Obama's Web site full of specifics

Lawrence Jones, Conifer

Published February 28, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

February 28, 2008

7:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

T1anda writes:

Same with HRC! A vote for BHO is a vote for HRC they do not separate themselves concerning the issues at all!
February 28, 2008

8:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Obama's "Blueprint for Change" reads like a modern day Socialist Mein Kampf combined with a modern day Christ-like message. The website actually has a glowing picture of Obama with the quote "I'm asking you to believe"

The entire blueprint is based on the theory that business and wealthy people are bad and the middle class are some kind of saintly segment of society.

All of his plans involve new federal programs and restrictions on business.

"Obama will reform our bankruptcy laws to protect working people, ban executive bonuses for bankrupt companies, and require disclosure of all pension investments."

"Obama will establish a five-star rating system so that every consumer knows the risk involved in every credit card. He also will establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to stop credit card companies from exploiting consumers
with unfair practices."

"Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders."

"Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions."

"Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs."

Barack Hussein Obama says "I'm asking you to believe." Well, I do believe. I really do. I believe you are a dangerous socialist who must be stopped.
February 28, 2008

8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

SASQUATCH,

Every time the subject of Sen Obama comes up you post the same vacuous talking points - and it's getting a little boring. Go to Sean Hannity's web site & get some new material, please!

And when a Bush supporter like you describes someone of Obama's intellect as "intellectually vacant" and of "no substance" - well, that's just hilarious.
February 28, 2008

8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

I'd like to know what Obama hopes to accomplish with his ideas for banking and credit. Doesn't he have any idea how much regulation is already out there to protect the consumer? Here are a few:
Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act
Truth in Lending Act
Fair Credit Reporting Act
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Fair Credit Billing Act
Right to Financial Privacy Act
Consumer Leasing Act
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Unsolicited Credit Card Act
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

This does not include any state laws. Just doing something as simple as opening a checking account you're provided with brochures full of rules and disclosures. There are so many rules and regulations that nobody actually READS any of the information that they're given anymore. Shouldn't we be looking for simplified processes and less bureaucracy instead of more? What's the point of a five star rating system? Are people really so stupid that they're incapable of reading the terms and conditions of their credit card?
February 28, 2008

8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

sschow writes:

Why do we have a middle class Tbone? Why?! Because those businesses who "rape" people are allowed in a FREE MARKET to pay employees enough for the time and effort to afford a lifestyle that is better than anything on this planet today. The average American living in poverty lives a similar lifestyle as the average "middle class" European.

The idea that the government should protect consumers from businesses is ludicrous. Everyone, I repeat, EVERYONE enters into economic transactions voluntarily. If you get a credit card and you know it will charge 30% interest if you are late, you are assuemd to have taken the costs and risks into account. Personal responsibility be damned, apparently...
February 28, 2008

9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

What is that conservatives have against working people? Are they that stupid that don't realize they are working people to? Do they enjoy being taken advantage of by employers, banks and people who do everything in their power to hold them down? The funniest thing I see is a person driving a beat up late model vehicle with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker.

I agree with you Tbone. I can't see the bad in it either.
February 28, 2008

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Tbone said:
"Protect working people? Crack down on fraudulent brokers? Credit card bill of rights?"

The only thing Obama is protecting the middle class from is personal responsibility.

"Fradulent brokers"? I suppose you are referring to those evil banks that give hundreds of thousands of dollars to a borrower in the hopes that in 15-30 years, the borrower will return the money plus interest. Or credit card companies that order their henchmen to break into the homes of the middle class, put a credit card in their hands, point a gun to their head, and order them to spend or they will be shot.

What do you think would be the result of those plans? Banks will offer less loans to the middle class, not more. Credit cards will offer less credit, not more. Employers will hire less workers, not more.

The middle class is just fine. It doesn't need to be protected from "rape" by some loving angelic demagogue. Stop babying the middle class. And stop blaming the rich and corporations for every little inconvenience that the middle class experiences.
February 28, 2008

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

Spot on Eli. With the exception of Colorado, most states already have some sort of "banking dept" that oversees lenders and brokers, usually requiring licensing and annual renewals to operate within that state. These are not simple licensing requirements either. They do extensive background checks on the owners and managers and require testing to show knowledge of the federal and state laws.

The states also audit these lenders/brokers every 2-3 years and more frequently if any complaints have been filed by consumers.

Why does OB want to reinvent the wheel?
February 28, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"The funniest thing I see is a person driving a beat up late model vehicle with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker." -- leftside

Why is that funny?

There is a thing called integrity, leftside. Some men are financially poor yet blame no one for their condition. And they don't want some nanny government pitying them with money taken from other people.
February 28, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Posted by JohnII:

"The only thing Obama is protecting the middle class from is personal responsibility".

Evidently I missed that in the numerous speeches I've heard him give.

This wouldn't be a typical wingnut act would it? lol
February 28, 2008

9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

Can we finally do away with the right wing myth that obama isn't providing specifics? Not seeing a plan is worlds apart from not liking the plan given.
February 28, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

Again Republicans confess their ignorance. They could have made Ron Paul the nominee; now, as an Independent, I am compelled to vote for Obama so I won't become culpable with McCain's one hundred year occupation of Iraq resulting with blood on my hands. As a Navy man I always thought I'd vote for Navy man McCain. His Iraq forthcoming/Bush debacle will bankrupt America. Richard Grimes: Deicide.

Deicide Corner: “Man is certainly stark mad. He cannot make a flea, and yet he will be making gods by the dozen.” -- Michel de Montaigne

Ps: Democrats are also ignorant; they could have made anyone of the four other aspirants the nominee, especially Richardson or Dodd.
February 28, 2008

9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

Oh, no - NotTooBright's off his meds again - watch out for flying spittle!
February 28, 2008

9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"Evidently I missed that in the numerous speeches I've heard him give."

I wonder why that is. Perhaps because his speeches are fluffy meaningless rhetoric. The author of this letter asked us to check out Obama's plan on his website. I did. If you read his plan, you'll see a pattern. If the middle class spends too much on the credit card, he will punish credit card companies. If the middle class doesn't pay its mortgage, he will punish the lender. If the middle class cannot pay its debts, he will make it easier to erase the debts. If the middle class wants a raise in pay, he will force employers to pay more. If the middle class is sick, he force others to pay for its medical bill. If the middle class wants to go to college, he will force others to pay its tuition.

At each point his message is clear: I will absolve the middle class from personal responsibility and charge it to the wealthy instead. Its all right there in his plan. Read it.
February 28, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Once again John and as usual your being untruthful and using tongue in cheek sarcasism and right wing assumptions to make your point. I'm sure that works with the conservative crowd whose profile is just that but it won't work on anyone else. America has grown weary and wise to this kind of rhetoric and have shown that throughout the Republican primarys. Have you been reading about that, or have you been to busy trying to assinate the charcter of the democratic candidates to figure out whats going on in your own party?
February 28, 2008

9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

SASQUATCH, good try though. It had me thinking.
February 28, 2008

9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

KW,
There is even more to it than that. Financial institutions are required to provide compliance training to ALL employees on a yearly basis, not just owners and managers. In addition, there are internal audit controls and government audits happen on a yearly basis, not every 2-3 years.
February 28, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Since Hawaii, BO's birthplace, wasn't a state in the USA until 1959, would that not disqualify him for the presidencey of the USA?"

mccain wasn't born in the US...he was born in panama.
February 28, 2008

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

On a military installation, Jay.
February 28, 2008

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

in panama...right?
February 28, 2008

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Yeah, so what? He would still be considered a natural born citizen of the U.S.
February 28, 2008

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

I have observed Democrats for forty years; trying to understand them.

Basically it seems to be comprised of people who expect to 'get' something from somebody else.

So that 'hope' does attract a lot of people.

My question to them has always been: are there enough successful people in America that you can take money from, in order to keep your promise for the 'give-aways'????

I don't think so. But we are all gullible; so many of us vote them into power.

Sad.
February 28, 2008

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

jay - Just saying you're going to do something isn't giving specifics so no myths to dispell here. Nice try though.

Maybe you could give us an example of his "specific" plans for one of his many ideas for change.

And remember, the key word in this debate is "specifics."
February 28, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

Hey NotTooBright,

here's a tip about humor - once you've used the same tired line more than 3 times it's even less funny than it was the first time around. Do your meds make you forgetful too?
February 28, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

It makes me crackup when I read blogs from the Cons stomping on a Democrats plans. Have you morons been living in a cave the last 7 yrs? There has been no plan unless your target is record gas prices, record profits for oil companies, record dedt, record healthcare costs, and a war that has killed thousands at 5+ billion a month. If that is what you want "W" has done great.
February 28, 2008

12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

larryd - How is electing OB going to change the price of crude oil? How is electing ANYBODY president going to have ANY effect on the price of oil???

Do you understand where the prices for crude are set?
February 28, 2008

12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

I heard the most interesting thing the other day. Capitalists care about money, and Socialists care about people. Both camps can cause mischief with the economy but at least, at the very least, we Liberals who like the Capitalist/Social programs combination have our hearts in the right place in the beginning.

Capitalism is the best economic system in the world, but is easily corrupted by cronyism and influence pedalling. Socalism without a dictator system is probably better, in the long run for society, especially if there is plenty of Capitalism, with restraints.

Of course I expect insults for this post, and I expect the Anti-Charles to completely misunderstand what I write.

Unrestrained capitalism, socalism or communism can all go bad. No economic system is pure especially when joined with the governmental might and business influence as well as fortunes made only in war time.

We the people, or should that be us the people (sorry, old Gary Larsen cartoon) need to keep our eyes open.

KW, presidents have zilch effect of the price of crude. Right on!
February 28, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

I see that Earl of the Cows still thinks he's the only one that works. Maybe that hay dust is getting to him. Be that has it may your consistent ranting about how liberals want to live off the government rather than work is getting as old as it is wrong whether you put it all in capital letters or not. Earl you wake up in the morning wrong and you go to bed at night wrong. What gets me and is a sure sign of what I guess is considered old age is that your so blatanly arrogant about. Like I've said be go back to your cows as they are probably your best audience.
February 28, 2008

1:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

leftside,
How exactly are banks and employers holding you down? And what's wrong with driving a beat up vehicle? I happen to like my piece of crap car (although it's lacking in any Bush/Cheney stickers), to include its broken window and side mirror.
February 28, 2008

1:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Eli: "Are people really so stupid that they're incapable of reading the terms and conditions of their credit card?"

While I don't consider myself a genius, I certainly regard my intelligence level as reasonably adequate enough to have gotten me through life so far.

What I was not, apparently, smart enough to decipher as I labored through pages and pages of fine print making up the terms and agreements of one of my credit cards, is that ONE late payment would jack my 8% interest rate up to 30%.

I do not feel my personal responsibility should have to include the capabilities of a corporate attorney, or - in the case of my credit card debacle - a crystal ball that can forecast a rate change not specifically stated in my terms and agreement.

The fact is, this is actually one of the most unregulated periods in financial history, yet debt is at an all-time high as are foreclosures. The blame cannot be solely laid on irresponsible consumers. Between late fees and interest rate changes, debt is a profit channel for many financial companies, and they DO use deception and DO avoid clear transparency in many of their practices.

Again, for years the industry has undergone decreasing regulation. But the industry is obviously not policing itself against such practices, and consumer "choice" is not doing the job, either.

People are sick of it. They're complaining. Obama appears to be listening. You may not like his proposed solutions, but can you please offer one that conservative candidates are putting forth?
February 28, 2008

2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Mytwosense,
Are you aware of what current regulation requires? Penalties for late payment were in fact disclosed to you. If they were not, your institution is in violation of the law and you should seek legal remedy for that.
I agree that the fine print can be quite confusing. This is caused by the MASSIVE list of requirements for disclosure. The bureaucracy is so huge, that consumer lending requires a three day right of recision just for the consumer to go through it all.
I'm not at all saying protections should not be in place. Limited regulation is definitely a valuable method of protection for the consumer. What I'm wondering is why we need to create more bureaucracy and more complicated rules, which is what will result with ideas like a new ratings system.
February 28, 2008

2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"...can you please ovver one that conservative candidates are putting forth?"
I'm not aware of any plans from Republican politicians to simplify processes like this. That is one of my complaints about Republican politicians...more talk about eliminating bureaucracy than action. This does not mean I will support policies that will create more rules, more bureaucracy, and compound problems like the one that you had with your credit card.
February 28, 2008

2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

KW:
The same reason all you idiots blamed Jimmy Carter for prices years ago. The same reason Bush himself blamed Bill Clinton for not doing something about gas increases and that was only 20+ cents. And yes alot of oil price increases was do to this BS war he started with lies. I could just hear you clowns moan if this would have been a Dem in office with all this going on. Hell you all wanted impeachment over a BJ. OH I forgot it was about him lieing about it. ( Like weapons of mass destruction ).
February 28, 2008

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"Once again John and as usual your being untruthful and using tongue in cheek sarcasism and right wing assumptions to make your point." -- leftside

leftside, can you show me where I was untruthful?

"Capitalists care about money, and Socialists care about people. Both camps can cause mischief with the economy but at least, at the very least, we Liberals who like the Capitalist/Social programs combination have our hearts in the right place in the beginning." -- me2

Having your heart in the right place is not enough. The mind has to be there too.

Capitalism is a good thing. It helps more people than any charity or government program. It doesn't guarantee happiness or prosperity. It simply offers the best opportunity to achieve those goals.

One of the things I'm learning about the difference between conservatives and liberals is that it is not simply about understanding facts and economic concepts. I could type until my fingers fall off trying to explain basic economic principles to liberals and they would still say some incredibly foolish thing such as "Socalism without a dictator system is probably better, in the long run for society, especially if there is plenty of Capitalism, with restraints."

The true difference between liberals and conservatives is character. leftside's comment about laughing at people in old cars with a Bush/Cheney sticker is very telling.

He laughs because he thinks, "why don't they hop on the bandwagon and pilfer the rich like other liberals are doing? Then they could drive nicer cars with Obama stickers on it."

Conservatives do not blame others for their position in life. If I'm poor, I'm poor. If I'm rich, I'm rich. But, regardless of my financial situation, I will always maintain my integrity. Liberals, on the other hand, lack such integrity. They wallow in pity for others and themselves. They congratulate themselves on having their heart in the right place rather than their soul.
February 28, 2008

2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"What I was not, apparently, smart enough to decipher as I labored through pages and pages of fine print making up the terms and agreements of one of my credit cards, is that ONE late payment would jack my 8% interest rate up to 30%." -- MTS

Give me a break. This is a major issue that needs oversight from the federal government? Nonsense. These companies loan you money. Let me repeat, they loan you money.

These comments are a sign of the times. Liberals have become spoiled by the very concept they despise: capitalism.

They hate "Big Pharma". They hate "Big Oil". I guess now they hate credit cards and banks. Yet, these very institutions provide us with medicine, cures, gas stations on virtually ever street corner, fuel for our cars and trucks, loans for new televisions, computers, furniture, and homes.

And what do liberals do? They accept these things only to turn around and slap the very institutions that provided what they wanted. These institutions are evil because even though they gave you what you desired, you wanted it cheaper.

And now comes along a vapid, smooth talking, handsome Negro who claims that if you believe in him, he has the power to give you all of things you want at a cheaper cost while punishing the very companies that provide it. And, on top of that, if you vote for him your sins of racism will be forgiven and your white guilt will be lifted from your shoulders.

It is a very sad era in American history that so many people have become so spoiled and foolish at the same time.
February 28, 2008

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Once again, John II blames everything wrong with America on the spoiled, ungrateful, selfish nature of Americans who don't properly appreciate our kindly paternal corporate benefactors.

Government just landed here from some alien spaceship. It's not "of the people, for the people, by the people." It's an evil dictator from another planet out to slay the good corporate gods who have been so kind and loving to us, apparently without any participation from their employees.

leftside, I too find myself shaking my head in disbelief at just about anyone who supports Bush/Cheney, but most especially when it's some poor working stiff who is obviously voting against his economic self-interest. I chalk it up to political Stockholm Syndrome.

By the way, ever notice how some cons think it's noble when poor people vote against their own economic interest, yet outrageous when rich people do?
February 28, 2008

2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Nobody holds me down Eli. Why? You got a list that says differently?

Rather than give you my reasoning I'll just post your come back for you. "They can get a different job and can choose not to bank with people who they don't trust or as you told Mytwosense they've disclosed everything to you". I've heard it before.
February 28, 2008

2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Eli: "'m not at all saying protections should not be in place. Limited regulation is definitely a valuable method of protection for the consumer. What I'm wondering is why we need to create more bureaucracy and more complicated rules, which is what will result with ideas like a new ratings system."

Again, this IS one of the lightest periods of financial industry regulation in history. And yet, we didn't have all this confusion and debt and foreclosures when it was heavily regulated.

Perhaps Obama's bill of rights will result in less fine print, and more transparent, plain-spoken terms. That's really all consumers are asking for, and unlike you, I don't believe the complex terms are because of regulation. I think they're meant to deliberately confuse us.
February 28, 2008

2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

John II,

"Leftside, can you show me where I was untruthfull?"

Yeah. When you started posting.

Sorry John, I'd come up with something better for you but I've gotta go to work.
February 28, 2008

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

leftside: "John II,

"Leftside, can you show me where I was untruthfull?"

Yeah. When you started posting.

Sorry John, I'd come up with something better for you but I've gotta go to work."

--laughs--

John II, maybe you should get to work, too. You're ripping off your employer by posting here instead! The corporate gods frown on such behavior and may take your Internet privileges away from you...
February 28, 2008

3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Mytwosense,
"I think they're meant to deliberately confuse us."
Why? Obviously you are not familiar with disclosure requirements, otherwise you'd know that financial institutions do not in fact benefit from all the regulation and bureaucracy. There is no conspiracy amongst financial institutions to confuse you and rip you off. Disclosure forms are reviewed by internal and external auditors and entire legal teams just to make sure they are in compliance with the massive list of regulations. If you'd like to get an idea of just how huge it is, take a look at the tip of the iceberg here:
http://www.bankersonline.com/abcsoup/...
February 28, 2008

3:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"Government just landed here from some alien spaceship. It's not "of the people, for the people, by the people." It's an evil dictator from another planet out to slay the good corporate gods who have been so kind and loving to us, apparently without any participation from their employees." -- MTS

Saying the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people is meaningless in this context. Just because the majority of people will something does not mean its right.

"leftside, I too find myself shaking my head in disbelief at just about anyone who supports Bush/Cheney, but most especially when it's some poor working stiff who is obviously voting against his economic self-interest. I chalk it up to political Stockholm Syndrome."

You should chalk it up to integrity. What is the "poor working stiff" supposed to do? Is he supposed to beg, plead and cry for his government to make his employer pay him more? Is he supposed to ask his government to take more from others and give it to himself?

By the way, how do you know that the "poor working stiff" does not aspire to be a rich working stiff someday? You look at him with pity; he does not want your pity.

I worked for many years in factories and warehouses. I drove old beat up cars. I went to community college instead of big fancy universities. I never blamed anyone else for my condition. I never asked my government to take from others so that I may have more. I never blamed "big oil" or "big pharma" for my troubles. And I always considered myself a conservative.

Now that I am a recent new homeowner for the first time in my life, I feel proud of my accomplishments, proud of my family, proud of my country for offering me such opportunities, and thankful to God for everything I have.

Appreciation and gratitude, in the end, are what separate conservatives from liberals. Liberals lack such qualities.
February 28, 2008

3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Eli: "There is no conspiracy amongst financial institutions to confuse you and rip you off. Disclosure forms are reviewed by internal and external auditors and entire legal teams just to make sure they are in compliance with the massive list of regulations."

I know. I used to work for a REIT. Compliance issues were a major pain in the ass.

But I absolutely disagree with you that credit card companies don't try to confuse consumers, from bait and switch tactics to muddy and overly complex disclosure terms. They MAKE MONEY off late fees and jacked up interest rates. Why do you think they issue so many credit cards to people with horrible credit?
February 28, 2008

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Bait and switch is certainly dishonest lending. Complex disclosures are there for fear of being sued by the consumer, not to purposely confuse them.
Don't you think that if financial institutions were able to offer extremely simple terms in their disclosures, they would do so and use that in their advertising to take business away from their competitors? Not to do so would be flat out stupid.
February 28, 2008

3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"John II, maybe you should get to work, too. You're ripping off your employer by posting here instead! The corporate gods frown on such behavior and may take your Internet privileges away from you..."

Perhaps I should. But, I'm one of those over-achievers that works from dawn to dusk and then some. Time to debate liberals is a part of my employment contract. You see, I work for a big business, and they love having me out here fighting the kind-hearted yet foolish liberalism that wants to take its profits.

I'll chalk up the humor by leftside as an acknowledgment that he cannot find anything untruthful in my remarks.
February 28, 2008

3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

John II: "By the way, how do you know that the "poor working stiff" does not aspire to be a rich working stiff someday? You look at him with pity; he does not want your pity."

I look at him in pity if he's a Bush/Cheney supporter, because his chances just dropped significantly of ever becoming anything beyond a poor working stiff.

That's great for you that you have accomplished much, and you should feel proud of that. I am sure you had plenty of obstacles on the way, too.

But I take exception to your characterizations of my positions.

I believe in giving business every chance to do right by consumers and employees before government steps in, but businesses don't even want employees to have the power to form unions, while they have no compunction banding together as trade groups. Something you have no problem with, and frankly, neither do I. But your heated opposition against unions makes you decidedly lopsided in favor of big business over labor, whereas I have a more balanced perspective.

I also believe that social safety nets (mostly of a temporary nature except Medicaid and Social Security) and public education for all speaks for the integrity of this country as well. We do not let our less fortunate fall by the wayside in this country, and we give everyone a fair start with a basic education. I will never for the life of me understand how anyone could interpret such ideals as the opposite of integrity.
February 28, 2008

3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"Bait and switch is certainly dishonest lending." -- Eli
"They MAKE MONEY off late fees and jacked up interest rates." -- MTS

You are both correct and both wrong at the same time. Yes, government regulations make things more complex. And, yes, credit card companies profit from late and jacked up interest rates.

In the end, neither of those acknowledgments absolves the middle class (or any other class) from personal responsibility.

If you are going to request a card that allows you to spend money by borrowing from someone else, you must be prepared to pay the cost. If you feel you are not lawerly enough to handle the contract, do not sign it. Forgo the credit card. If you do sign on, do not blame anyone else for the consequences.
February 28, 2008

3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

John II: "Time to debate liberals is a part of my employment contract. You see, I work for a big business, and they love having me out here fighting the kind-hearted yet foolish liberalism that wants to take its profits."

Don't fuel my conspiracy theories anymore than they already are!
February 28, 2008

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

JTTAAB writes:

BHO's desire to bed down with the UN is what really scares me. We do not need a world police organization
February 28, 2008

3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"but businesses don't even want employees to have the power to form unions, while they have no compunction banding together as trade groups"

Do those trade group represent a monopoly? If so, I oppose them. Labor unions monopolize the labor supply.

"But your heated opposition against unions makes you decidedly lopsided in favor of big business over labor,"

I do not oppose labor unions in theory. I would not stop a group from organizing. I believe it is their right to do so. But, labor unions must also acknowledge that their interests and actions have consequences that affects their own security. Labor unions, by definition, reduce employment. They restrict who can and who cannot join their union. They set higher wages at the expense of less workers. They reward membership over individual work performance. They may get short term gains, but as we see in Big Labor labyrinths such as Detroit, the long term consequences have a severly deleterious effect.
February 28, 2008

3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

John_II
As you'll see from my previous posts, I do not expect the consumer to be absolved from personal responsibility.
In the case of a real bait and switch scam, however, they should be absolved from the debt because that is fraud.
February 28, 2008

3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

"If you are going to request a card that allows you to spend money by borrowing from someone else, you must be prepared to pay the cost. If you feel you are not lawerly enough to handle the contract, do not sign it. Forgo the credit card. If you do sign on, do not blame anyone else for the consequences."

Time was, you could actually sign up for a credit card and know what costs you were assuming. Time was, the holder wouldn't practice the kind of deceptive practices they do now. And not just the kind I talked about...how about raising someone's interest rate, without telling them, without disclosing in their terms they will do this, because they're checking the consumer's credit reports and see they are borrowing from other companies? Think that's perfectly ok? I don't. Think it's ok even if they don't disclose they will do this? I surely don't.

Long story short, time was, you could count on a little of your favorite word today, "integrity," when using credit.

Or maybe it was just because back then, the credit industry was more regulated.

Anyway, now we all know and your advice is too late. Turns out the credit card companies are scum and can't be trusted.
February 28, 2008

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Mytwosense,
If rates are subject to change, this MUST be disclosed to the consumer. There is already regulation in place requiring this.
February 28, 2008

3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Also, according to Regulation Z implemented by the Truth in Savings Act, cardholders must be given 15 days prior notice of a change in terms.
February 28, 2008

4:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"Anyway, now we all know and your advice is too late. Turns out the credit card companies are scum and can't be trusted."

Really? Then don't use their products. But, don't act as if they are robbing you. You're a smart gal. You can read a contract. Don't give me this, I'm just a girl not a lawyer routine.

If the credit card company is doing something that was not in the contract, sue them. But, if you sign a contract that allows them to jack up the rates, you are the only one to blame.

In the end, I would bet $100 that you still own and use credit cards. You hate paying credit card bills, as do I most everyone else, but you still use them.
February 28, 2008

4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Obama says
"As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct."

Notice how he says "climate change" instead of global warming? I wonder what he thinks about the fact that global temperatures have been cooling.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+...

Also, for anyone who has read Obama's plan for change, go read his other website to see what else he will do for you: http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/
February 28, 2008

4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Hat tip to gary on my last post...
February 28, 2008

4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

eli: "if rates are subject to change, this MUST be disclosed to the consumer. There is already regulation in place requiring this."

Yes. And going forward, I'll remember such changes are typically found in footnote 48, in size .00005 font, on the third page of my monthly statement.

John II: "In the end, I would bet $100 that you still own and use credit cards. You hate paying credit card bills, as do I most everyone else, but you still use them."

Just the one with the 30% interest I'll be paying off for some time. I've switched all my other credit needs over to professional loan sharks. Their terms are kinder and include a nice plate of pasta each month when I meet with them to hand over payment...
February 28, 2008

4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Mytwosense,
If your rates were subject to change this was disclosed to you before you even got the card, not on a statement later on.
February 28, 2008

4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"I've switched all my other credit needs over to professional loan sharks. Their terms are kinder and include a nice plate of pasta each month when I meet with them to hand over payment..."

I'm from Jersey so I know all about those nice folks. The pasta is nice but beware the dead fish delivered to your door by a flower delivery truck. The attached letter has a font size much bigger than your standard scum-of-the-earth credit card bill. It will say something like "Pay us or you'll be swimming with the fishes."

Similar packages are also delivered to those who challenge labor unions. I actually witnessed such a delivery to my neighbor who was suing the union for disability costs.
February 28, 2008

4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Okay John II, you can quote me, but where did I go wrong? A economic system that combines socialism with capitalism is pretty much what we have here, there is plenty of incentive to make money, and start businesses. Look at Bill Gates. If I include a healthy underground bartering system, which we have, I think this is the best of all economic/social worlds so far, but all systems need and can use improvements.

So long as we do not have dictator, my ideal system is much like what we have here.

A purely capitalistic system did not work here or any where in the world. That is history.

A purely socialistic system has never been tried, even in Sweden. But that is also history.

The combo we have here is the present, not history, and it really does keep a lot of people from living in poverty.
February 28, 2008

4:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"The combo we have here is the present, not history, and it really does keep a lot of people from living in poverty." -- me2

No, capitalism gives people jobs. Socialism sends those jobs overseas because of high costs and too much regulation.

Yes, we have socialism in America. Just because we have it does not mean its right. Just because we can still prosper despite socialism does not mean socialism does not limit our prosperity.

Your ignorant appraisal of the benefits of socialism combined with capitalism is like saying you won't completely burn if your feet are submerged in water.

Socialism and capitalism do not mix like a nice Starbucks Frappacino. They do not compliment each other like coffee and cream. They are opposites like fire and ice; the presence of one reduces the presence of the other.

Frankly, the debate about which system is better is a wasteful debate. Granted, neither system is perfect, but we must pick the best system and move on to bigger things. Outer space awaits us. Every night I look at the clear, star-filled night sky and wonder when we will stop our petty bickering and move onward.

My new home is out in the country and away from the blinding lights of the city. Each night since I have moved here, I stand mesmerized at the display of stars and the moon in the night sky. Am I alone in the desire to see mankind venture into the vast universe?
February 28, 2008

5:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"Oops! Not there is it? It seems if you look at the graph there is only a one month drop:

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/73... -- Charles B.

That link shows a drop in temperature that goes back to around 1990. After that period in 1990, the current temperature is even lower than 1988 levels.

I'm not sure what you are implying. Temperatures have dropped dramatically recently. Do you deny that?
February 28, 2008

5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

John II, guess what sugar? Your ignorant appraisal of what I said about our current system is only possible if you ignore the benefits to others, and prefer a wolf eat wolf economic system that gave us slavery, child labor, union busting and robber barons, on its good days. Capitalism had to be tamed for the good of society. Now it is, and now it works much better.

Since we have successfully combined oil and water, capitalism and socialism, I guess we are a country of ignorant folks, and here I thought we are some of the most decent in the world.

Capitalism from the brain, socialism from the heart, and barter thrown into the mix.

Socalism did not cause jobs to go abroad, corporate decisions to keep the stock prices and dividends high did. Then the corporation moves to a tax haven and we, left without jobs, still need to buy the products. I am surprised you did not blame socialism for the pension funds disappearing.
February 28, 2008

5:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

me2,

Your last comment was filled with so much immense foolishness I don't even know where to start. How can I reason with such foolishness?

"prefer a wolf eat wolf economic system that gave us slavery, child labor, union busting and robber barons, on its good days."

My God, where do I start with a comment like that? Wolf eat wolf? Slavery? Slavery is the very opposite of capitalism. Capitalism says employer and worker freely negotiate on a wage for work. It does not force people to work with the threat of whips and chains.

Child labor is a voluntary situation. If a child comes from a family so poor that it needs it children to work, why stop them from working? Robber barons? Give me a break. That is a favorite term of Charles B. that means nothing.

"Capitalism from the brain, socialism from the heart, and barter thrown into the mix."

That makes no sense. It is meaningless bumpersticker rhetoric. I don't even know how to cogently dissect that nonsense.

"Socalism did not cause jobs to go abroad, corporate decisions to keep the stock prices and dividends high did. Then the corporation moves to a tax haven and we, left without jobs, still need to buy the products."

That is high class stupidity right there. Think deeper! What influences stock prices and dividends? Do those things exist in a vacuum? High taxes affects stock prices and dividends. If a corporation moves abroad because it seeks a tax haven, what does that say about the folks who kept taxes high to begin with? Socialism equals high taxes; high taxes equals less profits; less profits equals lower stock prices; lower stock prices equals companies moving to lower taxed areas. You are left without jobs as a direct result of socialism.

What ignorance!
February 28, 2008

5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"Indeed, it is a strange disposed time:
But men may construe things after their fashion,
Clean from the purpose of the things themselves." -- Shakespeare
February 28, 2008

6:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Charles B.,

Look at this link:
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/73...

It shows a very large drop. In fact, it puts temperatures at levels colder than 1988.

But, there is a correction to the website:

"I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied."

Nevertheless, it is a fact that current temperatures are as cool as temperatures since before 1900. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpres...
February 28, 2008

6:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"That link shows nothing of the sort. Are you looking at your monitor upside down? What it does show is that the story you linked is bogus. There was no "twelve-month drop" in temperatures." -- Charles B.

Yes, I looked at the chart. Are temperatures lower or high than 12 months ago?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpres...
February 28, 2008

6:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

John II, after reading your last post it occurred to me that you do not have a complete understanding of where the capital in capitalism actually comes from.

Capitalism doesn`t say employer and wage earner negotiate. That may be your wish for capitalism, but that doesn`t define capitalism.

Capital is acquired and slaves or underpaid workers can contribute to the acquisition of capital, upon which the entire system depends.

Capitalism is about the private ownership of the means of production, and that can include slaves.

But then I am sure you can give us a quick lesson on the acquisition of capital.
February 28, 2008

6:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

me2,

What complete nonsense!

Slavery and capitalism are not the same thing. If a system revolves around forcing people to work under threat of death or torture, that is slavery. If a system revolves around employer and worker freely agreeing on a wage, that is a characteristic of capitalism.

Your moronic logic confuses free will with coercion. Yes, both sides depend on the acquisition of capital; one by legal means, the other by force; one is capitalism; the other is slavery. The terms are not synonymous.
February 28, 2008

6:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"Their unwillingness to compromise with moderated forces led to their eventual alliance with radical nationalist movements and the rest is history." -- Charles B.

What a vague statement. Please explain.

"I often hear disparaging remarks about "socialist Europe" from you and others and can only offer you this explanation for their aversion to "pure" capitalism: They know from experience that it doesn't work."

Then why is much of Europe trying to shed its socialism?

"A Robber Baron is a person who has accumulated enough wealth and power to freely exploit others for personal material gain at the expense of the general welfare of their fellow citizens."

Nonsense. It is an emotionally satisfying term that means nothing other than people are willing to be exploited. How can a robber baron exploit someone who is not willing to be exploited?

"Europe--and the United States to a lesser extent--have adopted a form of "soft" capitalism, or regulated capitalism, because people who aren't ideologues or tethered to extremist dogma understand the predictable results of the radical concepts you espouse."

No, its because two-bit politicians such as Obama have figured out how stupid the masses really are.

"Me2 was trying to say something similar which you scoffed at and rejected with your bogus "oil and water""

I never said oil and water. And, based on me2's comments, I have come to the conclusion that he is a complete and utter moron. I hate using those terms but it is wholly appropriate in this case. me2's arguments lack knowledge, facts, perspective and reason.

"There's plenty of room for profits in this country as it stands, and despite your arrogant protestations we *do* mix elements of capitalism and socialism to great effect and mutual benefit."

Says you. But, as you've admitted earlier, you have no problem deciding who has had enough profit and who hasn't. You are the enemy of freedom in this country.
February 28, 2008

6:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Charles B. said

""Are temperatures lower or high than 12 months ago?"

The answer to this question is meaningless.

The story said there has been a "twelve month decline". That is simply not true."

What kind of game are you playing? If you bought a stock at $20 a share in January 2007 and it is now worth $10, you would say you lost 50% over a 12 month period.

Current tempetures are much lower than they were in Jan. 2007. That is a fact. That is a major twelve month decline.
February 28, 2008

7:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students." -- Obama's Plan For Change

I ask you, my fellow Americans, to tell me, will this plan result in higher or lower tuition costs?

If this socialist is elected, he will be assassinated before his first term is up.
February 28, 2008

7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Still, John II, you have not explained how "capital" is acquired in this system. I am sure the southerners who had slaves and the northern factory owners who underpaid their workers, and the mine owners who kept their workers in debt to the company store, had immense amounts of capital.

When you are through throwing insults that fail to impress, then explain how capital is accumulated in this system.

People are not always willing to be exploited, of course the poor are encouraged to believe "the best things in life are free".

You may know what capitalism says, know something of its characteristics, but you seem completely unaware of its abuses, yet we who like capito/socialism (my term) see abuses on both sides.

Oddly enough you rarely use the word "both". Remember compare and contract when thinking your way through economics. If you can see no value in social programs i.e. socalism, yet the rest of us can judge the merits of all systems, why the hell do we try to discuss economics with you?

Europe has a different kind of socalism, they had a "Post War Settlement" that most countries lived up to. Good examples of this are England, perhaps the best, and France.

Using the Stockholm Syndrome in this example was priceless.
February 28, 2008

9:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

J2,

Obama's not offering to just give the $4,000 away. The prospective student will have to earn the loot by working in, say, a homeless shelter. If this happens we will learn two things.

First, tuition across the country bwill rise by $4,400. Second, seventeen-year-olds are not as well equipped to battle homelessness as we had hoped.

I think we should, in the main, hold our fire. It is in the best interest of the Republican part if Hillary wins. But, it is in the best interest of the Country if Hillary loses.

We should hope Obama gets the nod and then we can ask questions like -

How does the senator with the most liberal voting record, the one senator who has made no attempt whatsoever to work with oppostion party, plan to unite the Country?

Why is it that with you abiding concern over health care, spending and education you have not championed any legislation on any of these topics after three years in the Senate?

What do you think will happen in Iraq after our retreat?

Do you really think we ought to invade Pakistan to hunt down OBL?

The sort of questions that are not currently on the table.

But for now - we ought to cool it.
February 28, 2008

9:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

me2
"I am sure the southerners who had slaves and the northern factory owners who underpaid their workers, and the mine owners who kept their workers in debt to the company store, had immense amounts of capital."

You are linking those three things based on what? That all of them acquired capital? Why not throw in socialism and communism? Those systems acquire capital as well.

There is a world of difference between being "underpaid" and being forced to work by the threat of violence. Just because the slave owner and the factory owner profit does not mean they are employing the same system.

Furthermore, there were studies done before the Civil War that showed the slavery model was highly inefficient and unsustainable. That is a big reason why the South was not able to match the North's economic power. The two systems were very different.

The fact that you keep uttering this nonsense with the cool confidence of an imbecile is quite astonishing.

Your posts lack logic, reason, and thought. You deserve my harsh rebukes.

The only slavery that capitalism condones is slavery to desire. There is no other way to enslave a free man. The free man can only be enslaved by himself.
February 28, 2008

9:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"The sort of questions that are not currently on the table." -- Yankee

I agree with your line of questioning, Yankee. The problem is that these questions are not asked by the mainstream media. For example, what is stopping the media from asking those questions right now? As long as debate questions are left to morons like Tim Russert, why should we expect those tough questions to be asked?

As for laying off of Obama, I have to disagree. This chump has gotten a free ride long enough.
February 29, 2008

6:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

J2,

There is a tactical component, i.e; We allied ourselves with Stalin to defeat Hitler, we provided aide to Saddam to counter-balance the Mullah's. There is also a principle. Conservatives have not had a candidate since 1984. Our choice is always for the better of the two.

In the case of Obama v Clinton, I think Obama is the better choice for three reasons. First, he is African-American. His election would allow us to move beyond the liberals 1950's mind-set in terms of race relations. It would benefit us to stop talking about the skin color and start talking the content of character. (Granted that one is a perhaps)

Second, he is a platitude-talking, empty suit so we can't really know how he would govern once in power.

Third, whatever our policy disputes, Obak does not seem to be morally or materially corrupt.

On the other hand, we do know what we would get with Hillary in a policy sense and it's ugly. The only unknown with the Clinton's is the depth of moral and material corruption we would endure with them back in the White House. So it seems to me that the choice between these two is pretty clear.

Now once Barak is the Democrat candidate all that changes and the choice between McCain and Barak is equally clear for reasons I don't need to enumerate.

Will the questions be asked by the press? No. They will however be asked by McCain from the bully pulpit. At that point we, like Reagan, have to put our trust in the common sense of the American people.

That's why I'm a BO man (the ititials really won't for him will they?) at this stage.
February 29, 2008

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

John2,

***If this socialist is elected, he will be assassinated before his first term is up.***

Especially if he chooses Hillary for his vice president. He would be the only thing standing in her way from being the president.
February 29, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"You have to look at the days in between. What if in this scenerio all the days in between show temperatures at 100 degrees?" -- Charles B.

Ok, Charles, try that logic next you want to sell some stock. Just tell the broker that you want to sell at last month's price, not the current price.

If the value was x in Jan 07 and it is now x-100 in Jan 08, that is a 12 month decline. It doesn't matter if during that period x was x+50.

"Your wet-dream of laissez-faire capitalism led to the type of societal inequity that caused the underclasses in parts of Europe to embrace the nationalism that led to the rise of fascism."

Interesting analysis. Would you say that "societal inequity" is inherently bad thing or just the resentment of it is bad? In other words, if people did not resent others who had more money, would the inequity be bad?
February 29, 2008

2:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Charles B.,

I do not dispute that that 2007 was second warmest on record. That is calculated by a 12 month average. That is a perfectly valid way to look at 2007. But, the 12 month decline is also accurate. Consider a stock market that was rising all year except the final month when it tanked. Clients will ask their financial adviser's thoughts on the 12 month decline.Portfolio managers will have to answer to their clients about YTD decline in value. Sure, the PM may say, "Look, the 90 day moving average was trending up until last month." But, nevertheless, the records will show a 12 month decline.

"Sure, as long as everyone has the means to provide the basic necessities for themselves and their families by working all is well. However, the kind of laissez-faire capitalism you promote has *always* led to the kind of stratification that leaves a portion of society without those means. That leads to resentment, which is a natural human reaction."

Is there a specific time in history you can refer me to?

Again, you seem to be saying that the mere presence of class resentment justifies the class resentment. But, the resentment you resent is the product of weak cultural values, not capitalism.

You are working under the assumption that socialism cures class resentment. But that is a completely false assumption. Look at the frequent violent protests in socialist France. They torch cars, smash windows, and clash with the police because of the high unemployment in France.

The truth is that there will always be class resentment. There will always be those who struggle and those who succeed. But, capitalism offers the best chance for those struggling to eventually achieve success.

"Health-care, a basic necessity, is becoming harder to acquire for a growing segment of lower income Americans for example."

This comment is so interesting. Health care has improved exponentially because of capitalism. Health care has improved so much that it is now seen as an entitlement to everyone; a basic human right. This was not always the case. Yet, our current health care system is now severely affected by government interference.

Just as government interference causes college tuition to rise, so does government interference cause health care costs to rise. This rise in cost sparks yet another cry for increased government interference. Its a never ending cycle of government interference and control. Health care is becoming harder to acquire directly because of government interference.

Your comments are based on false premises and emotionally clouded thinking.
February 29, 2008

6:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

John II, you got sidetracked on the slavery, virtual slavery issue and rode it to near death.

Since the United States has a combo of capitalism/social programs, you will just have to live with it or move to England in the hope that they are becomings more conservative.

There just isn`t a decent country left for you to practice and live in uncontrolled capitalism.
February 29, 2008

7:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

One quick comment, did a college thesis on the Muslims in France and their lack of jobs and decent housing. They were the ones who rioted. Their living conditions have little to do with socialism and more to do with cultural isolation. People will not hire Muslims and they are not usually citizens. They dress and talk differently and are easily discriminated against.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Obama's Web site full of specifics

Lawrence Jones, Conifer

Published February 28, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs