| Author | Post |
|---|
therenow
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 245 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 06:57 pm |
|
| Big Show...I am shocked...we agree on something. I am voting no also..waiting for the sky to fall now.
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1081 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 06:20 pm |
|
AZ republic let both sides argue the proposition, here's what both sides had to say. I'm voting no, this sounds like a scam masked as "reform".
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/ballot/articles/2008/09/30/20080930prop200.html
|
clu
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | TOQC |
| Posts: | 515 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 06:11 pm |
|
Something sounds fishy with the NO vote on Prop 200. If the payday loan business charge a FEE, not an INTEREST rate, how is voting no and waiting until 2010 going to do anything?!?? The 10 year exemption on the 36% interest rate cap expiring is for INTEREST, not FEES.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 07:13 pm |
|
420 Life wrote: QCVillager wrote: clu wrote: QCVillager wrote: BUT - the base philosophical question is... is it gov't's job to protect people from themselves, from their own poor decisions ? is it gov'ts job to essentially insulate people from the ramifications of their own decisions and actions from cradle to grave ?
Do they not already? Marijuana is illegal so you don't hurt yourself smoking it. Prostitution is illegal so you don't hurt yourself having sex for money. Social Security is supposed to insulate you from the bad decision of not saving money during your lifetime. The ability to file bankruptcy is protective in some sense. There are a lot of example in which the govt. has declared laws to protect your from your own decisions, regardless of hurting others.
no argument. you are right. we do indeed already have LOTS of regulation and too much gov't intrusion. a few of which i agree with and many others that i don't.
Are you really on the town council? I never voted before but registered for this election. Obama and Biden, finally two reasonable NORML people who will legalize marijuana. You should make pot legal for queen creek. I would vote for you if you do that. And put more lanes on Hunt Highway by Johnson Ranch.
whoa there Refer Madness ! hold the phone Harold (or is it Kumar ?).
1) although i think there is too much gov't intrusion in our everyday lives, i haven't taken a position (to answer your first question, yes, i am on Town Council) on legalization of marijuana. i personally am not in favor of doing so, but that matters not... since it isn't a Town issue. there is no Town ordinance to my knowledge that addresses the legality of marijuana. that is a state / federal issue.
2) Hunt Hwy near Johnson Ranch isn't within Town Limits and there is no way then for myself or Town of Queen Creek to assist you in widening Hunt Hwy there.
3) based on being no help to you on either of your issues i would assume i wouldn't have your vote and i am ok with that. by the way, i have a sneaking suspicion (based on the Hunt Hwy / JR request) that you don't live in the Town of Queen Creek and so you wouldn't actually be able to vote for me or in Town of Queen Creek elections. here is a link ("Do I live in QC?" ) you might find helpful... http://www.queencreek.org/Index.aspx?page=226
welcome to the forum anyway, regardless of whether i agree with your stances or not... i beleive in, and would fight for your right to express them.
Last edited on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 07:16 pm by QCVillager
|
420 Life
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 04:11 pm |
|
QCVillager wrote: clu wrote: QCVillager wrote: BUT - the base philosophical question is... is it gov't's job to protect people from themselves, from their own poor decisions ? is it gov'ts job to essentially insulate people from the ramifications of their own decisions and actions from cradle to grave ?
Do they not already? Marijuana is illegal so you don't hurt yourself smoking it. Prostitution is illegal so you don't hurt yourself having sex for money. Social Security is supposed to insulate you from the bad decision of not saving money during your lifetime. The ability to file bankruptcy is protective in some sense. There are a lot of example in which the govt. has declared laws to protect your from your own decisions, regardless of hurting others.
no argument. you are right. we do indeed already have LOTS of regulation and too much gov't intrusion. a few of which i agree with and many others that i don't.
Are you really on the town council? I never voted before but registered for this election. Obama and Biden, finally two reasonable NORML people who will legalize marijuana. You should make pot legal for queen creek. I would vote for you if you do that. And put more lanes on Hunt Highway by Johnson Ranch.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 01:28 am |
|
clu wrote: QCVillager wrote: BUT - the base philosophical question is... is it gov't's job to protect people from themselves, from their own poor decisions ? is it gov'ts job to essentially insulate people from the ramifications of their own decisions and actions from cradle to grave ?
Do they not already? Marijuana is illegal so you don't hurt yourself smoking it. Prostitution is illegal so you don't hurt yourself having sex for money. Social Security is supposed to insulate you from the bad decision of not saving money during your lifetime. The ability to file bankruptcy is protective in some sense. There are a lot of example in which the govt. has declared laws to protect your from your own decisions, regardless of hurting others.
no argument. you are right. we do indeed already have LOTS of regulation and too much gov't intrusion. a few of which i agree with and many others that i don't.
|
clu
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | TOQC |
| Posts: | 515 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 01:21 am |
|
QCVillager wrote: BUT - the base philosophical question is... is it gov't's job to protect people from themselves, from their own poor decisions ? is it gov'ts job to essentially insulate people from the ramifications of their own decisions and actions from cradle to grave ?
Do they not already? Marijuana is illegal so you don't hurt yourself smoking it. Prostitution is illegal so you don't hurt yourself having sex for money. Social Security is supposed to insulate you from the bad decision of not saving money during your lifetime. The ability to file bankruptcy is protective in some sense. There are a lot of example in which the govt. has declared laws to protect your from your own decisions, regardless of hurting others.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 04:09 pm |
|
Which is the point of Prop. 200. The payday-loan tycoons are spending millions to lock in a 391 percent interest rate. If they can get voters to approve it, the Legislature can't change it.
"That's the real secret of why they're spending $10 million on this campaign." Goddard said. "They could become the most bulletproof of all the financial options out there if they could get a voter-protected 391 percent interest rate."
Regulation. Without regulation, people will stumble and fall, as they are novices and uninformed about how legislation works. Yes govt. does have to protect us and provide for our general welfare. The Constitution mandates that. Not put us on welfare, but provide for it.
Payday Loans? They are usually set up in blighted areas. Why? Because that's their target market.....uninformed, uneducated (many) and poor with a job today and not tomorrow....daily work, daily pay. These short term solutions only lead them further into debt, and finally bankruptcy and depression. That's why the Federal Government prohibits making payday loans to members of our armed forces. By offering loans to those who can't qualify, we are again subjecting our Country to a form of subprime Lending.
Check out the Federal Trade's Commission Consumer Alert regarding Payday Loans.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt060.shtm
bambi - i'll put you down in my head as a No on Prop 200 ? That's a no Big Ben, for Prop. 200. Find some other options.
Last edited on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 04:10 pm by Bambi
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 03:24 pm |
|
i will say that with information like this...
In fact, it's 458 percent.
The Payday Loan Reform Act, as Prop. 200 is called, will lower that fee.
All the way to 391 percent.
it is no wonder the industry itself has to spend $9m to put a pretty face and what many would consider a misleading moniker on it.
with that kind of money being spent and naming the bill and spinning it with the word "reform" in it, it is likely to pass. even though voters aren't stupid, many are casual and don't necessarily research the details of every issue.
anyone else with Predictions ?
(edited post - nothing goofy here - just had to edit the post because the formatting was off)
Last edited on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 04:37 pm by QCVillager
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 03:15 pm |
|
Bambi wrote:  =   =  =  = 
payday loan store $20.00 Beer Broke again
agreed, i have read stats that the majority of people who utilize the payday loan store end up with way more in fees than just the first time $35 interest or whatever it is. BUT - the base philosophical question is... is it gov't's job to protect people from themselves, from their own poor decisions ? is it gov'ts job to essentially insulate people from the ramifications of their own decisions and actions from cradle to grave ?
our Town Council this past Wednesday unanimously approved stricter text regarding the location of Pay Day Loan stores (along with other "non-chartered financial institutions") and i even asked for us to consider additional text with further buffering between these types of uses (along with sexually oriented businesses) and schools / residential areas. (this will come before council for vote at later date)
i have no problem asking for those additional buffers since i view them as a way to protect the interests of many from the associated crime problems that these businesses have more so than other businesses. BUT... (getting back to Pay Day Loan stores) even though i think these businesses gouge the heck out of people and even though stats say the majority of people that utilize these businesses misuse or otherwise exercise poor judgement and fiscal restraint, i still struggle with the base philosophical question of whether gov't should simply regulate that industry out of existance in an effort to protect people from their own ill fated actions.
of course there are all sorts of arguments both pro and con to doing so. that is why i started the thread... to find out what you all think.
bambi - i'll put you down in my head as a No on Prop 200 ?
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 02:46 pm |
|
= = = =
payday loan store $20.00 Beer Broke again
Last edited on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 02:47 pm by Bambi
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 01:18 pm |
|
from Ballotpedia (never saw this site before now) http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Proposition_200_(2008)
AZ Atty Gen Terry Goddard http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/125916
Testimonials in Favor of Prop 200 http://www.affr2008.org/testimonials.html
Stan Barnes - in Favor of Prop 200
Prop 200 will make payday loans better
September 18, 2008 - 1:45PM
A payday loan. If you're like most Arizona voters, you have never had one, don't really know how they work and might even have a less-than-positive feeling about them.
And who could blame you.
Every day it seems another self-appointed know-it-all with an axe to grind is in the news, blaming payday lending for all of society's ills and demanding the industry be run out of town before every one of us is beguiled into bankruptcy.
In my 20 years of active civic involvement in Arizona I have never seen an issue so grossly manipulated by special interests either willfully ignorant of the facts or simply obsessed with their own aggressive political agenda.
These same people are now doing a genuine disservice to the voters of Arizona by demanding a no vote on Proposition 200 while telling a one-sided story designed to prey on people's emotions.
If this small but vocal group of angry opponents gets their way, payday loans will be eliminated in Arizona.
Thankfully, most voters reject this crazy idea as extreme and would rather reform payday loans than eliminate them.
That's what Proposition 200 does.
Here are the facts on Prop 200 - The Payday Loan Reform Act:
- Prop 200 mandates lower fees on payday loans.
- Prop 200 makes it illegal to extend a payday loan and charge another fee.
- Prop 200 creates a flexible repayment plan for customers who can't meet their obligation.
- Prop 200 reigns in unregulated, off-shore Internet lenders.
- Prop 200 makes it harder to have more than one payday loan at a time (it's already illegal).
- Prop 200 will close payday loan stores that cannot adjust to new tough reforms.
- Prop 200 will preserve payday loans as an option for those who choose it.
These are the facts of Prop 200.
Here are a few other important things you might not know about payday loans.
- The average customer earns about $30,000 a year, is married, has some college education, and probably owns a home.
- Every payday loan customer must have a steady job and a bank account.
- Most bounced check fees are higher than the cost of a payday loan.
- It is usually more expensive to pay over limit fees on a credit card than to borrow from a payday loan store.
- Most payday loan customers use the service for its simplicity, convenience, and to avoid other more costly credit choices.
What these hard-working Arizonans need is a reformed payday loan industry as another credit option during difficult economic times. Removing this option, or any other for that matter, is not going to help anyone.
Every assertion made by opponents of payday lending as an option for people is directly addressed by the reforms of Prop 200. The sad truth is, some people have a political agenda intent on eliminating payday loan stores entirely, even though economic conditions are extremely tight for many Arizonans right now.
Those who may be undecided about how to vote on Prop 200 would be wise to read a November 2007 staff report done for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
It's available on our campaign Web site.
The report showed consumers suffer financially when payday lending is banned in a state where it once existed.
The key conclusion of the report was that bankruptcies, bounced checks and credit trouble all rose dramatically when consumers no longer had access to this financial option.
Reform is better than elimination.
George McGovern, a former senator from South Dakota and 1972 Democratic presidential candidate, said it best recently when he stated "Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next."
The Payday Loan Reform Act makes sense. Reforming the industry while keeping this financial option available for those who choose it is a sensible, reasonable thing to do in Arizona.
Please join me in voting yes on Prop 200.
Stan Barnes is the campaign chairman for YES on Proposition 200, the Payday Loan Reform Act, with all funding coming from the Arizona Community Financial Services Association. For more information, visit http://www.ReformAZPaydayLoans.com
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 01:03 pm |
|
here is a recent piece from AZ Republic's Laurie Roberts.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2008/09/17/20080917roberts0917.html#comments
Payday-loan industry is bankrolling Prop. 200
Sept. 17, 2008 12:00 AM
What with stocks teetering and pillars of Wall Street crumbling, I figured this might be a good time to examine my future financial options.
Which is how I came to be looking at payday-loan centers. (Nothing to be embarrassed about. In fact, I think I saw the Lehman brothers coming out of one in Scottsdale the other day.)
Anyway, it seems there is a proposal on the November ballot that promises to bring "real reform to the payday-loan industry," which sounds good, given that our financial ship of state is looking more and more like a leaky rubber raft.
Not to worry, though. The folks who bring us Proposition 200 promise "lower fees and a no-cost repayment plan for those who need it."
Now, I'm pretty sure Mr. Merrill and Mr. Lynch would jump at such an offer. The question is, should the rest of us?
Chances are you've never been inside your friendly neighborhood payday-loan center. They popped up all over the place in 2000, after the Legislature carved out a 10-year exemption to the state's 36 percent cap on interest rates. In doing so, our leaders ushered in a multibillion-dollar industry offering short-term, high-interest loans to tide people over until payday.
Say you need $100 loan. You write a postdated check for $117.65 and walk out with five crisp 20s. Then, in two weeks, the payday people either cash your check or you extend the loan for another two weeks, for another interest payment of $17.65. In all, you can extend that $100 loan for up to six weeks, at a cost of $52.95.
Stan Barnes, the industry's Arizona spokesman, doesn't like to talk about the business in terms of annual interest rates, preferring to compare it to the charge on a bounced check or the late fee on a credit card.
"When the transmission goes out," he explains, "or the baby's hungry and there's no food on the shelf but it's between paydays, then that person is making a rational decision to bounce a check because baby's hungry or the transmission's got to be fixed because they've got to get to work . . . or go into the payday-loan store, where it is simple, convenient and they understand it costs them $17.65 to have $100 and walk out the door."
So, Stan, the interest rate? When pressed, he concedes it is "something north of 400 percent."
In fact, it's 458 percent.
The Payday Loan Reform Act, as Prop. 200 is called, will lower that fee.
All the way to 391 percent. And it'll eliminate loan extensions and allow a flexible repayment plan for those who can't pay on time. So who, you might wonder, is behind these "reforms"?
Well, Arizonans for Financial Reform ran the signature drive. Which turned into the Yes on 200 campaign. Which is bankrolled by the Arizona Community Financial Services Association.
Which is the payday-loan industry.
In all, the industry has pumped $9 million thus far into Prop. 200, and for good reason. Prop. 200 would repeal the state law that will put them out of business in 2010, when that 10-year exemption to the state's 36 percent interest cap expires.
Barnes says the industry is offering substantive reforms so it can continue serving Arizonans who have no better credit options. And still, he says, various political interests want to chase them away. "What happens when they get their way and eliminate the industry?" he asks.
Opponents scoff at that, saying a 391 percent interest rate is hardly reform and pointing out that the Legislature will likely allow the industry to continue, but with real changes that benefit consumers.
Attorney General Terry Goddard says he often gets consumer-fraud complaints from the parents of people who wind up taking out new payday loans to pay off old payday loans, eventually owing thousands. The problem is, it isn't fraud. It's sanctioned by state law.
Which is the point of Prop. 200. The payday-loan tycoons are spending millions to lock in a 391 percent interest rate. If they can get voters to approve it, the Legislature can't change it.
"That's the real secret of why they're spending $10 million on this campaign." Goddard said. "They could become the most bulletproof of all the financial options out there if they could get a voter-protected 391 percent interest rate."
Sadly, it just might work. Money, after all, talks. And while the titans of the payday-loan industry are dumping millions into their "Payday Loan Reform Act," opponents have thus far managed to raise only $100,000 - hardly enough to even whisper.
It would take a lot of the little people taking out a lot of payday loans to fight back.
Assuming, given the economy, we still have paydays.
Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8635. Read her blog at robertsblog.azcentral.com.
Last edited on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 01:08 pm by QCVillager
|
Current time is 04:10 am | |
|
|
|