Payday lending industry, local regulations (Howe: crime, credit report, movies)

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by Merovee

Some are obviously more worried about crime than others. Considering my neighborhood ranked second for most police calls on some recently posted list I believe poverty and other social ills are more important to solve first and by doing so crime will naturally fall.

Crime is a symptom not the problem and most recognize on some level that only treating symptoms and not the underlying illness is unproductive. Those who live in low crime areas and are most paranoid about cime might fall for the "crime will rise" line, how ironic.

Do you know where every poster on here lives? If not, your argument that mostly those in low crime areas are against government intervention on payday businesses is invalid.

Neshomamench did make a good point although my personal opinion had nothing to do with crime. Bottom line is that the local government does not need to babysit irresponsible people abusing services and products provided by legit businesses such as payday loaners, soda companies, cigarette companies, taco shacks, donut stores, etc.

[Merovee]

Originally Posted by MattTx

Do you know where every poster on here lives? If not, your argument that mostly those in low crime areas are against government intervention on payday businesses is invalid.

Neshomamench did make a good point although my personal opinion had nothing to do with crime. Bottom line is that the local government does not need to babysit irresponsible people abusing services and products provided by legit businesses such as payday loaners, soda companies, cigarette companies, taco shacks, donut stores, etc.

That isn't my argument. Many who live in high crime areas, the most impoverished communities, use payday lenders and would disagree with me. Although one could compare why they are in favor of them (they use payday loans naturally seen by others as a bad decision on their part) and why those who live outside these communities in more affluent areas are (only placing blame on the victims as being irresponsible).

Your characterization of reform and progress as babysitting is all a matter of contrary opinion when others view it as businesses that are exploiting the more vulnerable segments of our society. We will just have to see which side our city council chooses.

If they have the wisdom of our military (who have been involved in taking action against payday lenders who prey on our servicemen) then they won't share your opinion and see the victims solely to blame but instead see these businesses as being irresponsible. Many segments of society are coalescing around this issue and I think we are headed in the right direction overall.

This rule is an important first step in protecting service members and their families from unscrupulous and predatory lending practices. The Department of Defense will continue to monitor the status of predatory lending targeted at service members and has the ability to amend the rules implementing the Military Lending Act as required.

National Military Family Association: Military Lending Act

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by Merovee

That isn't my argument. Many who live in high crime areas, the most impoverished communities, use payday lenders and would disagree with me. Although one could compare why they are in favor of them (they use payday loans naturally seen by others as a bad decision on their part) and why those who live outside these communities in more affluent areas are (only placing blame on the victims as being irresponsible).

Your characterization of reform and progress as babysitting, or that it is the victims abusing the business that exploit the more vulnerable of our society, is all a matter of contrary opinion. We will just have to see which side our city council chooses.

If they have the wisdom of our military (who have been involved in taking action against payday lenders who prey on our servicemen) then they won't share your opinion and see the victims solely to blame but instead see these businesses as being irresponsible. Many segments of society are coalescing around this issue and I think it is headed in the right direction overall.



National Military Family Association: Military Lending Act

Consensus is a very poor argument and it doesnt make you right when it is on your side. I hate to play the "nazi" card but they had "consensus" as well.

The point is, just because a lot of people (or a vocal minority) agree with you, doesnt make it right. To be fair, it doesnt always make it wrong either but again...dont, just dont use that as a point you want to make your stand on. It is a very poor point.

[Merovee]

Originally Posted by Neshomamench

Consensus is a very poor argument and it doesnt make you right when it is on your side. I hate to play the "nazi" card but they had "consensus" as well.

The point is, just because a lot of people (or a vocal minority) agree with you, doesnt make it right. To be fair, it doesnt always make it wrong either but again...dont, just dont use that as a point you want to make your stand on. It is a very poor point.

It wasn't an argument by consensus, most people do not even care about this issue or are even aware of it, it was stating that many groups are forming to tackle this issue, from the defense department, religious groups, and networks that connect city governments.

More and more people are clearly seeing how these businesses abuse our laws and citizens. That is not an argument by consensus either but an expectation of greater consumer protection as more involve themselves.

The Texas Constitution says annual rates of interest of more than 10 percent are illegal. However, this constitutional protection can be bypassed if payday lenders register their businesses as “credit service organizations,” which under state law are defined as organizations that improve a consumer’s credit history or rating, or obtain an extension of consumer credit for their clients.

Texas Cities Take Action to Regulate Payday Lenders — Predatory lenders | The Texas Tribune

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by Merovee

It wasn't an argument by consensus, most people do not even care about this issue or are even aware of it, it was stating that many groups are forming to tackle this issue, from the defense department, religious groups, and networks that connect city governments against this issue.

More and more people are clearly seeing how these businesses abuse our laws and citizens. That is not an argument by consensus either.



Texas Cities Take Action to Regulate Payday Lenders — Predatory lenders | The Texas Tribune

It is your opinion that these businesses abuse the laws and citizens.

What is a fact is that more groups are looking towards goverenment for the solution(or an increasingly louder vocal minority which is often the case). Empowering government doesnt often make people more free.

Of coruse you are trying to play the game of consensus. What else is the point of your continued posting of all the people who agree with you?

[Merovee]

Originally Posted by Neshomamench

It is your opinion that these businesses abuse the laws and citizens.

What is a fact is that more groups are looking towards goverenment for the solution(or an increasingly louder vocal minority which is often the case). Empowering government doesnt often make people more free.

Of coruse you are trying to play the game of consensus. What else is the point of your continued posting of all the people who agree with you?

The point was to demonstrate that our city is not doing something unusual or conspiring to take away our freedoms and enslave us when so many other cities are doing the same.

If the military is taking similar action to protect its soldiers as our city and others are doing to protect our citizens then I don't believe Councilman Bernals' proposal is going to erode our freedom, paranoia anyone?

Issues of empowering government and freedom are clearly how some (those who are conspiratorially minded and mistrustful of our government) filter the issue but really it is just about consumer protection and progressive issues.

Moderator cut: Off-Topic

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by Merovee

The point was to demonstrate that our city is not doing something unusual, unconstitutional, or conspiring to take away our freedoms and enslave us, but instead are on the same page as many others when it comes to this issue.

Issues of empowering government and freedom are clearly how some filter the issue but really it is just about consumer protection and progressive politics.

No, it is an increase in government powers. It doesnt matter if it happens once or many times. You can overcome that truth. There is no way around that. You dont get to decide that fact doesnt mean anything because of how you feel about the results. You dont get to have the final word on "what it is really about." Those are other issues. Again, it is an increase of government powers. That is a fact.

If you want to argue if it is a good or bad idea (or some point inbetween) that is another issue.

And again, you are playing the consensus card.

[lessQQmorePEWPEW]

Originally Posted by Merovee

Who likes to see others fail?

snarky as it sounds, i do. it provides for many hours of entertainment on the tele. example: world's worst tenants reality show. comedy gold!

[lessQQmorePEWPEW]

Originally Posted by Neshomamench

these businesses abuse the laws and citizens.

laws? no. citizens? yes. unethical? look at the interest rates and get back to me...

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by lessQQmorePEWPEW

laws? no. citizens? yes. unethical? look at the interest rates and get back to me...

I refuse to let my feelings (of course I feel it is a bad thing) get in the way of the rule of law and how Government should stay out of peoples lives as much a possible.

There is no tort here. Two consenting parties are entering into a contract, both of their own free will. Again, no matter how I feel about it, I dont want the government acting on feelings. I want them acting on facts and staying out of the lives, as much as can be done, of consenting legal parties.