The 219-212 roll call Sunday by which the House passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Voting yes were 219 Democrats and 0 Republicans.
Voting no were 34 Democrats and 178 Republicans.
Below are named the 219 traitors to our country, the "Representatives" who failed to "represent" their constituents and vote no. This action has demonstrated they do not believe in either a democracy nor a republic. Be wary the democratic party is attempting to nail the coffin lid on freedom. One step at a time, they raise the temperature of the water you are sitting in one degree at a time so eventually your frog is boiled, and you never even tried to jump out. If they had their way you would turn over all your hard earned money to them and they would spend it as they see fit, giving you only that amount they have to to ensure you stay quiet. But rest assured at that time, the gravy train will end for those collecting welfare and they will have to work doing what they (the politicians) tell us. Don't believe for a second, that socialism isn't communism, and communism doesn't want to control your every thought and move. Don't think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, will be doling out the hard earned money, you have let them steal from you. They will keep it for themselves and enjoy their health care, the health care, you and I pay for, which is head and shoulders above what they want to give to you and I. Keep in mind you and I are going to see the effects of this traitorous action before 2011 and won't see the benefits (yeah right benefits) until 2014 (makes you wonder what will happen to all those collected taxes from 2011, 2012 and 2013). Maybe they just want us to believe that the new benefits will even happen. Just wait until we are waiting for routine medical care like they do in Canada, and the UK. Our health care system may not be perfect, but it is the best in the world. It is time to stand up and vote every one listed below out of office. replace them with people who will listen to the American citizenry and represent them. This is not a revolution! it is democracy, VOTE! VOTE VOTE! and make your vote count.
ARIZONA Democrats -- Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, Pastor
ARKANSAS Democrat Snyder
CALIFORNIA Democrats -- Baca, Becerra, Berman, Capps, Cardoza, Chu, Costa, Davis, Eshoo, Farr, Filner, Garamendi, Harman, Honda, Lee, Lofgren, Zoe, Matsui, McNerney, Miller, George, Napolitano, Pelosi, Richardson, Roybal-Allard, Sanchez, Linda T., Sanchez, Loretta, Schiff, Sherman, Speier, Stark, Thompson, Waters, Watson, Waxman, Woolsey
COLORADO Democrats -- DeGette, Markey, Perlmutter, Polis, Salazar
CONNECTICUT Democrats -- Courtney, DeLauro, Himes, Larson, Murphy
FLORIDA Democrats -- Boyd, Corrine Brown, Castor, Grayson, Hastings, Klein, Kosmas, Meek, Wasserman Schultz
GEORGIA Democrats -- Bishop, Johnson, Lewis, Scott
HAWAII Democrats -- Hirono
ILLINOIS Democrats -- Bean, Costello, Davis, Foster, Gutierrez, Halvorson, Hare, Jackson, Quigley, Rush, Schakowsky
INDIANA Democrats -- Carson, Donnelly, Ellsworth, Hill, Visclosky
IOWA Democrats -- Boswell, Braley, Loebsack
KANSAS Democrat -- Moore
KENTUCKY Democrat Yarmuth
MAINE Democrats -- Michaud, Pingree
MARYLAND Democrats -- Cummings, Edwards, Hoyer, Ruppersberger, Sarbanes, Van Hollen
MASSACHUSETTS Democrats -- Capuano, Delahunt, Frank, Markey, McGovern, Neal, Olver, Tierney, Tsongas
MICHIGAN Democrats -- Conyers, Dingell, Kildee, Kilpatrick, Levin, Peters, Schauer, Stupak
MINNESOTA Democrats -- Ellison, McCollum, Oberstar, Walz
MISSISSIPPI Democrat Thompson
MISSOURI Democrats -- Carnahan, Clay, Cleaver,
NEVADA Democrats -- Berkley, Titus
NEW HAMPSHIRE Democrats -- Hodes, Shea-Porter
NEW JERSEY Democrats -- Andrews, Holt, Pallone, Pascrell, Payne, Rothman, Sires
NEW MEXICO Democrats -- Heinrich, Lujan,
NEW YORK Democrats -- Ackerman, Bishop, Clarke, Crowley, Engel, Hall, Higgins, Hinchey, Israel, Lowey, Maffei, Maloney, McCarthy, McMahon, N; Meeks, Murphy, Nadler, Owens, Rangel, Serrano, Slaughter, Tonko, Towns, Velazquez, Weiner
NORTH CAROLINA Democrats -- Butterfield, Etheridge, Miller, Price, Watt
NORTH DAKOTA Democrat Pomeroy
OHIO Democrats -- Boccieri, Driehaus, Fudge, Kaptur, Kilroy, Kucinich, Ryan, Sutton, Wilson
OREGON Democrats -- Blumenauer, DeFazio, Schrader, Wu
PENNSYLVANIA Democrats -- Brady, Carney, Dahlkemper, Doyle, Fattah, Kanjorski, Murphy, Patrick, Schwartz, Sestak,
RHODE ISLAND Democrats -- Kennedy, Langevin,
SOUTH CAROLINA Democrats -- Clyburn, Spratt,
TENNESSEE Democrats -- Cohen, Cooper, Gordon,
TEXAS Democrats -- Cuellar, Doggett, Gonzalez, Green, Al, Green, Gene, Hinojosa, Jackson Lee, Johnson, E. B., Ortiz, Reyes, Rodriguez,
VERMONT Democrat -- Welch,
VIRGINIA Democrats -- Connolly, Moran, Perriello, Scott,
WASHINGTON Democrats -- Baird, Dicks, Inslee, Larsen, McDermott, Smith,
WEST VIRGINIA Democrats -- Mollohan, Rahall,
WISCONSIN Democrats -- Baldwin, Kagen, Kind, Moore, Obey,
Monday, March 22, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Minimum Wage
We all like to think that everyone deserves to earn a descent wage. For the most part I agree with that concept. Unfortunately, there are those who are not qualified for wages above the minimum wage level. However, businesses are forced to pay substandard workers better than entry an level wage. This creates an imbalance, where workers worth a better wage are paid less to keep costs down. Have you noticed an increase in minimum wage, never means an across the board raise. So the only people who benefit are those not worth earning higher wages to begin with.
Another problem with paying a minimum wage is when that wage goes up business is more likely to reduce the size of the workforce, instead of paying more money for substandard work. When business downsizes, this creates more work for those remaining, as the trash jobs are spread out among the workforce, or farmed out to companies (such as those who specialize in performing janitorial contract services performed by "self-employed" franchisees who since they are self employed, work below minimum wage and pay a portion of their profits to the franchiser).
Many businesses have their human resources and clerical services serviced by third party companies for the same reason. Higher minimum wage means fewer high school students, find jobs, and hence are sitting around with nothing to do, but, get into trouble. When you look at who earns a minimum wage, you will find the entry level inexperienced and those who are all but unemployable. These should not be those who are trying to support a family, they should already be established workers.
I understand there are those who have lost their jobs for various reasons (like those whose jobs was eliminated when the minimum wage went up), for instance look at those whose jobs were eliminated as they became out of date (the Buggy whip industry comes to mind).
All one has to do is look at internship, and that process which gives an opportunity for someone to gain experience without the burden of employers having to pay them. Our own government has congressional interns, pages, and "volunteers" which in it's own view is perfectly within the law. Also, look to the food service industry, not the fast food industry, but high scale restaurants, they avoid paying minimum wage by professing that customers leave tips. But that would only be true of good wait staff. And, what makes it okay, for the government to utilize "volunteer" workers, without pay? Why do large media corporations, and medical organizations get to have interns, when McDonald's and Burger don't? I am not advocating allowing every business to have internships. What I am advocating making every place of employment adhere to the rules on a level playing ground. Letting the free market decide what employers pay, and what employees will work for.
Another problem with paying a minimum wage is when that wage goes up business is more likely to reduce the size of the workforce, instead of paying more money for substandard work. When business downsizes, this creates more work for those remaining, as the trash jobs are spread out among the workforce, or farmed out to companies (such as those who specialize in performing janitorial contract services performed by "self-employed" franchisees who since they are self employed, work below minimum wage and pay a portion of their profits to the franchiser).
Many businesses have their human resources and clerical services serviced by third party companies for the same reason. Higher minimum wage means fewer high school students, find jobs, and hence are sitting around with nothing to do, but, get into trouble. When you look at who earns a minimum wage, you will find the entry level inexperienced and those who are all but unemployable. These should not be those who are trying to support a family, they should already be established workers.
I understand there are those who have lost their jobs for various reasons (like those whose jobs was eliminated when the minimum wage went up), for instance look at those whose jobs were eliminated as they became out of date (the Buggy whip industry comes to mind).
All one has to do is look at internship, and that process which gives an opportunity for someone to gain experience without the burden of employers having to pay them. Our own government has congressional interns, pages, and "volunteers" which in it's own view is perfectly within the law. Also, look to the food service industry, not the fast food industry, but high scale restaurants, they avoid paying minimum wage by professing that customers leave tips. But that would only be true of good wait staff. And, what makes it okay, for the government to utilize "volunteer" workers, without pay? Why do large media corporations, and medical organizations get to have interns, when McDonald's and Burger don't? I am not advocating allowing every business to have internships. What I am advocating making every place of employment adhere to the rules on a level playing ground. Letting the free market decide what employers pay, and what employees will work for.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Anchor Babies
In an earlier posting (Undocumented Workers? Why Can't We Call Them Illegal Aliens?) I discussed illegal immigration and touched on the subject of anchor babies. I thought it was necessary to expound on this phenomenon a little more. Currently under our laws, any child born in this country, is by definition an American citizen. I don't have a problem with this concept, except, for the fact that so many people cross over our borders, illegally, to give birth, and use this child to guarantee their right to stay in our country. Now, when you have someone who marries an American citizen, solely to gain citizenship, they are precluded from gaining their citizenship, on the basis of fraud. The same should be true of the parents of Anchor Babies. So I say that whereas the Anchor baby, should have citizenship granted to them, their parents should not, unless they go through legal proper legal channels, and qualify. To this I also stress having a child who is a legal citizen of the U.S. is not a qualifying reason for granting citizenship. If the child returns later on, he would automatically be an American citizen anyway, and would be able to claim such upon reentry to the country.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Freedom Of The Press, Freedom From The Press.
One of our nation's greatest abuses, is freedom of the press. I am not saying we should take away the media freedom. Freedom of the press, does not give the media carte blanche, to do whatever it feels like doing. There is a point of responsibility to the citizenry, it serves. When the press becomes abusive to that citizenry, it fails to meet it's obligations, when it harasses, when it misrepresents, when it out and out lies, and when it becomes the Creator of news instead of the reporter of news. When news stories are made of the families of victims or perpetrators and those families want to be left alone the press must, back down and leave those persons alone. The American people do not have the right to know the misery of those affected by the scum. that is not a story. As I stated in an earlier post I don't think the public at large even needs to know the names of the infamous.
Report the facts. They do need to know what is happening in their neighborhoods, cities and states. Facts would include descriptions of the suspects. I don't however prescribe to grocery store tabloids reporting garbage. They are not the press and should not be considered so. No matter how many articles they carry to legitimize their press credentials, when they publish articles about Roswell and alien pregnancies they are trash and therefore shouldn't be able to report speculative perversions or irregularities of personalities, and would be liable to lawsuits as any other citizen tearing down the reputations of others, to the point of criminal negligence.
In our legal system, suspects of crimes are innocent until proven guilty, in the press they are guilty until proven innocent, and remain guilty to those who do not read the mouse type on page G-16 in the lower left hand corner of the page. When a person of interest is raked over the coals by the press and it is determined that he was innocent, the reporting media should print or air a retraction equivalent of the wrong information. For instance Headline on page 1 reads "Morris Murders Mumford" in 76 point bold script. When Morris is found innocent instead of a 1 column 1" article written in 6 point script on Page D-12. The retraction is written in 76 Point bold script as a headline on page 1. If the TV report comes on as the lead story of the 6 O'clock news guess where the retraction appears..... not at 11:28 PM but, again at 6 O'clock as the lead story. It is just and fair. In election years any news reports covering the candidates must show true unbiased stories reveling just the facts , Not "Journalistic" pandering to the media sweetheart. For every minute of coverage for a candidate a minute of coverage will be available for his opponent at a time slot equal to that of the other.
Report the facts. They do need to know what is happening in their neighborhoods, cities and states. Facts would include descriptions of the suspects. I don't however prescribe to grocery store tabloids reporting garbage. They are not the press and should not be considered so. No matter how many articles they carry to legitimize their press credentials, when they publish articles about Roswell and alien pregnancies they are trash and therefore shouldn't be able to report speculative perversions or irregularities of personalities, and would be liable to lawsuits as any other citizen tearing down the reputations of others, to the point of criminal negligence.
In our legal system, suspects of crimes are innocent until proven guilty, in the press they are guilty until proven innocent, and remain guilty to those who do not read the mouse type on page G-16 in the lower left hand corner of the page. When a person of interest is raked over the coals by the press and it is determined that he was innocent, the reporting media should print or air a retraction equivalent of the wrong information. For instance Headline on page 1 reads "Morris Murders Mumford" in 76 point bold script. When Morris is found innocent instead of a 1 column 1" article written in 6 point script on Page D-12. The retraction is written in 76 Point bold script as a headline on page 1. If the TV report comes on as the lead story of the 6 O'clock news guess where the retraction appears..... not at 11:28 PM but, again at 6 O'clock as the lead story. It is just and fair. In election years any news reports covering the candidates must show true unbiased stories reveling just the facts , Not "Journalistic" pandering to the media sweetheart. For every minute of coverage for a candidate a minute of coverage will be available for his opponent at a time slot equal to that of the other.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Video Trials
How often have you seen some lawyer show (Movie or TV series), where the lawyer stands up and asks a question, that even the novice knows should not have been asked? The opposing lawyer will jump up and object, the judge will sustain the objection then direct the jury to disregard the question. We all know the shyster lawyer got his point across, and no matter who is on the jury, or what they are told, they will keep that tidbit of information to themselves and wonder. Not only that but, what about the parade of witnesses who not only have to be kept waiting for their opportunity to testify, but, after a long drawn out harassment of the lawyers present asking and restating their questions, objecting and pointing out their objections the jury is left wondering if what they had to say was pertinent to begin with. Sometimes after a witness has given his testimony, we find out through cross examination that it was all bogus perjury to begin with. Now, once again we are directed by the judge to disregard his statements. In the worst scenario our defendant sits through the trial and realizes he hasn't a foot to stand on, after several weeks he caves in changes his plea, and the jury has been forced to witness their time wasted, without the satisfaction of passing a verdict forward. You might ask, what else could we do, to make it more streamlined?
I propose that the entire trial be recorded, and edited prior to seating of the jury. Obviously this would not be every case, but the big ones, and many of the medium sized ones, perhaps one day all of them could be done that way. It starts out, with depositions; Depositions become the actual testimonies that would be aired. Any objections made would be aired and once the Judge has ruled on the objection, one of two things would happen 1) the Judge over rules the objection and the tape would be edited of the lawyer making the objection, or 2) the Judge sustains the objection and the both the objection and the substance of the objection is edited out of the testimony, as if it never happened. Perjured witnesses would be edited out completely. Pertinent witnesses and their testimonies would be allowed to remain, but, after review the Judge could decide if their presence was even relative. Any Courtroom dramatics could be edited out and re taped to prevent improper exposure to the jury. Any mistrials could be corrected by editing of the improper evidence or acts (saving the taxpayer the money necessary to stage another trial). The tapes could be used for appeals as well.
After the trial, and the tapes have been reviewed for content (removing what should have been removed) the Jury is seated. Review of the tapes will be able to inform juries how long they will be needed. No need for juries to be sequestered for extended periods during recesses, so lawyers can gather witnesses who didn't show up on time on were needed at an inappropriate time. When the Jury is seated, there will be the Judge, the opposing Lawyers (no need for large teams), the Defendant, the Bailiff or two, and court stenographer (perhaps with the video taping that would be a formality that can be eliminated saving more money). The video would run any and all evidences be shown and passed about. The jury would then deliberate and make their verdict known.
At that time the jury would be thanked and let go. Unless they were needed for capital crimes and determine if capital measures were needed for punishment.
I propose that the entire trial be recorded, and edited prior to seating of the jury. Obviously this would not be every case, but the big ones, and many of the medium sized ones, perhaps one day all of them could be done that way. It starts out, with depositions; Depositions become the actual testimonies that would be aired. Any objections made would be aired and once the Judge has ruled on the objection, one of two things would happen 1) the Judge over rules the objection and the tape would be edited of the lawyer making the objection, or 2) the Judge sustains the objection and the both the objection and the substance of the objection is edited out of the testimony, as if it never happened. Perjured witnesses would be edited out completely. Pertinent witnesses and their testimonies would be allowed to remain, but, after review the Judge could decide if their presence was even relative. Any Courtroom dramatics could be edited out and re taped to prevent improper exposure to the jury. Any mistrials could be corrected by editing of the improper evidence or acts (saving the taxpayer the money necessary to stage another trial). The tapes could be used for appeals as well.
After the trial, and the tapes have been reviewed for content (removing what should have been removed) the Jury is seated. Review of the tapes will be able to inform juries how long they will be needed. No need for juries to be sequestered for extended periods during recesses, so lawyers can gather witnesses who didn't show up on time on were needed at an inappropriate time. When the Jury is seated, there will be the Judge, the opposing Lawyers (no need for large teams), the Defendant, the Bailiff or two, and court stenographer (perhaps with the video taping that would be a formality that can be eliminated saving more money). The video would run any and all evidences be shown and passed about. The jury would then deliberate and make their verdict known.
At that time the jury would be thanked and let go. Unless they were needed for capital crimes and determine if capital measures were needed for punishment.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Another Response to Interest Price Fixing
After this I shall resume posting on what I feel is "The Way It Should Be". As I review the input from various persons, who emailed me concerning price controls on the price of money, I begin to think some of you have the right idea. People are responsible for their own situations in most cases. Banks and credit card companies should be able to set their own interest rates. Retailers should be able to set their own prices on their products. So I put forth to you that it comes down to personal responsibility. This can be carried over to almost every facet of society. My original posting which brought on this controversy was over Bankruptcy. So let's look at this aspect. Should we be able to file bankruptcy at all? Why should we be able to erase our debts at all? In ancient days, if you were unable to pay your debts you were sold into slavery, and that could have included members of your immediate family as well. Should we bring back that practice? We can scoff at price controls all we want, but, when you come right down to it; there are a lot of things society has price controlled, body organs come to mind. What business of it is mine if you want to sell your spare kidney to the highest bidder? It's your kidney. Why not? If you die, why can't your family sell your heart, spleen, kidneys, lungs, or anything else for that matter? The Government has set down price controls on those items.... The government says they must be a gift, you are not allowed to sell them or have anyone bid on them in auction. Ticket scalpers, they are purchasing a product for resale, why then shouldn't they be able to sell those tickets for whatever price the market is willing to bear? When a hurricane hits a community or any other natural disaster, why can't people purchase water at a dollar a bottle and sell it at $10.00 or more? Plywood? Generators? The list goes on. When it comes to personal responsibility why stop at economics? Libertarians profess an attitude that they should be able to do anything they please as long as it doesn't interfere with (or could interfere with) the rights of others. So speeding would be illegal if you are endangering others. Driving drunk would be illegal since you are exposing others to a hazardous situation. Libertarians would also advocate the use of what are now illegal drugs, since you are only harming yourself and not others. Again it would boil down to personal freedom. If I want to charge you $20 for borrowing $5, as long as you don't have a problem with it, what does it matter? If you want to smoke dope in your own home, and as long as you keep it contained and not in your car going 120 mph stoned, what concern of it is mine? Now if we take on this attitude, what restrictions must we implement to keep us from destroying society? First of all, if you get all liquored up and ruin your liver, don't ask anyone to pay for its replacement, that should be you and your family responsibility (would the insurance company be able to place a clause in your insurance agreement stating that if you were responsible for your condition they would be exempt from paying out on your bills?. The Federal government already refuses to pay off a service member’s SGLI (Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance) if the service member dies in an accident where they are not wearing seat belts (or in the case of a motorcycle accident not wearing a helmet). So where does this all lead you may ask. My Blog is "The Way It Should Be” In a perfect world there would be no need to limit companies on how much interest they lend out, they would do the right thing. In a perfect world we would all adopt the proper attitude when it came down to how we conduct our business and our lives. There would be no loan sharks waiting for the easy mark, ready to break your legs when you don’t pay up. If we had no limits on interest and the deal was the open door, Loan Sharks would be upstanding citizens offering a commodity to those in need. Is Citibank a legal Loan Shark? That, without restrictions is able to raise your interest rates as long as they give you a 30 day notice? Don’t they metaphorically break your economic legs when you are behind? It is right to garnish your wages for a credit card debt, to ensure they get paid before your Mortgage Company, utility company, or grocer? You may think this treatise is socialistic, but I think it is more Conservative in nature. By allowing people to grow more economically on their own, you open up a real economy based on product and demand for that product. When people have more to spend, they spend it. If we reduce the amount they can spend on products, because they have to pay off interest on stuff they have already bought, then no amount of stimulus money will be able to correct a turn in the economy. Money is not a commodity; it is the means in which commodities are exchanged for labor. Interest cheapens the value of labor, by reducing what can be purchased with it. When you create more products, with a wider Marketplace, Society becomes stronger. Perhaps credit cards should be traded in for debit cards and products sold for their value. Would you spend $360,000 for a $125,000 house? People do that every day, and oh yes that price just up to $400,000 because you don’t have a good credit history. I am just saying that interest rates are too high and the people who can afford to pay them, don’t have to, where is the equality? Again in a perfect world we would not need to limit what we do, because we would just naturally do it.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
A Response Concerning Price Controls On Interest Rates
I received an Email expressing concern that I was advocating price controls when I stated that interest rates should be capped at 10%. I was. I have no reservations over the federal government when they take steps to “provide for the common good” as is directed by the preamble of our constitution. I also look to the oath of office sworn by our presidents and senators to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Let me outline the reasons I have against usury (the practice of lending money at astronomically high rates).
Let us first look at the religious reasons
1) Jews are forbidden to lend at interest to one another. Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Leviticus 25:35-37.
2) The Prophet Ezekiel includes usury in a list of “abominable things,” along with rape, murder, robbery and idolatry. Ezekiel 18:19-13.
3) Medieval Canon Law Usury is punishable by ex-communication
4) 1306-1321 Dante pens “The Inferno,” in which he places usurers at the lowest ledge in the seventh circle of hell – lower than murderers. “to live without labor was denounced as unnatural, and so Dante put usurers in the same circle of hell as the inhabitants of Sodom and other practices of unnatural vice”
5) 1483-1547 Martin Luther compared the taking of usury with theft and murder, as does the Scriptures.
But, let's go in another direction. How about our own history
1) Early 18th Century American colonies adopt usury laws, setting the interest cap at 8%.
2) After 1776 all of the States in the Union adopt a general usury. Most states set the interest limit at 6%.
So apparently our forefathers had no qualms about price controls when it came to interest rates and what would be considered usury. As we became more liberal with the concept of loaning money it soon caused our society to make money more available by making it more attractive for the banks to lend out, Thus allowing the banks to make more money off of our money that was sitting in their vaults.
1) Early 1900's a move to deregulation causes 11 states to eliminate their usury laws. Nine more states raise the usury cap to 10% or 12%. Banks are not making personal loans. “Salary Lenders” fill the need by “purchasing” a worker’s future wages in exchange for a high fee – equal to a lending rate of 10% - 33%.
2) 1916 A Uniform Small Loan Law allows specially-licensed lenders to charge higher interest rates—up to 36%—in return for adhering to strict standards of lending.
Obviously these practices help set the stage for the great depression loans were made at high rates, and the money used to buy stocks that when the paper tower collapsed, worthless stocks became as worthless as the paper loans used to purchase them. People ended up upside down with no way of paying off their debts. You would have thought we would have learned our lesson, but, no the great depression was alleviated by of all things World War 2. And when that was over......
1) 1945 - 1979 All states adopt special loan laws that cap interest at higher than the general usury rate—at 36%—but cap it nevertheless.
2) 1978 The US Supreme Court decides that national banks may export the state interest rate law of their home state into any state where they do business. In response, South Dakota eliminates its interest rate caps. Several credit card issuing banks move to South Dakota and operate nationally with no interest rate cap.
3) 1980 Congress preempts state interest rate controls on all first lien mortgages. This enables predatory mortgage lenders to make seemingly affordable loans, like adjustable rate and interest-only loans that lead to foreclosure for many.
4) 1994 Congress adopts the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, which provides some substantive protections to home mortgage borrowers with interest rates or points that are extraordinarily expensive, but sets no limits on what can be charged for these loans.
5) 1994 -2005 Many states and cities try to protect their citizens by adopting state statutes and local ordinances to curb predatory lending, but preemption claims by the federal government impede their efforts. Numerous bills are introduced in Congress to protect consumers in a wide range of transactions, including rent-to-own, credit cards, payday lending, and predatory mortgage lending, but none of these bills makes it to a hearing.
6) 2001 - 2007 Predatory and mainly subprime lenders make home loans to people who cannot afford them, boosting their own profits in the short term. Many of these loans are packaged and sold to Wall Street.
7) 2005 after extensive pressure from the industry, the federal government changes bankruptcy laws, making it harder for consumers to discharge debts and get a clean start in bankruptcy.
8) 2006 Congress passes the “Talent Amendment” which to caps interest on loans made to active military personnel and their families at 36%, reacting to findings that high-cost payday lenders had been targeting the military.
9) 2007 Foreclosure rates begin to increase dramatically as a result of predatory mortgage lending. The launch of Americans for Fairness in Lending (AFFIL), a national multi-organization collaborative message and action campaign designed to raise public awareness and generate outrage about predatory lending.
10) 2008 Unpaid mortgages cause mortgage-backed securities on Wall Street to continue to "go bad," triggering widespread economic downturn in both the United States and around the world. Some commercial and investment banks go bankrupt, and some are the object of government "bailouts."
So how can we stand by and watch the financial system wreck havoc on our economy. Think of this when loans were at rates of 12 -16% Banks paid us 5-6% interest on our savings. As loan rates have climbed what has happened to our return rate? How much do you get paid on money sitting in your savings account? Your Money Market account? Or your CD's?
Price controls on banks? Maybe if they lent their money more responsibly..... They wouldn't need it. Maybe if we look deeper into who owns the banks...... we will see more politicians and lawyers. Just think our forefathers thought 6% interest was too much, now we have 36% and more.... Remember Income tax was originally set at 3% and how much do you pay now? Maybe we should set price controls.
Let us first look at the religious reasons
1) Jews are forbidden to lend at interest to one another. Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Leviticus 25:35-37.
2) The Prophet Ezekiel includes usury in a list of “abominable things,” along with rape, murder, robbery and idolatry. Ezekiel 18:19-13.
3) Medieval Canon Law Usury is punishable by ex-communication
4) 1306-1321 Dante pens “The Inferno,” in which he places usurers at the lowest ledge in the seventh circle of hell – lower than murderers. “to live without labor was denounced as unnatural, and so Dante put usurers in the same circle of hell as the inhabitants of Sodom and other practices of unnatural vice”
5) 1483-1547 Martin Luther compared the taking of usury with theft and murder, as does the Scriptures.
But, let's go in another direction. How about our own history
1) Early 18th Century American colonies adopt usury laws, setting the interest cap at 8%.
2) After 1776 all of the States in the Union adopt a general usury. Most states set the interest limit at 6%.
So apparently our forefathers had no qualms about price controls when it came to interest rates and what would be considered usury. As we became more liberal with the concept of loaning money it soon caused our society to make money more available by making it more attractive for the banks to lend out, Thus allowing the banks to make more money off of our money that was sitting in their vaults.
1) Early 1900's a move to deregulation causes 11 states to eliminate their usury laws. Nine more states raise the usury cap to 10% or 12%. Banks are not making personal loans. “Salary Lenders” fill the need by “purchasing” a worker’s future wages in exchange for a high fee – equal to a lending rate of 10% - 33%.
2) 1916 A Uniform Small Loan Law allows specially-licensed lenders to charge higher interest rates—up to 36%—in return for adhering to strict standards of lending.
Obviously these practices help set the stage for the great depression loans were made at high rates, and the money used to buy stocks that when the paper tower collapsed, worthless stocks became as worthless as the paper loans used to purchase them. People ended up upside down with no way of paying off their debts. You would have thought we would have learned our lesson, but, no the great depression was alleviated by of all things World War 2. And when that was over......
1) 1945 - 1979 All states adopt special loan laws that cap interest at higher than the general usury rate—at 36%—but cap it nevertheless.
2) 1978 The US Supreme Court decides that national banks may export the state interest rate law of their home state into any state where they do business. In response, South Dakota eliminates its interest rate caps. Several credit card issuing banks move to South Dakota and operate nationally with no interest rate cap.
3) 1980 Congress preempts state interest rate controls on all first lien mortgages. This enables predatory mortgage lenders to make seemingly affordable loans, like adjustable rate and interest-only loans that lead to foreclosure for many.
4) 1994 Congress adopts the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, which provides some substantive protections to home mortgage borrowers with interest rates or points that are extraordinarily expensive, but sets no limits on what can be charged for these loans.
5) 1994 -2005 Many states and cities try to protect their citizens by adopting state statutes and local ordinances to curb predatory lending, but preemption claims by the federal government impede their efforts. Numerous bills are introduced in Congress to protect consumers in a wide range of transactions, including rent-to-own, credit cards, payday lending, and predatory mortgage lending, but none of these bills makes it to a hearing.
6) 2001 - 2007 Predatory and mainly subprime lenders make home loans to people who cannot afford them, boosting their own profits in the short term. Many of these loans are packaged and sold to Wall Street.
7) 2005 after extensive pressure from the industry, the federal government changes bankruptcy laws, making it harder for consumers to discharge debts and get a clean start in bankruptcy.
8) 2006 Congress passes the “Talent Amendment” which to caps interest on loans made to active military personnel and their families at 36%, reacting to findings that high-cost payday lenders had been targeting the military.
9) 2007 Foreclosure rates begin to increase dramatically as a result of predatory mortgage lending. The launch of Americans for Fairness in Lending (AFFIL), a national multi-organization collaborative message and action campaign designed to raise public awareness and generate outrage about predatory lending.
10) 2008 Unpaid mortgages cause mortgage-backed securities on Wall Street to continue to "go bad," triggering widespread economic downturn in both the United States and around the world. Some commercial and investment banks go bankrupt, and some are the object of government "bailouts."
So how can we stand by and watch the financial system wreck havoc on our economy. Think of this when loans were at rates of 12 -16% Banks paid us 5-6% interest on our savings. As loan rates have climbed what has happened to our return rate? How much do you get paid on money sitting in your savings account? Your Money Market account? Or your CD's?
Price controls on banks? Maybe if they lent their money more responsibly..... They wouldn't need it. Maybe if we look deeper into who owns the banks...... we will see more politicians and lawyers. Just think our forefathers thought 6% interest was too much, now we have 36% and more.... Remember Income tax was originally set at 3% and how much do you pay now? Maybe we should set price controls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
