The Humboldt Herald received the following email about the recent Rails and Trails forum hosted by the League of Women Voters:
As much as I consider the Eureka Reporter nothing much more than a propaganda rag they do continue to surpass the TS on local news coverage as they did again with the coverage of the Rails/Trails Debate last night.
While for the large crowd in attendance it did nothing more than confirm what we all suspected about the panelists, there were two glaring things that jumped out at you.
The first was what in the heck was Brian Morrissey doing there? He seemed really out of place, and was able to contribute nothing intelligent to the discussion.
And the second was “where was Caltrans?”. They are a major player in this Rail/Trail debate, and should have been in the seat Brian was occupying.
April 24, 2008 at 9:23 am
Did anyone invite CalTrans?
April 24, 2008 at 10:42 am
Why are we even discussing this? The RR is dead, and only Humboldt’s special Cargo Cult and a few businesspeople who want to export our landscape are keeping it alive. Kill the damn thing, and let’s move on.
April 24, 2008 at 10:57 am
Nothing more than a prapoganda rag, for the paid lobbiest mark lovelace,in cyber-space is how you are viewed too ms heraldo. Your spin on local issues is weird at best.
April 24, 2008 at 11:20 am
Maybe you can add that to your next push poll.
April 24, 2008 at 11:52 am
Sending yourself e-mails is one way of entering the fray.
Richard has a nice write-up about the debate. Somoa Softball.
-boy
April 24, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Until gas hits $10/gallon. How soon? Maybe just 5 years.
While I’d love for everyone to be zipping around in electric vehicles or shuttling around in express buses, that’s not a solution for transport out-of-county. After peak oil, what’s the long-term solution for long hauls (both people and goods) if not rail? Because rail is frequently cited as the solution for other cities. Everyone’s scenarios for the future assume people will still drive cars and goods will primarily be shipped by truck.
April 24, 2008 at 1:04 pm
12:37 Basic vehicles that get 60mpg are already here(scooters, motorcycles, plugin hybrids). More functional ones with even better economy will be built(when theres a market to sell them into) . On the Nova show last Tuesday, auto manufacturers said that and showed how they could do it. Those vehicles would have ranges up to 600 miles, so they are definitely suitable for out of county transport. The technology is suitable for trucks too.
At $10 gas, a 60mpg vehicle costs the same to run as a 20mpg vehicle on $3.33 gas. The gas bill for that new car would be less than what most people are paying right now. And if people also reduce their casual trips and take alternative transport for some of their trips, their personal transportation cost would be a lot less than they pay now.
Trains are one alternate method of travel but they have to be compared with future vehicles and other alternatives to determine whether they are right for a particular situation. From the known data, the NCRA isn’t competitive with other alternatives.
April 24, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Fuel efficiency is nice, but it ignores the spiraling cost of gas and… peak oil. You’re stuck in thinking about now, not a few decades from now. No matter. You’ll be pulled along with the rest of us kicking and screaming.
April 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I think peak oil will make local products more competitive with industrial products which have to be shipped long distances, regardless of how they are moved. Hopefully we will have built up enough local suppliers by the time they are needed.
April 24, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Transportation [air,water,rail,road] consumes over 90% of the oil production world wide. The emerging economy countries are going to push that even higher.Cost effective alternatives are needed now,the clock is ticking.
April 24, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Barging is cheaper than the NWP will ever be…
April 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm
At least with barging and/or short-sea shipping, the loins share of the infastructure to support it is all ready inplace. [the water]
April 24, 2008 at 3:46 pm
In startup costs, yes. In operation? No way. And it’s a greener mode of transportation.
April 24, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Sorry 2:33, fuel efficiency isn’t just “nice” its the basis for the utility of any energy source. Just a historical note, James Watt is credited for inventing the steam engine, but he didn’t make the first steam engine. What he invented was a vastly more efficient steam engine that made steam power economical for many applications where before it was too expensive. BTW, his contribution was so significant the scientific unit of power is named after him. That’s quite a tribute for something that you call just “nice”.
What you’re failing to grasp is that right now, cars are starting to transition away from petroleum, and higher efficiency is the means that will make other fuels economical for the car and truck user. Electricity will likely be a major fuel for future transportation and the source of the electricity will not be petroleum. So wake up and see the future, its already close. If you’d watched the Nova show, you would have seen the real life practical examples.
Maybe you and some others get your kicks out of imagining society having to be dragged kicking and screaming for our betterment. I think wishing ill on others rather than seeking solutions is just meanand nasty.
April 24, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Not failing to grasp anything. You operate with great faith that in our future we will continue to shuttle ourselves around in individual vehicles rather than a form of mass transit that operates on a rail line (or something similar). We don’t need to argue. Time will tell. Much of the industrialized world is already well ahead of us.
April 24, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Does this mean we aren’t going to get those cute little Jetson cars?
April 24, 2008 at 5:02 pm
No, just more individual vehicles that continue our reliance on roads being paved over paradise.
April 24, 2008 at 5:23 pm
While the rest of the industrialized world was investing in rail, we were investing in highways and everyone had to buy a car. It was good for the oil industry and for Detroit. There are large swaths of country today that have no public transportation at all, not even Greyhound. As our middle class wages disappear and oil goes up, more people can’t afford a private car, but there is no money for railroads or other mass transit either. We made some bad choices and squandered a lot of our wealth. It will be painful making the adjustment, but it will have to be made.
April 24, 2008 at 5:36 pm
France’s rail system is incredible, but it has never paid for itself, and continues to be heavily subsidized by the government.
April 24, 2008 at 5:39 pm
The same is true of our highways and fuel. Who is getting the best deal for their money?
April 24, 2008 at 5:42 pm
The transformation of Brian Morrisey into a socialist was interesting to watch the other night.
April 24, 2008 at 5:44 pm
It is interesting the enviros here don’t want a railroad or port. You would think they would be interested in more efficient transportation, yet they are not willing to subsidize it like they are willing to subsidize the highways.
April 24, 2008 at 5:45 pm
and I can’t believe I agree with Jane Doe on something….
April 24, 2008 at 5:49 pm
In order to subsidize something, you have to have money. We don’t have the money. We are so far in debt today that I don’t know how we will ever dig our way out. You think we should print more money? How about if we cut taxes for the rich again so we have even less money to fund our infrastructure?
April 24, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Peace be with you
Exxon/Mobil 40.6 billion profits in 2007
Royal Dutch Shell 27.6 billion profits in 2007
British Petroleum 17.3 billion profits in 2007
Chevron 18.7 billion profits in 2007
The energy policy was set by these corporations. Might be why no solutions are being explored.
love eternal
tad
April 24, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Peace be with you
No. We should throw the “feds” out on their corporate asses and print our own US currency. Lend it to the banks for outrageous usury, and stop borrowing it from the banks. There is no reason the US should have to borrow money from the Rothschild/Rockefeller/Warburg family of bankers. John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln were the only two presidents that tried to print real US currency. Unfortunately both just happened to get shot before they could produce much more then half a billion. The problem isn’t that we don’t have enough national wealth, it’s that we are given conditions (wars) and charged usury to spend our own country’s tax dollars.
I know you weren’t directing that question at me, but I could not resist answering it.
love eternal
tad
April 24, 2008 at 7:27 pm
The port can be maintained for ocean shipping at a level good enough to supply this region at a much lower cost than any rail solution, if worse comes to worse.
For my friends who think that peak oil is upon us, the train is not as good a solution as a small regional seaport.
Have a peaceful day,
Bill
April 24, 2008 at 8:49 pm
And the enviros are for the port, not attached to the rail.
April 24, 2008 at 10:53 pm
electricity is not a fuel, not a native.
i agree that electric cars will probably be an important part of the solution, especially for folks living in less dense areas, like much of humboldt county. but how we generate the power to charge up those electric cars is a key issue, since the source of that power is the real “fuel” for an electric car. the electricity is basically just a form of energy storage.
April 25, 2008 at 7:05 am
Tad, those profits represent margins that are 10% or less. That is not great, especially compared to google, microsoft who are getting nearly 30% profits. 40 billion is a big number, but it took 400 billion in sales to get there.
April 25, 2008 at 7:40 am
“Tad, those profits represent margins that are 10% or less. ”
40 Billion is 40 Billion buddy-
The margin is pointless when you bring home that much scratch
April 25, 2008 at 8:03 am
There’s 5 Billion shares of the stock out there. It’s about $7.00/share.
April 25, 2008 at 8:05 am
not so much “scratch” when you look at it that way, huh?
April 25, 2008 at 8:26 am
Looks like about 40 billion scratches to me.
April 25, 2008 at 8:27 am
Peace be with you
Busyness 101 says 6% of a million is a better deal then 50% of a hundred thousand. The fact remains that nobody make more profits (dollar per dollar) then Exxon-mobil. All oil corps make their largest profits while we pay the most. Price goes up profits go up.
If you trace ownership back to where you can discover groups of owners you soon see that the few “big stock-holders” own several million shares each. if a few million shares are owned by the “general public” then the rest are profits for a few family members at $7.00 a share. During the last few record breaking profit years oil companies have not been looking for badly needed new technology, they have been buying back their own stock.
You should read about the history of the money system in this country (now the world). It’s a fascinating story about how John D Rockefeller, the house of Morgan and a few other wall street types took it over and are using it like a weapon against the people.
love eternal
tad
April 25, 2008 at 8:32 am
The moral of Tad’s story is, invest in Exxon-Mobil. You’ll get rich.
April 25, 2008 at 8:48 am
Peace be with you 8:32
Really I never got to the moral of the story, but if I did it would be don’t invest in Exxon. You’ll have blood on your hands. War for oil. Environmental degradation for oil. Economic collapse for oil. Many false profits shall come.
love eternal
tad
April 25, 2008 at 9:02 am
Tad is right about the central bank. Preventing what Jefferson and Jackson correctly foresaw was the single biggest American political issue of the nineteenth century (not counting slavery, because both sides pretended they were fighting about something else–States Rights, Union, Free Soil, Sacred Honor). There were no euphemisms in the fight against the Federal Reserve, though, it was an aristocratic ruse that got beaten back time and again until 1913, when Wilson used a bankers’ panic to slip the Federal Reserve through Congress without debate. In the same way that our ghoulish doctrine of Corporate Personhood was never declared by the Supreme Court, but only alluded into existence by footnote, the most fabulous arrogations of wealth are often made by compliant pens, not guns.
April 25, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Most of the shares are owned by mutual funds and banks, which are owned by millions of people.
April 25, 2008 at 8:02 pm
We should note that most of those shares are owned by the wealthiest 5% of households. In a country of more than 300 million that comes to about 15 million people up at the top of the income pyramid. A large number of people making good money from stocks, 15 million or so is certainly “millions of people” as 5:52 put it, but it is certainly not a very good indication of the well-being of the other 95%.
April 25, 2008 at 9:32 pm
OK, To Be Fair,
I guess your point is that unequal distribution of wealth can be unfair. And specifically, the wealth disparity that you claim exists due to share ownership in the US is unfair. So, how much wealth/income/lifestyle inequality can exist, if any, and still be fair?
Its not a trick question and I hope your response isn’t something like “I can’t define unfairness but I know it when I see it”.
April 25, 2008 at 9:36 pm
“As much as I consider the Eureka Reporter nothing much more than a propaganda rag…”
show me proof? If you’re talking about editorials, it’s called opinion and the T-S is just as much of a “propaganda rag” by that definition.
If you’re talking about news content that’s just down right false. The fact that the E-R, by your own admission, does better in covering local news than the T-S shows that it does more for the community.
Stop trashing on the paper just because it’s owned by a rich, powerful person. The T-S is also owned by a rich, powerful person. Why don’t you give them flak for that?
April 25, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Your hopes are in vain. I don’t claim to be able to define exactly how much wealth inequality is problematic, but I do know it when I see it.
Actually I was mostly just refuting 5:52’s point. It seemed to me that they were trying to make it sound like the current financial system was, as the saying goes, “raising all boats,” though what we see in reality is more like “raising all yachts.”
April 25, 2008 at 11:29 pm
To be fair, I should mention that the “raising all yachts” isn’t my own original phrase. But then you probably already know that. Don’t know who coined the phrase. Maybe the same wag who noted how “trickle down” economics would only work if those at the top weren’t such big thirsty sponges?
April 26, 2008 at 12:06 am
Peace be with you
When it comes to “fractional-reserve banking,” it can only be fair to the money-changers. “Fractional-reserve banking” means if a bank has 100 dollars in deposits it can lend 1000 dollars in loans. So lending “their” (really yours) money at 11% really means they are raking in 110% on it. The worse part is that the “feds” can print the original 100 bucks based on nothing.
Trickle down will never work because there are not enough slices of the pie to go around. Also those who know what’s going to happen (the feds again) can position their private fortunes to take advantage of it. Joe Kennedy had $4,000,000 in 1929 and had $100,000,000 by 1935. That’s damn unfair considering the rest of the country was gripped by the great depression. (”The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933.”
Milton Friedman)
Inequality is always unfair when the basic human rights are denied for any portion of society. And certainly when justice and dignity are denied one portion and liberally given to another then it can’t be called fair.
love eternal
tad
April 26, 2008 at 12:12 am
Tad quoting Milton Friedman…now that’s irony in its purest, most innocent form.
April 26, 2008 at 12:12 am
Interesting, so Tad thinks dignity is provided by the The Man. It’s not something that comes from inside you, it’s to be obtained from the government, the Federal Reserve and other such organizations. Can’t say I agree with you there Tad. It seems like another symptom of victim syndrome.
April 26, 2008 at 7:08 am
You didn’t read before you responded. The problem with the Federal Reserve is that it is *not* some mutual fund owned by nice people everywhere. It is a government-sanctioned monopoly moneymaker owned by private banks that are owned/controlled by private bankers. And the actual ownership is secret! Check it out. This is why dumb investment banks get bailouts and dumb homeowners don’t. There would be more dignity to go around if we knew and understood our own history.
Here’s the system in a nutshell: every dollar the Fed puts in circulation is, as Tad alluded to, a dollar of debt that someone owes. That Fed dollar doesn’t exist until someone owes it. Then it’s invested advantageously by those nice oligarchs who own the debt, and much more besides. There is no way for the owners to lose money from this system, which after all was invented to keep them in the money. As for their debtors (I wouldn’t dream of calling them ‘victims’), the deeper they go in debt, the richer the owners of that debt. No problem! Now you understand fractional banking.
April 26, 2008 at 7:24 am
For the very poor, they need help. For the middle class, they need counseling. You are saying a relatively few people hold shares in mutual funds or stocks. That is their own fault. You can sign up for a dividend reinvestment plan for 25.00 a month, or buy a mutual fund for the same amount. All the tools to create wealth through the stock market are available online for free. The problem is many people elect not to purchase equity investments, and health insurance too for that matter because they have their priorities out of balance. They want to have another car, a flat screen tv, a cell phone that also gets TV, stainless steel appliances, cell phones for the kids, satellite radio, etc. The list goes on and on. All of these things add a little to the monthly bill and when you start sacrificing over $100 per month on frills, you are robbing yourself of a solid financial future. I hear a lot of complaining about the state of the economy but it is usually from people who choose to spend their money rather than invest it. Like I said in the beginning, the very poor need a hand up, but once people get stabilized they should learn to live without a cell phone, a brand new car, and satellite TV until they can afford it, which should be after they have health insurance, a savings account, and retirement.
April 26, 2008 at 7:50 am
i agree with 7:24 that many middle class folks have their priorities seriously screwed up. but 7:24’s analysis ignores the fact that real wages for most of the u.s. population has been stagnant for decades. yeah, they could tighten their belts and invest more of their wages, but not very much more, since the source of most of their income, wages, has been stagnating or even shrinking.
April 26, 2008 at 7:52 am
“I hear a lot of complaining about the economy but it is usually from people who choose to spend their money rather than invest it.”
Haven’t you been reading the financial news? Things are so bad our government is issuing high interest, long term loans to all the taxpayers and telling them should go out and do exactly the activities which you say they should abstain, spending borrowed money on stuff they don’t need. If the economy is so great, why are real wages declining as prices go up?
April 26, 2008 at 7:55 am
Btw, my portfolio value declined almost 6% in the last quarter not even taking into consideration the lower value of the dollar and I was told that was good compared to the overall market.
April 26, 2008 at 8:29 am
Jane, you should go into fractional banking.
April 26, 2008 at 8:42 am
No Thanks 8:29. I prefer investing in areas that let me sleep at night, socially and environmentally responsible mutual funds only.
April 26, 2008 at 8:47 am
I read the financial news and I ignore most of it. I am not saying the economy is doing well, we are in a recession. I hear people complaining about the economy and they haven’t really been affected, they just repeat the 6 o’clock news. Invest in strong companies with a proven long-term track record. Companies that have real assets and the ability to make money over the long haul. That is the problem with short term thinking, Jane. What has your porfolio done in a 5, 10, or 15 year average? You should be over 10% unless you have been in bonds. Mine is down too, but a couple of years ago it was up 30% in one year so it evens out pretty well on the plus side.
Dollar bill, I agree wages have been stagnant, that is all the more reason to invest. People have a problem separating “wants” and “needs”. Everybody wants everything right now. Look at the houses people live in and the cars they are driving. Go past an apartment complex and look at the brand new BMW’s, Honda Accords, and Lexus’. The belt can be tightened a lot, except for the people who have racked up so much debt keeping up with the latest shoes, cell phones and ipods that they really can’t see the light of day, financially. Those people need to start paying their debt down, because it isn’t going away.
April 26, 2008 at 8:51 am
Anyone who buys gas or groceries has been affected 552. Who hasn’t been affected?
April 26, 2008 at 8:53 am
Peace be with you
I can’t believe that someone would say that people struggling to make ends meet should be able to save money. That implies two things one they have extra money to save and that they are proficient enough in finances to not loose their savings. Also if everyone started saving the economy would collapse.
The middle class and the poor have failed to keep up with the American dream. This article states that the average income for the top 1% increased by $465,700, while the bottom 20% only rose by $200 dollars.
Even though the official unemployment figures are somewhat low the true number of unemployed Americans is over 16,000,000 people. Yea your right poor people should skip a few meals and give up any pre-retirement luxuries to invest in Enron, but most poor see this as a suckers bet.
love eternal
tad
April 26, 2008 at 8:55 am
When everyone stops saving (no backup plan), that’s when the economy collapses.
April 26, 2008 at 8:57 am
You’ve got most kids right out of high school driving cars that are 3 years old, making car payments and carrying cell phones and a VISA Platinum card. $300 per month overhead just out of school, not including rent. The parents, the schools, or both have failed to educate our children about basic finance. They take classes in advanced trigonometry and calculus, yet cannot understand a variable rate loan with a teaser rate and 2% down payment after a 5 year real estate run up is a disaster waiting to happen.
April 26, 2008 at 8:57 am
What are the gains in the stockmarket over the last 10 years when you take the devaluation of the dollar into consideration, 552?
April 26, 2008 at 9:01 am
People who are not on unemployment haven’t been affected. The government employees who are getting their Cost of Living Allowance aren’t affected. Sure, dog food and milk costs more, but that is not the same thing as being laid off and seeing your income drop 30%. I would call those people “affected”. Tad, you ignored my first and last statement: The poor need help.
April 26, 2008 at 9:02 am
16%
April 26, 2008 at 9:07 am
Not a very good return over 10 years, 552. Wouldn’t you say that is indicative of a lousy economy?
April 26, 2008 at 9:12 am
that is the average annual return, sorry
April 26, 2008 at 9:13 am
and I have a lot overseas
April 26, 2008 at 9:16 am
That is YOUR average rate of return or the stock market average?
April 26, 2008 at 9:16 am
that is mine
April 26, 2008 at 9:17 am
Let me ask the question again,
What is the rate of return on US stock market investments over the last 10 years after taking the devaluation of the dollar into consideration?
April 26, 2008 at 9:19 am
I don’t have any idea, it doesn’t matter to me because it is a statistic based on a model that I don’t use. What is it though?
April 26, 2008 at 9:24 am
What are the returns on your cell phone bill over 10 years?
April 26, 2008 at 9:28 am
My point was never what I have done in the stock market, it was that many people make poor choices and one way to create wealth is to invest in equities. Hiding your money under the bed or putting it into a passbook savings will not allow you to actually get ahead. People need to educate themselves and quit trying to compare themselves to everybody else. Learn to live frugal until you can afford some better things.
April 26, 2008 at 9:29 am
You were pretending to be the investment expert, 552. But you don’t even know if you actually made any money in the stock market taking the devaluation of the dollar into account. I haven’t had a cell phone for 10 years but finally had to get one for business. It has more than paid for itself in just free long distance calls over the cost of landline long distance calls.
April 26, 2008 at 9:30 am
Peace be with you 552
I agree with you on the fact that schools don’t teach children to be good money managers. I believe this is done on purpose to make good consumers. But not everyone can be rich or even employed in the current economic system. One of the results of the lack of personal financial education is the least clever fails to manage their money and end up on the streets. The realtors, house builders, and lending agencies all thought the easy to get into special home buying loans were great and failed to impress upon the purchasers the crash which was sure to follow such a bad investment choice. Like with the S&L, Enron and other big bailouts the housing bailout is busyness as usual.
love eternal
tad
April 26, 2008 at 9:37 am
Those easy loans to people who couldn’t afford them also contributed to the skyrocketing housing prices, Tad. The prudent people who were saving their money until they could really afford a home were priced out of the market by the shady brokers increasing the demand and now millions of people owe more on their homes than their value and we the taxpayers get to bail out the lenders while many of us are losing homes into which we have sunk all our savings and more in house payments than we could afford. Please note I mean “we” as in the citizens, not me personally.
April 26, 2008 at 9:41 am
As an added note, the days of people being able to just walk away from their mortgages are over. You can be sued to recover the difference between what you owe and what your home sells for after foreclosure. With the new bankruptcy laws, they can take future earnings even if you have a negative net worth today.
April 26, 2008 at 9:49 am
I never pretended to be anything. I was pointing out the playing field has been really leveled in the last 10 years for investors. You might not be able to take advantage of real estate because the down payment is too much, but you could buy into a real estate fund for $25.00 per month. I don’t know of any other way a person of nominal means can accrue any significant wealth. Do you?
April 26, 2008 at 10:06 am
Peace be with you 552
I never believed you pretended to be anything. In fact I would guess you are a very prudent person. I agree that only by saving could the “nominal” get any wealth or property. The problem is that most poor people can’t save. In fact most people in general are reducing their savings. With so many people just one emergency away form homelessness even $300 dollars a year is difficult to save.
I also believe that the only reason for the so-called leveled playing field is so people will put their antes in a poker game they can’t win. I’m glad your still doing “good” in the market, but remember it is a gamble. I personally stopped gambling after I took my first probabilities class.
love eternal
tad
April 26, 2008 at 11:04 am
Tad, my response was to Jane. I also agree the poor can’t save, most of my posts were regarding people who own homes, drive nice cars, but have no health insurance or retirement. I imagine it is extremely difficult to lift yourself up, I have been fortunate to never have been in that position. Once you fall past a certain point, how do you get enough for a deposit for a rental, or a car? Quite impossible to get a job without a home or reliable transportation. These are the people I was referring to who need a helping hand up.
April 27, 2008 at 4:47 pm
A comment about the necessity of saving, as a priority.
Even though Tad at 8:53 denies being a gambler, he gambles whenever he goes to sleep that he will later wake up. Life is inherently risky. We all gamble that the food we eat is nutritious, we won’t be murdered by the next person passing by on the street, the rain will fall, crops will grow, and the road ahead isn’t blocked by a landslide. None of us wealthy or poor, housed or homeless are guaranteed we will have our needs met. Some are just further down the chain of possibility of deprivation. So forget about not being a gambler.
The practical problem isn’t gambling, but how to manage the risk of the gamble. The most important strategy is to identify risk and want to avoid it. Like skipping a few meals to keep money and not driving drunk. But avoiding risk isn’t enough so another strategy is also needed.
Thats where saving(investment) comes in, as a powerful way to reduce the effect of being unlucky(the gamble going against you). Knowing what and how much to invest is a basic life skill/ability as important for survival as personal hygiene to avert illness. You don’t need to be a financial genius, just have a savings account. Very few ever lose money in a savings account and over the short term(5 years or so), its purchasing value will be retained.
I think most people who are in a position to help a poor person understand the power of saving. When they assist a poor(not disabled or mentally ill) person they’d like the recipient to intend to save a portion of the assistance for their future. That makes the assistance an investment in the recipient’s future not a maintenance of their situation.
Clearly, for that to happen, enough must be given to permit some surplus to be saved, and the recipient has a strong desire to save and to identify and avoid risk. When both those things happen, poor people often find a way out of poverty and are back with the rest of us, gambling that they won’t be too unlucky. I’ve seen it happen many times.