters, I would have told him that the next time I saw him he'd better start running. He has two kids who live in the Midwest. Their lives are a mess and it's because of choices the husband made (I don't hold the woman responsible because, quite frankly, she is simple--very simple).

What am I trying to say? I think that many, many Americans in poverty are there because of the decisions they've made. No amount of public housing or assistance is going to turn some of their lives around--money isn't the ultimate issue. They need to learn how to live life. The government can't teach that--not in my experience. They need mentors and they need to listen.

I'm not saying I know the solution, I'm just saying it's hard to be poor in America today, harder than it's been in the recent past, and it's really easy to get into a spiral that keeps you poor.

And, I'm saying for some the answer is straightforward: stop digging. Start living on a Dave Ramsey-approved budget. Yes, I'm serious. So many Americans will work and want to escape their circumstances and don't know how. Those are the people that can be helped, but a check is not "help." They need information. They need reality checks.

Yes, it would help to have a checking account. And, I think they should--but it should be with a mentor as a co-signer. Would I do this? Yes. I would help anyone who is willing to listen.

I'll go back to the couple for a minute. He came in and asked for money. I said, "Let's talk about your budget. Do you have one?"

Everyone answers "yes." 98% of the time they're lying.

Now, keep in mind this is a husband, wife and young child. They pay minimal rent to the parents for their apartment. Guess how much their cell bill was a month?

More than $200. I choked.

It turned out the husband "had to have" the new iPhone when it came out, and he was still under contract, so he just got another line. 3 lines; 2 adults.

I pulled out my 2 year-old phone. I said I have an income 5x his, but I don't buy like he does. I think they are doing better financially, but it's been a real tug of war.

Could all these people I be in be the asterisks?

Maybe, but I can give you many more.

I'm pretty confident that more than half of the people in poverty can get out with the right mentoring and a change of attitude.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, being poor means "bad credit?" I thought credit was, in large measure, based on behavior. You know--bouncing checks, missing payments, etc. Can't one be poor and responsible?

In order to get a good credit rating, one has to borrow and pay off debts. If you don't do that, then you will have a mediocre rating, because you have not demonstrated that you can pay off a debt. This is a key part of how ratings operate. Of course, take out a dent and then struggle with it and you get a poor rating. But if you have never borrowed before, you will find your rating is not all that great.

There is of course also the situation where someone takes debt that they can handle when they take it, and then something unexpected happens that means it can't be handled any more. Such as when they lose a job.

And the situation where an unexpected debt turns up, such as a medical bill, made harder to deal with if the medical situation makes it hard to work.

The question then is how do we sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of which poor people with bad credit are there because of their behaviour, and which because of other factors.

Several years ago, my phone rang on a Saturday. A man was sobbing on the end of the line. His car had been repossessed during the night.

i was apoplectic. Why hadn't he called BEFORE this happened.

The story is a long one, but I want to focus on this aspect. When I asked about a budget, of course, they had one. I want through it line by line. It was tight. I had them get rid of their land-line and made some other changes. They needed to reduce their spending.

It's about half of the counseling I do. People do NOT know how to handle their money.

I think if we could take a time machine back 60 years ago we would be shocked. We would not see the ubiquity of credit cards. We would not see people buying cars that are 2-3 times their annual wages.

If you ever have the opportunity to talk to someone who says they're struggling financially, ask about their budget. They will tell you about how they "make ends meet" or "live paycheck to paycheck." But, when you do that you are one mishap from financial disaster. That's how most of us live.

It's foolish.

For the poor, it's disastrous. It leads to a hopelessness, a sense that they cannot escape the spiral of poverty. They can. It just takes sacrifice and hard work. I have seen it happen time and again.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, being poor means "bad credit?" I thought credit was, in large measure, based on behavior. You know--bouncing checks, missing payments, etc. Can't one be poor and responsible?

In order to get a good credit rating, one has to borrow and pay off debts. If you don't do that, then you will have a mediocre rating, because you have not demonstrated that you can pay off a debt. This is a key part of how ratings operate. Of course, take out a dent and then struggle with it and you get a poor rating. But if you have never borrowed before, you will find your rating is not all that great.

There is of course also the situation where someone takes debt that they can handle when they take it, and then something unexpected happens that means it can't be handled any more. Such as when they lose a job.

So true.

Again, I go back to Ramsey. He says don't ever lease a car. He says buy old, beat-up cars until you can afford to pay cash for something different. He says if you don't "name" every dollar you guarantee that your money will be wasted. He's right.

We drove my 1991 Honda Accord until 2009. Why? Because it ran. One owner from "cradle to grave."

So, here's my point: life is full of the "unexpected." What if everyone had six months worth of income sitting in the bank? How might that change how they respond to "the unexpected?"

Because 99% of "unexpected" events are like this: my car broke down.

Is that unexpected? No, that's life.

People borrow money to spend extra at Christmas. Is that unexpected? Nope. Christmas is on December 25th every year.

And the situation where an unexpected debt turns up, such as a medical bill, made harder to deal with if the medical situation makes it hard to work.

True. For many people, disability and injury insurance (think AFLAC) would solve it.

The question then is how do we sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of which poor people with bad credit are there because of their behaviour, and which because of other factors.

I'm not interested in that. Let me explain.

I don't care how they got into the situation. I care that they want to get out of it and are willing to work to get out. Like my young friend, get two jobs. Cut expenses. It's not "forever;" it's "for now."

I had another family call once. They had no heating oil. In winter.

I guess they didn't plan on winter arriving and were hoping it would take a year off. But, organic food? Oh, they could afford that! Meals out? Sure!

Again, not every situation is the same. But, the solution is usually this: work hard, cut your expenses, and we'll teach you how to get out of debt and take control of your finances.