15% Cap on Credit Card Interest Rates

[AlaskanAssassin]

Yeah, that's what I mean about a sense of entitlement right there. Our tendency to blame poor people for their status in the world.

Do people's individual choices have zero impact on their status in the world? I'm not suggesting that anything is 100% in our control, but to suggest that choices made by individuals (such as opening a line of credit that you can't pay back) have no impact on your life is crazy. If a student fails a class because they declined to do any homework or study, they need to take some personal responsibility. Even though teachers, parents, friends might have played a role, it doesn't mean that all personal responsibility is absolved.

We have to craft public policy to deal with who humans are, not who we think we want them to be.

I don't think it's the role of government to force choices or options down my throat. This mentality assumes that government is better suited to make choices for me than I am for myself. The government can't pretend to be everyone's mom and dad, making our decisions for us because we are presumed to be too stupid to make smart choices.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

What good does it do to demand higher wages when business owners will just be forced to raises prices? Meaning, your wages still wont buy you what you think you deserve.

Why not then just pay workers whatever the market will bear, even if that's, say, $4 an hour w/ no benefits? This argument implies that there's no connection between rising wages/incomes and economic growth, complete with both supply side and demand side responses.

Think about the great post-WWII economic expansion, fueled in large part by rising middle class associated with rising wage, much of it thanks to labor unions that used countervailing power to extract much higher wages and benefits from employers than what the market would have otherwise borne.

Your argument assumes a static world, which it isn't, and ignores history.

The problem with the liberal Utopian idea that people have the "right" earn a livable wage is just a fallacy. You have that "right" as much as I have the "right" to have magic powers.

While we're at it, why not declare the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship fallacies, as they have no more basis in anything tangible as the right to a livable wage? Wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that asserting such "rights" was also a fallacy.

"Free" healthcare. Nah, its not free. Someone has to work their *** off to know how to heal you. On top of that, you want a house, a "free" education. Tv's, couches, 40 years of other people taking care of you when you retire. All for what? You putting in minimal effort and producing 1/50th of what you think you deserve.

Yes, because every reasonable person knows that getting a free TV has equal personal and social worth and moral value as, say, getting life-saving surgery or treatment.

Of course the frame of reference is 'free' to the consumer, not to society, your silly straw man argument notwithstanding.
You'll note that developed countries that provide 'free' healthcare also spend a lot less on it per citizen, so fewer people are working their *** off to provide it than in the US.

God, your arguments read like you downloaded them from Conservatives R' Us talking points for children website. Lacking any historical frame of reference, knowledge of the wider world, or scintilla of empathy.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

There's nothing magical about 15%, so while I am in favor of capping rates, I can't say that 15% is the optimal place to cap it. May be more, may be less.

I do think that credit cards are based on a predatory business model, not quite as predatory as payday lenders, but not so so different either. I see it fully within the purview of government to protect consumers from predatory business practices.

 

[LogGrad98]

Why not then just pay workers whatever the market will bear, even if that's, say, $4 an hour w/ no benefits? This argument implies that there's no connection between rising wages/incomes and economic growth, complete with both supply side and demand side responses.

Think about the great post-WWII economic expansion, fueled in large part by rising middle class associated with rising wage, much of it thanks to labor unions that used countervailing power to extract much higher wages and benefits from employers than what the market would have otherwise borne.

Your argument assumes a static world, which it isn't, and ignores history.



While we're at it, why not declare the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship fallacies, as they have no more basis in anything tangible as the right to a livable wage? Wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that asserting such "rights" was also a fallacy.



Yes, because every reasonable person knows that getting a free TV has equal personal and social worth and moral value as, say, getting life-saving surgery or treatment.

Of course the frame of reference is 'free' to the consumer, not to society, your silly straw man argument notwithstanding.
You'll note that developed countries that provide 'free' healthcare also spend a lot less on it per citizen, so fewer people are working their *** off to provide it than in the US.

God, your arguments read like you downloaded them from Conservatives R' Us talking points for children website. Lacking any historical frame of reference, knowledge of the wider world, or scintilla of empathy.

Bonus points for "scintilla".

 

[One Brow]

Do people's individual choices have zero impact on their status in the world?

I'm saying those who are not poor tend to underestimate how much luck has to do with wealth.

I'm not suggesting that anything is 100% in our control, but to suggest that choices made by individuals (such as opening a line of credit that you can't pay back) have no impact on your life is crazy.

That's actually a fairly safe choice, because of bankruptcy.

If a student fails a class because they declined to do any homework or study, they need to take some personal responsibility. Even though teachers, parents, friends might have played a role, it doesn't mean that all personal responsibility is absolved.

So, your idea of a poor person is the financial equivalent of a student who "declined to do any homework or study"?

I don't think it's the role of government to force choices or options down my throat. This mentality assumes that government is better suited to make choices for me than I am for myself. The government can't pretend to be everyone's mom and dad, making our decisions for us because we are presumed to be too stupid to make smart choices.

I understand. You think the rich should be able to take advantage fo the poor, and the government should protect the rich (police, military, etc.) but otherwise stay out of their way.

 

[Hotdog]

Why not then just pay workers whatever the market will bear, even if that's, say, $4 an hour w/ no benefits? This argument implies that there's no connection between rising wages/incomes and economic growth, complete with both supply side and demand side responses.

Think about the great post-WWII economic expansion, fueled in large part by rising middle class associated with rising wage, much of it thanks to labor unions that used countervailing power to extract much higher wages and benefits from employers than what the market would have otherwise borne.

Your argument assumes a static world, which it isn't, and ignores history.



While we're at it, why not declare the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship fallacies, as they have no more basis in anything tangible as the right to a livable wage? Wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that asserting such "rights" was also a fallacy.



Yes, because every reasonable person knows that getting a free TV has equal personal and social worth and moral value as, say, getting life-saving surgery or treatment.

Of course the frame of reference is 'free' to the consumer, not to society, your silly straw man argument notwithstanding.
You'll note that developed countries that provide 'free' healthcare also spend a lot less on it per citizen, so fewer people are working their *** off to provide it than in the US.

God, your arguments read like you downloaded them from Conservatives R' Us talking points for children website. Lacking any historical frame of reference, knowledge of the wider world, or scintilla of empathy.

"While we're at it, why not declare the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship fallacies, as they have no more basis in anything tangible as the right to a livable wage? Wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that asserting such "rights" was also a fallacy."

Because the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship, etc....are you know, actual rights.

Those "rights" do not guarantee that someone give you a podem and a crowd to speak to. You dont have the right to force people to assemble with you. You dont have the right to make someone give you a gun to protect yourself. You dont have the right to your own church you didnt build.

You see the difference between these "rights" and the right to a livable wage? You dont have the right to make someone work for you, and give you the life you want. You do have the right to try and earn that through voluntary agreements between you and other people.

@fishonjazz @One Brow @LogGrad98

Like this post, ya bishes.

Jesus Christ. What is so hard to understand about you not having the right other people's labor unless they agree to it? ****ing slave masters. You all must be reborn southern slave owners.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I'm saying those who are not poor tend to underestimate how much luck has to do with wealth.

I agree. I also believe that those who are poor tend to underestimate how much hard work and talent has to do with wealth. It's somewhere in the middle.

So, your idea of a poor person is the financial equivalent of a student who "declined to do any homework or study"?

Many students that receive poor grades due to a lack of completing homework and studying. Likewise, many (not all) individuals that are poor got there due to some bad decision making or lack of hard work. I'm only pointing out that our choices (or skills, work ethic, etc.) are a big factor in our life outcomes. I think we both agree that it's a mix of both. It sounds like I think a greater percentage of the outcome is within our control, while you believe a greater percentage is luck.

I understand. You think the rich should be able to take advantage fo the poor, and the government should protect the rich (police, military, etc.) but otherwise stay out of their way.

So the police and military only protect the rich now? Ask a cop where they spend most of their time in the field. It's not in rich neighborhoods.

Also, how is high interest rates taking advantage of the poor if (as you pointed out) those in debt can resolve their issues through bankruptcy? You even said opening a line of credit that you can't pay back is "a fairly safe choice". Who exactly is being taken advantage of in this situation?

 

[One Brow]

"While we're at it, why not declare the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship fallacies, as they have no more basis in anything tangible as the right to a livable wage? Wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that asserting such "rights" was also a fallacy."

Because the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship, etc....are you know, actual rights.

Many of these rights were not recognized at the state level until the 1940s/50s/60s. People were jailed for speaking out against a war, students were suspended for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.

Those "rights" do not guarantee that someone give you a podem and a crowd to speak to. You dont have the right to force people to assemble with you. You dont have the right to make someone give you a gun to protect yourself. You dont have the right to your own church you didnt build.

If that last statement meant, "attend a church you did not build", I would agree with it. I agree with the rest.

You see the difference between these "rights" and the right to a livable wage? You dont have the right to make someone work for you, and give you the life you want. You do have the right to try and earn that through voluntary agreements between you and other people.

Ultimately, you have the rights that the government recognizes you to have.

However, I agree that the stronger arguments for a living wage proposal include notions such as requiring companies to cover all the true costs of their businesses. If a company is working a person for 40 hours/week, and that person is still getting food stamps and Medicaid, the company is using government assistance for employees to lower the company's cost of doing business. It's a form of corporate welfare.

Like this post, ya bishes.

I would have, except for the next bit.

Jesus Christ. What is so hard to understand about you not having the right other people's labor unless they agree to it? ****ing slave masters. You all must be reborn southern slave owners.

Companies, not being actual human persons, can't be slaves.

 

[One Brow]

I generally agreed with the early points.

So the police and military only protect the rich now? Ask a cop where they spend most of their time in the field. It's not in rich neighborhoods.

Ask the poor how protected they feel by this police presence.

Also, how is high interest rates taking advantage of the poor if (as you pointed out) those in debt can resolve their issues through bankruptcy? You even said opening a line of credit that you can't pay back is "a fairly safe choice". Who exactly is being taken advantage of in this situation?

Still the poor. Bankruptcy is onerous, has limited frequency, and carries social stigma, so while getting into credit card debt is not dangerous, it is highly unpleasant to get out of.

Meanwhile, high-interest debt results in the poor paying a very high percentage of their income in interest, as opposed to things of benefit for them.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I generally agreed with the early points.

I agree with most of your points as well. I don't want anyone, especially the poor, to be drowning in interest payments. I'm all for ideas on how to solve the root(s) of the issue. I don't think high interest rates are the root, rather a symptom of a variety of other things.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

"While we're at it, why not declare the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship fallacies, as they have no more basis in anything tangible as the right to a livable wage? Wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that asserting such "rights" was also a fallacy."

Because the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship, etc....are you know, actual rights.

Says who? They certainly weren't rights prior to, say, late 18th century, and weren't rights throughout the whole of human history before hand. They still aren't recognized as rights in most of the world today.

Enlightenment thinkers and our Founding Fathers asserted such rights, pretty much out of whole cloth, based on some concept of natural law. But it's very easy to imagine people like you making the same types of arguments against the assertion of such rights back in the day. Such rights have since gained currency in Western Society, so we take them for granted and give them a legitimacy, something which was nearly unprecedented in human history. Why would we assume, however, that the list of 'natural rights' are necessarily limited to these? Certainly, in other Western liberal democracies, the list of rights in expanding, as they are here in the US as well (e.g., rights asserted with regards to the second amendment go far, far beyond what even the most radical Founding Father would have assumed).

Those "rights" do not guarantee that someone give you a podem and a crowd to speak to. You dont have the right to force people to assemble with you. You dont have the right to make someone give you a gun to protect yourself. You dont have the right to your own church you didnt build.

Yeah, so? Did I claim they did?

You see the difference between these "rights" and the right to a livable wage? You dont have the right to make someone work for you, and give you the life you want. You do have the right to try and earn that through voluntary agreements between you and other people.

How does a livable wage make anyone work for anyone else? Equating livable wage to "the life you want' is a laughably stupid comparison. Right, so making $15 /hour will make all my dreams come true?

@fishonjazz @One Brow @LogGrad98

Like this post, ya bishes.

Jesus Christ. What is so hard to understand about you not having the right other people's labor unless they agree to it? ****ing slave masters. You all must be reborn southern slave owners.

This is such a stupid argument, that I'm not quite sure how to address it.

Might I try upgrading from "Conservatism for Dummies" as your basis for thinking?