I spoke too soon
Jim Thompson
I was greeted at the gas station this morning by a new sign saying
that credit/debit purchases are 4� more per gallon than cash :-(
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
All Hail Obama and the 40 Thieves (pardon me, "CZAR's)
Joerg
> I spoke too soon...
>
> I was greeted at the gas station this morning by a new sign saying
> that credit/debit purchases are 4� more per gallon than cash :-(
>
We see that out here since a long time. It's because they get socked
with stiff fees.
The topper was >25 years ago when I wanted to buy a camera. Negotiated a
deal, whipped out my Amex. "Oh, you need to pay with another card, with
Amex we'd have to go back up in price". Taught me a lesson.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> I spoke too soon...
>>
>> I was greeted at the gas station this morning by a new sign saying
>> that credit/debit purchases are 4� more per gallon than cash :-(
>>
>
>We see that out here since a long time. It's because they get socked
>with stiff fees.
>
>The topper was >25 years ago when I wanted to buy a camera. Negotiated a
>deal, whipped out my Amex. "Oh, you need to pay with another card, with
>Amex we'd have to go back up in price". Taught me a lesson.
I used to see that too, _many_ years ago. Looks like it's returning.
Ah! The benefits of "change" :-(
Joerg
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:12:49 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> I spoke too soon...
>>>
>>> I was greeted at the gas station this morning by a new sign saying
>>> that credit/debit purchases are 4� more per gallon than cash :-(
>>>
>> We see that out here since a long time. It's because they get socked
>> with stiff fees.
>>
>> The topper was >25 years ago when I wanted to buy a camera. Negotiated a
>> deal, whipped out my Amex. "Oh, you need to pay with another card, with
>> Amex we'd have to go back up in price". Taught me a lesson.
>
> I used to see that too, _many_ years ago. Looks like it's returning.
> Ah! The benefits of "change" :-(
>
Yep, better get used to it. Banks are now super-restrictive with credit
cards. Meaning even people with fairly good credit won't get any, and
possibly some stores might go back to cash-only. Folks with good scores
may find themselves with paltry limits such as $500 where the question
arises what good a card is for. For our country that may not be a bad
thing because it re-educates people in budgeting. Now if Washington
would heed that advice as well this would be nice.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:12:49 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> I spoke too soon...
>>>>
>>>> I was greeted at the gas station this morning by a new sign saying
>>>> that credit/debit purchases are 4� more per gallon than cash :-(
>>>>
>>> We see that out here since a long time. It's because they get socked
>>> with stiff fees.
>>>
>>> The topper was >25 years ago when I wanted to buy a camera. Negotiated a
>>> deal, whipped out my Amex. "Oh, you need to pay with another card, with
>>> Amex we'd have to go back up in price". Taught me a lesson.
>>
>> I used to see that too, _many_ years ago. Looks like it's returning.
>> Ah! The benefits of "change" :-(
>>
>
>Yep, better get used to it. Banks are now super-restrictive with credit
>cards. Meaning even people with fairly good credit won't get any, and
>possibly some stores might go back to cash-only. Folks with good scores
>may find themselves with paltry limits such as $500 where the question
>arises what good a card is for. For our country that may not be a bad
>thing because it re-educates people in budgeting. Now if Washington
>would heed that advice as well this would be nice.
My wife had one cancelled because it had a lock on 11% annual, and she
wouldn't agree to "new terms" of "prime + 18%" ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
Jon Kirwan
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>I spoke too soon...
>
>I was greeted at the gas station this morning by a new sign saying
>that credit/debit purchases are 4� more per gallon than cash :-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Unless something has recently changed, it violates contracts to charge
more for using credit. It doesn't violate it, though, to charge less
for cash. Six of one, half-a-dozen of another, I know. But one is
okay, the other is not.
For example, Visa's contract says, "You may not impose any surcharge
on a Visa transaction. You may, however, offer a discount for cash
transactions, provided that the offer is clearly disclosed to
customers and the cash price is presented as a discount from the
standard price charged for all other forms of payment."
See also:
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/merchants-who-violate-credit-card-terms-1275.php
Some states have their own laws that in effect restate the contract
terms, as well. In those states, you can just call the attorney
general's office and complain. Otherwise, you need to contact one or
all of the credit card companies they do business with and complain.
Jon
Tom Del Rosso
Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> My wife had one cancelled because it had a lock on 11% annual, and she
> wouldn't agree to "new terms" of "prime + 18%" ;-)
They jacked mine up to 29%. I paid off 1/3 of the balance, then called and
said the rate was too high. Without needing to say another word they said
they'd lower it to 10%, which they did, probably because of a large payment
combined with consistent on-time payments. Maybe they see it as a
demonstration of intent to pay it off and never to default. They threat of
default is probably why they need to charge high rates to make some money
back early.
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.
Joerg
If you always pay in full it shouldn't matter.
Joerg
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>> My wife had one cancelled because it had a lock on 11% annual, and she
>> wouldn't agree to "new terms" of "prime + 18%" ;-)
>
> They jacked mine up to 29%. I paid off 1/3 of the balance, then called and
> said the rate was too high. Without needing to say another word they said
> they'd lower it to 10%, which they did, probably because of a large payment
> combined with consistent on-time payments. Maybe they see it as a
> demonstration of intent to pay it off and never to default. They threat of
> default is probably why they need to charge high rates to make some money
> back early.
>
Or drive people into bankruptcy and see nada, zip, zilch. It's stupid.
Anyone who accepts whatever phantasy rate they charge might have no real
intention to pay their debt in the first place.
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
>Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> My wife had one cancelled because it had a lock on 11% annual, and she
>>> wouldn't agree to "new terms" of "prime + 18%" ;-)
>>
>> They jacked mine up to 29%. I paid off 1/3 of the balance, then called and
>> said the rate was too high. Without needing to say another word they said
>> they'd lower it to 10%, which they did, probably because of a large payment
>> combined with consistent on-time payments. Maybe they see it as a
>> demonstration of intent to pay it off and never to default. They threat of
>> default is probably why they need to charge high rates to make some money
>> back early.
>
>Or drive people into bankruptcy and see nada, zip, zilch. It's stupid.
>Anyone who accepts whatever phantasy rate they charge might have no real
>intention to pay their debt in the first place.
Or not be smart enough to know any better. I've met enough like that
to know they exist.
Jon
Joerg
Yep, I have met people who have a load of credit debt at 20-some percent
interest and then a savings account with enough in there, "earning"
0.25% or nothing. Now that is the epitome of it.
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
Yup. I was thinking of that case and a few others, as well. Some
don't even have the money handy to pay them off. They live check to
check. But some fit one or more of these: (1) cannot really read with
understanding the bills they get and won't even realize there was a
rate hike, at all; or, (2) may notice at some point that there may
have been a rate hike [see a higher number than they remember or
though was there before] but aren't wise enough to think about the
idea of actually calling and asking for a lower rate; or, (3) are too
frightened by any "complicated" phone contact of any kind and simply
cannot make such a phone call even if it crossed their mind.
My youngest son, autistic and 23, would fit closer to (3). He's very
detail oriented and would read and recognize such a change and
probably feel very sad about it. But he is simply unable to make such
a phone call. It's beyond his skill set. There are many like that,
as well.
Jon
Joel Koltner
"Jon Kirwan" <jo...@infinitefactors.org> wrote in message
news:8lk165lfeifjoapom...@4ax.com...
> But some fit one or more of these: (1) cannot really read with
> understanding the bills they get and won't even realize there was a
> rate hike, at all
Yes.
> (2) may notice at some point that there may
> have been a rate hike [see a higher number than they remember or
> though was there before] but aren't wise enough to think about the
> idea of actually calling and asking for a lower rate
There are some cultural things going on here too... with a couple of
significant exceptions (e.g., when purchasing a car), many people just aren't
used to haggling (which is essentially what you're doing) and prefer a "take
it or leave it" approach.
Of course, the big game here is that the CC company knows that in the majority
of cases, the reason people don't pay off their credit cards is *because they
don't have the money to do it with*. Those folks don't have a lot of
leverage, so if they request interest rates to be lowered, the CC company
isn't looking at, "will they switch to a competitor if I say no?" but rather
"will they declare bankruptcy if I say no?"
> (3) are too
> frightened by any "complicated" phone contact of any kind and simply
> cannot make such a phone call even if it crossed their mind.
They do have something to be frightened of: If the credit card company decides
that you're too "risky" (and making phone calls to them has the potential to
do so), they have the right to close your account and demand that you pay it
off in 30 days, which (again) many people can't actually do.
Granted, most people who get into financial trouble with credit cards knew
they were living beyond their means... what percentage of people were spending
money they didn't have on "toys" vs., e.g., medical care I couldn't say,
though. (Probably far more with toys, although even something like a 50" TV
looks pretty cheap compared to even something like a broken arm these days.)
---Joel
Joerg
Ok, that's a health issue and one cannot judge folks like your son. In
those cases it becomes important to have someone in their life whom they
can fully trust. That doesn't have to be a parent and beyond some age it
can't be a parent anymore. But it needs to be a person who is willing do
such a phone call for him, and show him how it's done.
I remember sitting down with someone from the office after hours a long
time ago. Concerned about not being able to save anything extra for
retirement. What they spent on rent and commute money was huge. So I did
a back of the envelope calc what it would mean if they bought a house.
They ended up doing that, paying about the same but slowly it's becoming
theirs. Come time to retire they'll have substantial equity built up
that, as renters, they would not have. Best decision they ever made,
they once said. Sometimes all it takes is such a meeting and it doesn't
have to be an expensive financial advisor.
Dave M
news:7cbvvoF...@mid.individual.net...
Yup!! I've paid in full every month for well over 25 years. No matter
what the interest rate, so long as the grace period from the purchase date
until the payment due date remains, I'm OK. Haven't paid a cent of interest
in ages, so they can jack up the rate to 40% and it won't bother me.
I pay for almost everything that I buy, whether locally or online, with a
Discover card that gives "cash back". It's not a lot, but better than
nothing. I pay the credit card bill online, so I don't even have to write a
check and buy a stamp. Every few months, I cash out and buy a couple steak
dinners on the proceeds. No interest and cash back... what a deal!
And Booo!! on debit cards. No grace period, fewer protections against
defective merchandise/services, and no cash back.
--
Dave M
I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, "Where's the self-help
section?" She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose.
Joerg
There are debit/credit combo cards. No cash prize but you don't even
need to take any action to pay it off (and miss the grace period because
the DC-3 on Podunk Island blew a head gasket and there is no Internet).
Joel Koltner
news:hp-dnae_6LVpQf3X...@giganews.com...
> Every few months, I cash out and buy a couple steak dinners on the proceeds.
> No interest and cash back... what a deal!
You probably realize this, but that is just your own money you're getting
back... you get 1% or whatever back, but the CC company is charging the
merchant an additional 1.5-3% or so to process the transaction in the first
place, and of course that's being passed on to you via a higher purchase
price.
Of course, 1% back is a lot better than 0% back regardless of where it's
coming from if there isn't a cash discount avaialable... :-)
---Joel
Dave M
news:OZ58m.293411$op1.1...@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
Yes, I do realize that, but without that feature on the card, I wouldn't get
a penny of it back; I have to pay the full price to the merchant regardless
whether I pay with cash, check, Paypal or Discover, so I think of it as a
rebate that I wouldn't otherwise have.
--
Dave M
Dave M
For sure, the consumer pays for it all in the end.
It's like putting a tax on manufacturers' profits. A business never pay a
cent in taxes... all of that cost is passed on to the consumer in the form
of higher prices for the merchandise and/or service. John Q. Public is
soooo gullible to believe that big business is evil for making a profit, and
the Government is the Lord and Savior for making them pay tax on the
profits.
Dave M
Tim Williams
> There are debit/credit combo cards. No cash prize but you don't even need
> to take any action to pay it off (and miss the grace period because the
> DC-3 on Podunk Island blew a head gasket and there is no Internet).
My checking account (at Associated Bank) comes with one of those. No
interest or payments, it just draws directly from my account.
Tim
--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Joerg
> "Joerg" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:7cc4vpF...@mid.individual.net...
>> There are debit/credit combo cards. No cash prize but you don't even need
>> to take any action to pay it off (and miss the grace period because the
>> DC-3 on Podunk Island blew a head gasket and there is no Internet).
>
> My checking account (at Associated Bank) comes with one of those. No
> interest or payments, it just draws directly from my account.
>
If everybody had that then people would not live beyond their means
anymore. Because they couldn't. I guess some of that sobering-up process
is happening right now. Even for politicians like here in California
(finally!).
krw
wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:12:49 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> I spoke too soon...
>>>>
>>>> I was greeted at the gas station this morning by a new sign saying
>>>> that credit/debit purchases are 4� more per gallon than cash :-(
>>>>
>>> We see that out here since a long time. It's because they get socked
>>> with stiff fees.
>>>
>>> The topper was >25 years ago when I wanted to buy a camera. Negotiated a
>>> deal, whipped out my Amex. "Oh, you need to pay with another card, with
>>> Amex we'd have to go back up in price". Taught me a lesson.
>>
>> I used to see that too, _many_ years ago. Looks like it's returning.
>> Ah! The benefits of "change" :-(
>>
>
>Yep, better get used to it. Banks are now super-restrictive with credit
>cards. Meaning even people with fairly good credit won't get any, and
>possibly some stores might go back to cash-only. Folks with good scores
>may find themselves with paltry limits such as $500 where the question
>arises what good a card is for. For our country that may not be a bad
>thing because it re-educates people in budgeting. Now if Washington
>would heed that advice as well this would be nice.
I don't think that's going to happen for "people with good scores"
because the banks want the merchant's fee as much as they want the
interest. They want the merchant fee so much that they're willing to
split it with me. ;-)
krw
<td...@att.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> My wife had one cancelled because it had a lock on 11% annual, and she
>> wouldn't agree to "new terms" of "prime + 18%" ;-)
>
>They jacked mine up to 29%. I paid off 1/3 of the balance, then called and
>said the rate was too high. Without needing to say another word they said
>they'd lower it to 10%, which they did, probably because of a large payment
>combined with consistent on-time payments. Maybe they see it as a
>demonstration of intent to pay it off and never to default. They threat of
>default is probably why they need to charge high rates to make some money
>back early.
They can jack mine up to 100% and I wouldn't care. I don't even know
what the interest rate is. Never looked.
Jim Thompson
Yep. Hasn't happened to me yet, but "Consumer Reports" is reporting
cases of card cancellations of people who pay off every month.
I've been playing devil's advocate. GE Money and HSBC have been
acquiring department store accounts. I've had my wife write each of
these department stores and tell them (making me the bad guy) that "My
husband forbids me to shop in any store that uses either of those
fronts" ;-) Produced many multi-dollar-off coupons ;-) And I no
longer shop Sam's Club (except for the $4 prescriptions).
krw
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:12:34 -0500, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:52:49 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>><td...@att.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My wife had one cancelled because it had a lock on 11% annual, and she
>>>> wouldn't agree to "new terms" of "prime + 18%" ;-)
>>>
>>>They jacked mine up to 29%. I paid off 1/3 of the balance, then called and
>>>said the rate was too high. Without needing to say another word they said
>>>they'd lower it to 10%, which they did, probably because of a large payment
>>>combined with consistent on-time payments. Maybe they see it as a
>>>demonstration of intent to pay it off and never to default. They threat of
>>>default is probably why they need to charge high rates to make some money
>>>back early.
>>
>>They can jack mine up to 100% and I wouldn't care. I don't even know
>>what the interest rate is. Never looked.
>
>Yep. Hasn't happened to me yet, but "Consumer Reports" is reporting
>cases of card cancellations of people who pay off every month.
I "hear" of that, but it makes no sense and I sure haven't seen it.
Like I said earlier, they like that merchant fee. So much so that
they're willing to share it.
>I've been playing devil's advocate. GE Money and HSBC have been
>acquiring department store accounts. I've had my wife write each of
>these department stores and tell them (making me the bad guy) that "My
>husband forbids me to shop in any store that uses either of those
>fronts" ;-) Produced many multi-dollar-off coupons ;-) And I no
>longer shop Sam's Club (except for the $4 prescriptions).
I don't care when SWMBO "makes me the bad guy". Somone has to do it.
;-) I use the "free interest" deals all the time and these are two of
the heavy hitters in this arena. I'll use their money.
krw
wrote:
Don't all credit cards now have an automatic pay feature. I don't use
it but it's there on the two I take care of (SWMBO does the other, for
historic reasons).
krw
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Dave M" <mason...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:hp-dnae_6LVpQf3X...@giganews.com...
>> Every few months, I cash out and buy a couple steak dinners on the proceeds.
>> No interest and cash back... what a deal!
>
>You probably realize this, but that is just your own money you're getting
>back... you get 1% or whatever back, but the CC company is charging the
>merchant an additional 1.5-3% or so to process the transaction in the first
>place, and of course that's being passed on to you via a higher purchase
>price.
Not really. It comes out of profit because I'm not paying more for
the privilege. If I were paying for it, I'd buy from someone who
didn't take credit cards and gave me the break.
>Of course, 1% back is a lot better than 0% back regardless of where it's
>coming from if there isn't a cash discount avaialable... :-)
I didn't pay it then. The merchant did.
Tim Williams
>> My checking account (at Associated Bank) comes with one of those. No
>> interest or payments, it just draws directly from my account.
>
> If everybody had that then people would not live beyond their means
> anymore. Because they couldn't. I guess some of that sobering-up process
> is happening right now. Even for politicians like here in California
> (finally!).
Debt: Living the American Dream!
On the plus side, if the economy really mega tanks, my student loans will
pretty well pay themselves. Because the dollars they are made of will be
worthless.
Robert Baer
can make meaningless by paying the balance due (or more) each and every
month.
Tom Del Rosso
krw wrote:
>
> They can jack mine up to 100% and I wouldn't care. I don't even know
> what the interest rate is. Never looked.
I didn't know either for many years until I had to put some medical expenses
on it.
AwlSome Auger
No. All 'credit cards' are ONLY credit cards.
All 'Debit Cards' extract immediately from your bank account. A debit
card that has a credit card as a base carrier (all do) allows the owner
to *use* his debit card as a credit card, where such purchases would not
show up until the credit card agency actually gets the transaction from
the company the purchase was made from, and then they tap against the
bank account the debit card is held against, which can be several days
later, but is usually only a day or two. Such cards are typically
limited to only one or two thousand dollars on a 'credit' purchase, and
that will cause an overdraft charge if the amount exceeds your balance,
and it will be expected to be paid immediately, and all subsequent
transactions will cause an overdraft and overdraft charges. It (a debit
card with credit 'features')is virtually worthless as an actual credit
card.
krw
Not true, but besides the point.
> All 'Debit Cards' extract immediately from your bank account.
Duh!
>A debit
>card that has a credit card as a base carrier (all do) allows the owner
>to *use* his debit card as a credit card, where such purchases would not
>show up until the credit card agency actually gets the transaction from
>the company the purchase was made from, and then they tap against the
>bank account the debit card is held against, which can be several days
>later, but is usually only a day or two. Such cards are typically
>limited to only one or two thousand dollars on a 'credit' purchase, and
>that will cause an overdraft charge if the amount exceeds your balance,
>and it will be expected to be paid immediately, and all subsequent
>transactions will cause an overdraft and overdraft charges. It (a debit
>card with credit 'features')is virtually worthless as an actual credit
>card.
A simple Visa debit card. They aren't rare. So what?
The point was that you can set up "auto-pay" on credit cards, so if
you're stuck in Outer Zambia because your DC-3 busted a head gasket,
the bill gets paid.
krw
As long as you're going to use this strategy, get one that gives you a
kick-back, as well. No reason to let the bank keep all of the
merchant's fee.
AwlSome Auger
You can set up auto-pay with most folks you have a debt with
individually and not even involve your credit card.
krw
<AwlSom...@BuyOneGetOneFree.org> wrote:
You *really* are stupid, DimBulb!
JosephKK
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:12:49 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> I spoke too soon...
>>>
>>> I was greeted at the gas station this morning by a new sign saying
>>> that credit/debit purchases are 4¢ more per gallon than cash :-(
>>>
>>
>>We see that out here since a long time. It's because they get socked
>>with stiff fees.
>>
>>The topper was >25 years ago when I wanted to buy a camera. Negotiated a
>>deal, whipped out my Amex. "Oh, you need to pay with another card, with
>>Amex we'd have to go back up in price". Taught me a lesson.
>
>I used to see that too, _many_ years ago. Looks like it's returning.
>Ah! The benefits of "change" :-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Yep. This time it will be all plastic, and won't go away.
JosephKK
<jo...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:03:09 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> My wife had one cancelled because it had a lock on 11% annual, and she
>>>> wouldn't agree to "new terms" of "prime + 18%" ;-)
>>>
>>> They jacked mine up to 29%. I paid off 1/3 of the balance, then called and
>>> said the rate was too high. Without needing to say another word they said
>>> they'd lower it to 10%, which they did, probably because of a large payment
>>> combined with consistent on-time payments. Maybe they see it as a
>>> demonstration of intent to pay it off and never to default. They threat of
>>> default is probably why they need to charge high rates to make some money
>>> back early.
>>
>>Or drive people into bankruptcy and see nada, zip, zilch. It's stupid.
>>Anyone who accepts whatever phantasy rate they charge might have no real
>>intention to pay their debt in the first place.
>
>Or not be smart enough to know any better. I've met enough like that
>to know they exist.
>
>Jon
Actually the losses caused by loosers defaulting get reimbursed, so
that the card issuer don't care. Then they think that they can charge
rapist rates to everyone.
JosephKK
One of my cards just eliminated the "grace period". They now charge
interest from date of purchase until payment clears.
krw
Dump it. Let them get away with it and all will.
Jon Kirwan
I wasn't thinking about the final moments of some default situation.
Some struggle and literally starve themselves and avoid medical
services they really need in order to keep paying credit card bills
they cannot fathom and don't have the capacity to argue about. Many
may default in the end, I suppose. But I was addressing myself to
J�rg's comment about 'anyone who accepts' and the suggestion he made
that such people have no intent to pay. The people I am thinking
about have every intention of paying ... and they do, for as long as
they possibly can. Some die, in fact, at very early ages due to the
sad state of affairs in the US regarding those with developmental
disabilities. But that's another story for another time. My point
was more that it is NOT the case that EVERYONE who accepts these
fantasy rate increases are malicious folks. Many are simply incapable
of handling their affairs as well as engineers and Ph.D.s. But they
try hard. And are treated as nothing better than collateral damage.
>Then they think that they can charge rapist rates to everyone.
Well, that's a different topic.
Jon
Robert Baer
income, then one is asking for an IRS audit...
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:31:15 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jon Kirwan wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:03:09 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>> My wife had one cancelled because it had a lock on 11% annual, and she
>>>>>>> wouldn't agree to "new terms" of "prime + 18%" ;-)
>>>>>> They jacked mine up to 29%. I paid off 1/3 of the balance, then called and
>>>>>> said the rate was too high. Without needing to say another word they said
>>>>>> they'd lower it to 10%, which they did, probably because of a large payment
>>>>>> combined with consistent on-time payments. Maybe they see it as a
>>>>>> demonstration of intent to pay it off and never to default. They threat of
>>>>>> default is probably why they need to charge high rates to make some money
>>>>>> back early.
>>>>> Or drive people into bankruptcy and see nada, zip, zilch. It's stupid.
>>>>> Anyone who accepts whatever phantasy rate they charge might have no real
>>>>> intention to pay their debt in the first place.
>>>> Or not be smart enough to know any better. I've met enough like that
>>>> to know they exist.
>>> Yep, I have met people who have a load of credit debt at 20-some percent
>>> interest and then a savings account with enough in there, "earning"
>>> 0.25% or nothing. Now that is the epitome of it.
>>
>> Yup. I was thinking of that case and a few others, as well. Some
>> don't even have the money handy to pay them off. They live check to
>> check. But some fit one or more of these: (1) cannot really read with
>> understanding the bills they get and won't even realize there was a
>> rate hike, at all; or, (2) may notice at some point that there may
>> have been a rate hike [see a higher number than they remember or
>> though was there before] but aren't wise enough to think about the
>> idea of actually calling and asking for a lower rate; or, (3) are too
>> frightened by any "complicated" phone contact of any kind and simply
>> cannot make such a phone call even if it crossed their mind.
>>
>> My youngest son, autistic and 23, would fit closer to (3). He's very
>> detail oriented and would read and recognize such a change and
>> probably feel very sad about it. But he is simply unable to make such
>> a phone call. It's beyond his skill set. There are many like that,
>> as well.
>
>Ok, that's a health issue and one cannot judge folks like your son.
The usual case has people like my son 'forced into the wild' so to
speak and having to struggle without even the basic skills needed to
survive on their own. The bulk of the developmental disabilities
curve works like that -- it is how the system is set up. To some
terrible and very sad results, many times.
>In
>those cases it becomes important to have someone in their life whom they
>can fully trust. That doesn't have to be a parent and beyond some age it
>can't be a parent anymore. But it needs to be a person who is willing do
>such a phone call for him, and show him how it's done.
Let me tell you just one short story about one such person (feel free
to ask for more, or more details about this individual.) I was being
shown around by the Associate Director of a disabilities program in my
state and he took me to the apartment of one lady. She lives alone
but does (supposedly) get looked in on, on occasion. When we walked
in, that late afternoon, she immediately asked us to help her. She
didn't know how to replace the vacuum bag in her vacuum cleaner, which
was full, and there were several other 'issues' she truly needed help
with. One of them was the fact that she didn't have any heat and she
felt very cold. Now it turns out that his selection to show me her
place was entirely random. It fell out of a discussion we were having
which had triggered him to suggest the idea. I immediately set about
helping with what I could do and he immediately made some cell phone
calls to get the heat dealt with.
But what would have happened to her had we not visited? Well, chances
are that within a day or two she'd get another visit and in the
meantime she'd be cold, unable to use her vacuum cleaner, and would
have had to live with a few other things I helped with when I was
there. Probably, the heating issue was the most serious and urgent.
But she needed help and, as it turns out, she doesn't get enough even
just to stay warm at night, sometimes.
She is one of many people with modest mental capabilities, who do get
some support, and who are otherwise emancipated and assumed able to
deal with many issues that, to be honest, they really cannot handle at
all. But our society really also cannot afford to take care of them,
there isn't a sense of community in US society that would otherwise
handle things, and are left to drift from time to time on their own.
They are able to secure credit and often do, misunderstanding most of
what it means and completely lacking the skills to deal with issues
should they arise. Chances are, they won't even know to ask for help
UNTIL they have already gotten so deeply into trouble that the
solutions are far between and very difficult to manage well.
(For cripes sake, I'm still dealing with a minor case of credit fraud
in my name that took place back in 2003! And I am supposed to be
capable, I like to imagine at times. [T-Mobile are bastards, but
that's another story for another time.])
Our society does NOT fund nor does it have people providing the kinds
of services you are talking about. They fund the basics, mostly. And
that is about it. If that. And far too many of these people are
ignored by family (only about 15% get regular visits -- and by this, I
mean once a year or more often), ignored by social services, and many
pretty much left to live on the street. The lucky ones get by. But
that's about all I can say.
>I remember sitting down with someone from the office after hours a long
>time ago. Concerned about not being able to save anything extra for
>retirement. What they spent on rent and commute money was huge. So I did
>a back of the envelope calc what it would mean if they bought a house.
>They ended up doing that, paying about the same but slowly it's becoming
>theirs. Come time to retire they'll have substantial equity built up
>that, as renters, they would not have. Best decision they ever made,
>they once said. Sometimes all it takes is such a meeting and it doesn't
>have to be an expensive financial advisor.
Well, I'm not thinking about people that capable, I suppose. I deal
regularly with people somewhat less able.
Perhaps both a funny and yet sad example, I remember one man in
Eugene, Oregon, who gets social security checks each month -- it's not
much to live on, by the way -- and who likes to sometimes visit a bar.
He has a care-giver who goes with him, as he is eligible for some
services like that (he operates at about a low intellectual level.)
When he goes into the bar, the girls come over to him right away and
sit on his lap and 'make him happy.' He likes that, has no
understanding of money at all, and they pretty much take all of the
monthly stipend of cash he gets in a single evening. The care giver
cannot do anything about it, as the man is of age and no one has
guardianship over him. All the care giver can do is try and
discourage him. But it doesn't really sink in. So he lives very poor
and is completely ill-equipped to cope with others' greed, avarice,
and ill-intent. It's literally like taking candy from a baby.
Mostly, all this is my attempt to point out that there are some folks
out there who really do want to live nothing more than a very modest
life and would never consider the idea of not paying their bills. Your
earlier comment, "Anyone who accepts whatever phantasy rate they
charge might have no real intention to pay their debt in the first
place" caused me to bristle a little. But I know because of what else
you've said months and years back, that this was more out of ignorance
about those who I work with far more regularly than you do, I suspect.
Jon
Spehro Pefhany
<rober...@localnet.com> wrote:
IANAA, but for personal non-deductible expenses, it's none of their
business-- and certainly not income any more than paying a discounted
price for any other reason is income.
The "kickback" is just returning part of the (average around 2%) fee
that the retailer pays to the credit card company (and you pay to the
retailer).
I'd like to see a discount for use of debit cards (eg. ~1% for
purchases over say $100 or $200), which would even the playing field,
and allow one to get cash when paying for stuff (avoiding a stop at
the ATM and reducing the amount of cash the stores have around).
Especially for local staples like groceries.
Joerg
There need to be people out there in the wild who have compassion. In
some areas you'd find a whole lot more of them than in others. People
might call me biased and in this respect I probably am but I believe
that the deeper the religious faith of the local population is the more
likely it is that he'll find that compassionate help. Meaning without
any pay or expectations. In a big city you can usually forget it.
There used to be such sense of community and in some areas there still
is. Personally I'd always favor those regions regardless of mental or
bodily capability. This usually means not living in large cities.
> They are able to secure credit and often do, misunderstanding most of
> what it means and completely lacking the skills to deal with issues
> should they arise. Chances are, they won't even know to ask for help
> UNTIL they have already gotten so deeply into trouble that the
> solutions are far between and very difficult to manage well.
>
Can't there be a fraud alert put on the case of people at risk, along
the lines of "before issueing credit talk to so-and-so"?
> (For cripes sake, I'm still dealing with a minor case of credit fraud
> in my name that took place back in 2003! And I am supposed to be
> capable, I like to imagine at times. [T-Mobile are bastards, but
> that's another story for another time.])
>
IMHO the onus with credit applications should be more with the banks.
They are way too sloppy in their due diligence. Of course Wall Street
has a huge lobby so chances for that to happens are slim.
> Our society does NOT fund nor does it have people providing the kinds
> of services you are talking about. They fund the basics, mostly. And
> that is about it. If that. And far too many of these people are
> ignored by family (only about 15% get regular visits -- and by this, I
> mean once a year or more often), ignored by social services, and many
> pretty much left to live on the street. The lucky ones get by. But
> that's about all I can say.
>
Society can never fund this fully. We as a society must re-learn to take
responsibility and not expect the government to handle everything. Part
of that process is IMHO church although it probably can also be
re-learned without it (by very few). People must learn again what
sacrifice really means. It can and usually does lead out of your comfort
zone, like with the down-syndrome guy we used to visit and give rides
to. That was the easy part. The out-of-comfort-zone part was that he
lived in a rather scary part of town where we would normally never go.
Very sad. In our care-giving work we find that it is mostly family who
takes advantage of their own folks. Most of the time financially but we
also had cases of emotional abuse, up to the point where the sheriff had
to be called. All it takes is one or two bad apples in the family.
> Mostly, all this is my attempt to point out that there are some folks
> out there who really do want to live nothing more than a very modest
> life and would never consider the idea of not paying their bills. Your
> earlier comment, "Anyone who accepts whatever phantasy rate they
> charge might have no real intention to pay their debt in the first
> place" caused me to bristle a little. But I know because of what else
> you've said months and years back, that this was more out of ignorance
> about those who I work with far more regularly than you do, I suspect.
>
Yes, clearly my comment does not include people who aren't mentally
competent to make such judgement. In those cases the onus should
squarely be with the banks as I said above. Our banking system is way
too lax with credit and this is the root cause of the current economic
situation. If a person has mental issues then he or she will most likely
be on a fairly fixed income. That alone should be a sign to be cautious
with credit but unfortunately banks don't care.
But: I bet that 95% or more folks are fully competent mentally, enough
to realize that "just putting it on a charge" as many say or "buy now
and pay in 2015" will cause backlash. It does not take an IQ of 100 to
understand that. Pretty much all the people I know who got themselves
into a financial pickle were fully competent in that matter, they
ploughed into that situation with their eyes wide open. If the person
has a mental disability that is another story.
Joerg
I'll second that. No use for such a card.
> ... Let them get away with it and all will.
Then you'd see a lot more Brinks trucks because people like me would pay
for the new $800 TV set in cash, some mail order places would have
layoffs and then go bankrupt, and so on.
Jim Thompson
"JosephKK"<quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't have any like that... yet. If they do... bye, bye!
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>krw wrote:
I saw a Brink's truck yesterday with a bumper sticker...
"Driver has no cash, he's married" ;-)
Joerg
Our pool guys used to have that as a license plate frame. A friend has
one that reads "My kids and my money go to University of ..."
krw
wrote:
>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:18:55 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
<snip>
The "community" has been replaced by government.
>> They are able to secure credit and often do, misunderstanding most of
>> what it means and completely lacking the skills to deal with issues
>> should they arise. Chances are, they won't even know to ask for help
>> UNTIL they have already gotten so deeply into trouble that the
>> solutions are far between and very difficult to manage well.
>>
>
>Can't there be a fraud alert put on the case of people at risk, along
>the lines of "before issueing credit talk to so-and-so"?
No, not without their consent. As Jon said, they are of the age of
majority and without a court order their freedom, even to do
themselves harm, cannot be restricted. This is another result of the
"mainstreaming" of the '70s.
>> (For cripes sake, I'm still dealing with a minor case of credit fraud
>> in my name that took place back in 2003! And I am supposed to be
>> capable, I like to imagine at times. [T-Mobile are bastards, but
>> that's another story for another time.])
>>
>
>IMHO the onus with credit applications should be more with the banks.
>They are way too sloppy in their due diligence. Of course Wall Street
>has a huge lobby so chances for that to happens are slim.
"Sloppy"? In what way *could* lenders be more diligent? They go by
the numbers. People aren't in the loop.
>> Our society does NOT fund nor does it have people providing the kinds
>> of services you are talking about. They fund the basics, mostly. And
>> that is about it. If that. And far too many of these people are
>> ignored by family (only about 15% get regular visits -- and by this, I
>> mean once a year or more often), ignored by social services, and many
>> pretty much left to live on the street. The lucky ones get by. But
>> that's about all I can say.
>>
>
>Society can never fund this fully. We as a society must re-learn to take
>responsibility and not expect the government to handle everything. Part
>of that process is IMHO church although it probably can also be
>re-learned without it (by very few). People must learn again what
>sacrifice really means. It can and usually does lead out of your comfort
>zone, like with the down-syndrome guy we used to visit and give rides
>to. That was the easy part. The out-of-comfort-zone part was that he
>lived in a rather scary part of town where we would normally never go.
Sadly, we're going the other way. Government is the answer, no matter
what the question.
krw
Exactly correct. Businesses have to be careful here.
>The "kickback" is just returning part of the (average around 2%) fee
>that the retailer pays to the credit card company (and you pay to the
>retailer).
>
>I'd like to see a discount for use of debit cards (eg. ~1% for
>purchases over say $100 or $200), which would even the playing field,
>and allow one to get cash when paying for stuff (avoiding a stop at
>the ATM and reducing the amount of cash the stores have around).
>Especially for local staples like groceries.
What you or I would like doesn't matter. The process is set up to
make the merchants and banks money. Our best bet is look out for our
individual interests. If the dividend of paying one's bills is
getting better deals, I'm all for it. "Positive" feedback is a good
thing, IMO.
Joerg
IMHO that doesn't work in the long run. We can't offload all this onto
the goverment, plus it will hardly be as effective as an old-fashioned
community.
>>> They are able to secure credit and often do, misunderstanding most of
>>> what it means and completely lacking the skills to deal with issues
>>> should they arise. Chances are, they won't even know to ask for help
>>> UNTIL they have already gotten so deeply into trouble that the
>>> solutions are far between and very difficult to manage well.
>>>
>> Can't there be a fraud alert put on the case of people at risk, along
>> the lines of "before issueing credit talk to so-and-so"?
>
> No, not without their consent. As Jon said, they are of the age of
> majority and without a court order their freedom, even to do
> themselves harm, cannot be restricted. This is another result of the
> "mainstreaming" of the '70s.
>
That's where the old community and family concepts come in. Or should
come in. Only they can reasonably convince a mentally challenged person
that this would be better.
>>> (For cripes sake, I'm still dealing with a minor case of credit fraud
>>> in my name that took place back in 2003! And I am supposed to be
>>> capable, I like to imagine at times. [T-Mobile are bastards, but
>>> that's another story for another time.])
>>>
>> IMHO the onus with credit applications should be more with the banks.
>> They are way too sloppy in their due diligence. Of course Wall Street
>> has a huge lobby so chances for that to happens are slim.
>
> "Sloppy"? In what way *could* lenders be more diligent? They go by
> the numbers. People aren't in the loop.
>
Very simple: By actually checking and verifying those numbers. It ain't
rocket science but they didn't do it. "Pick your income and we believe
it" does not work. As has been evidenced by the mortgage meltdown.
Which, to put it arrogantly, I knew was going to happen.
>>> Our society does NOT fund nor does it have people providing the kinds
>>> of services you are talking about. They fund the basics, mostly. And
>>> that is about it. If that. And far too many of these people are
>>> ignored by family (only about 15% get regular visits -- and by this, I
>>> mean once a year or more often), ignored by social services, and many
>>> pretty much left to live on the street. The lucky ones get by. But
>>> that's about all I can say.
>>>
>> Society can never fund this fully. We as a society must re-learn to take
>> responsibility and not expect the government to handle everything. Part
>> of that process is IMHO church although it probably can also be
>> re-learned without it (by very few). People must learn again what
>> sacrifice really means. It can and usually does lead out of your comfort
>> zone, like with the down-syndrome guy we used to visit and give rides
>> to. That was the easy part. The out-of-comfort-zone part was that he
>> lived in a rather scary part of town where we would normally never go.
>
> Sadly, we're going the other way. Government is the answer, no matter
> what the question.
And that's plain wrong. It will lead to ever increasing taxes,
bureaucracy, waste, system abuse and ultimately to budget meltdowns as
we are seeing in CA right now.
krw
wrote:
>krw wrote:
I often carry more than $800, almost always $3-500. There still would
be debit cards, though I don't like using them where they leave my
hands.
krw
wrote:
You know that and I know that but the leftists running the country
don't or don't care.
>>>> They are able to secure credit and often do, misunderstanding most of
>>>> what it means and completely lacking the skills to deal with issues
>>>> should they arise. Chances are, they won't even know to ask for help
>>>> UNTIL they have already gotten so deeply into trouble that the
>>>> solutions are far between and very difficult to manage well.
>>>>
>>> Can't there be a fraud alert put on the case of people at risk, along
>>> the lines of "before issueing credit talk to so-and-so"?
>>
>> No, not without their consent. As Jon said, they are of the age of
>> majority and without a court order their freedom, even to do
>> themselves harm, cannot be restricted. This is another result of the
>> "mainstreaming" of the '70s.
>>
>
>That's where the old community and family concepts come in. Or should
>come in. Only they can reasonably convince a mentally challenged person
>that this would be better.
...and then the next huckster that comes along can have the decision
reversed.
>>>> (For cripes sake, I'm still dealing with a minor case of credit fraud
>>>> in my name that took place back in 2003! And I am supposed to be
>>>> capable, I like to imagine at times. [T-Mobile are bastards, but
>>>> that's another story for another time.])
>>>>
>>> IMHO the onus with credit applications should be more with the banks.
>>> They are way too sloppy in their due diligence. Of course Wall Street
>>> has a huge lobby so chances for that to happens are slim.
>>
>> "Sloppy"? In what way *could* lenders be more diligent? They go by
>> the numbers. People aren't in the loop.
>>
>
>Very simple: By actually checking and verifying those numbers. It ain't
>rocket science but they didn't do it. "Pick your income and we believe
>it" does not work. As has been evidenced by the mortgage meltdown.
>Which, to put it arrogantly, I knew was going to happen.
Sure, we all did. I don't think the issue here is checking income,
rather there is no (lower) income limit. To have such would be
"discriminatory". Credit is scored *only* by computer so there is
less likelihood of being charged with discrimination. People are
intentionally left out of the loop.
>>>> Our society does NOT fund nor does it have people providing the kinds
>>>> of services you are talking about. They fund the basics, mostly. And
>>>> that is about it. If that. And far too many of these people are
>>>> ignored by family (only about 15% get regular visits -- and by this, I
>>>> mean once a year or more often), ignored by social services, and many
>>>> pretty much left to live on the street. The lucky ones get by. But
>>>> that's about all I can say.
>>>>
>>> Society can never fund this fully. We as a society must re-learn to take
>>> responsibility and not expect the government to handle everything. Part
>>> of that process is IMHO church although it probably can also be
>>> re-learned without it (by very few). People must learn again what
>>> sacrifice really means. It can and usually does lead out of your comfort
>>> zone, like with the down-syndrome guy we used to visit and give rides
>>> to. That was the easy part. The out-of-comfort-zone part was that he
>>> lived in a rather scary part of town where we would normally never go.
>>
>> Sadly, we're going the other way. Government is the answer, no matter
>> what the question.
>
>
>And that's plain wrong. It will lead to ever increasing taxes,
>bureaucracy, waste, system abuse and ultimately to budget meltdowns as
>we are seeing in CA right now.
No, we're seeing it in the entire country now. CA and NY (and MI on
another front) are simply showing us where we're all headed.
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
If one is surrounded by those who truly shape their own lives around
Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, I suppose you'd be right. Sadly, I meet
such people about as often as I find hens' teeth. Deepness of faith
is by itself NOT a sufficient measure of compassion, I'm sorry to say.
But you are right in an important way. At one time in the US (I
cannot speak to other cultures), the center of a community was the
church and communities were small enough that anonymity was almost
impossible. Over my lifetime (and I'm sure well before it), and with
the advent especially of 'free energy' discovered in fossil fuels
which enabled the successful development of profound isolation in our
communities, we've moved increasingly away from such community and
towards not even knowing our next door neighbors very well. We can do
that, because rather than being forced to ask for a cup of sugar from
a neighbor or a hand in setting up a footing in a foundation we want,
it is the fact that we can just step into our car and drive to a store
for the sugar or else hire some contractor who comes in with trucks
and power tools to lay the foundation. We don't __need__ our
neighbors and don't __have__ to deal with their crotchety ways,
anymore. And in the process, we've acquired a new sense of what I
imagine as an unhealthy isolation. No one knows what goes on in our
homes, anymore, when we close the doors. But that wasn't always the
case.
It's got advantages and disadvantages, of course. Consumption is
greatly increased when we divide ourselves into these smallest viable
units of single families living in profound isolation, which improves
the economy of course. And we don't have to learn how to deal with
the proclivities of our neighbors. But we also lose something very
very important, which are the values of a community itself where the
lives of all are lifted (or fall) together. [Also, it's very unlikely
our neighbors will 'scam' us, because in a community they will be
called to account. But we are more susceptible to scam artists when
we live in isolation... contractors hired to set that foundation may
simply rip you off and walk away, hard to find later on.]
Public schools have become the 'new' community, I suppose. It's the
one thing left, other than churches, that most people within a
geographic area are forced to share with each other. And this burdens
public schools with roles for which they aren't well equipped.
I agree. It's why I moved out to living in a small community --
population around 1000.
>> They are able to secure credit and often do, misunderstanding most of
>> what it means and completely lacking the skills to deal with issues
>> should they arise. Chances are, they won't even know to ask for help
>> UNTIL they have already gotten so deeply into trouble that the
>> solutions are far between and very difficult to manage well.
>
>Can't there be a fraud alert put on the case of people at risk, along
>the lines of "before issueing credit talk to so-and-so"?
Not that I'm aware of.
>> (For cripes sake, I'm still dealing with a minor case of credit fraud
>> in my name that took place back in 2003! And I am supposed to be
>> capable, I like to imagine at times. [T-Mobile are bastards, but
>> that's another story for another time.])
>
>IMHO the onus with credit applications should be more with the banks.
>They are way too sloppy in their due diligence. Of course Wall Street
>has a huge lobby so chances for that to happens are slim.
Business wants to sell. I mentioned T-Mobile, above. They are resale
whores and sell their services to any reseller and don't check up. The
resellers really don't care, themselves. They get paid to start a
service and get to walk away with the cash in their pockets. Much
like the secondary market for home loans, I suppose. People making
money on the sale, not on delivery of regular payments made over years
of time, and walking away from the situation and going on to other
business as fast as possible. In effect, T-Mobile set up a system
where they gave away credit to anyone and, it turns out, someone used
my name for fraud. No one ever checked the references even though I
had previously formally asked each of the three major credit rating
services in the US to set flags on my name so that NO CREDIT could be
issued in my name without my __written__ and signed permission, just
two years beforehand.
T-Mobile in particular also has a double standard they apply. While
they whore-out their services to anyone and have NO standards there,
they made it impossible for me to correct the situation by presenting
impossible barriers that I couldn't surmount in their requirements to
"prove" I wasn't the one involved. I'm still fighting this problem
after 6 years or so. It's a "we don't care, we don't have to" thing
with them.
They are bastards!
Now if I am having these troubles, can you imagine what happens to the
people I'm talking about in this dog-eat-dog world?
>> Our society does NOT fund nor does it have people providing the kinds
>> of services you are talking about. They fund the basics, mostly. And
>> that is about it. If that. And far too many of these people are
>> ignored by family (only about 15% get regular visits -- and by this, I
>> mean once a year or more often), ignored by social services, and many
>> pretty much left to live on the street. The lucky ones get by. But
>> that's about all I can say.
>
>Society can never fund this fully. We as a society must re-learn to take
>responsibility and not expect the government to handle everything. Part
>of that process is IMHO church although it probably can also be
>re-learned without it (by very few). People must learn again what
>sacrifice really means. It can and usually does lead out of your comfort
>zone, like with the down-syndrome guy we used to visit and give rides
>to. That was the easy part. The out-of-comfort-zone part was that he
>lived in a rather scary part of town where we would normally never go.
This is why we need to relearn community. I don't know where that
comes from until people "get it" on their own. Partly, this has
already started because of the high fuel costs, recently. I've seen
people here locally change their daily activities and they aren't
going back to old ways, easily. It's part of why the economy is going
to take a long time 'recovering.' But it may also have a silver
lining because people will start realizing they need community to
reduce their "higher maintenance" costs of living.
Just to make this point about attitude changes, lately... I was
heading into the local post office. As I arrived near the entry door,
a man slightly older than me was ahead and held open the door for me
as I passed. I dropped some letters into the interior slot, he went
to a P.O. box, and we both accidentally wound up in the same situation
leaving. He held open the door for me on the way out, too. Because
of this accidental coincidence, he smiled and said, "I guess we all
have to start helping each other out more, don't you think?"
I don't think someone would have said it just quite like that, some
years back. They might have just laughed it off or said something
else. But this was truly unusual. It embodied something we'd
forgotten over the years and remarked, as well, upon the fact that we
all need to help each other more.
I think this consciousness is growing.
That, too. I can tell stories of abuse by family members that would
curl hair.
DD people are trapped between the horns of a dilemma. Often, there is
abuse within the family unit. (So much so, in fact, that people
providing services almost come to expect it when it isn't happening
and become deeply suspicious of any family member who seems to
actually _want_ to take care of their own.) That's a real problem.
Yet, also, as you admit above, society cannot afford the costs,
either. And left to rot within social systems that are inadequate,
they are harmed on that side, as well. If they bite someone, the
solution is to pull out all their teeth, for example. And they often
just die in their 30's, records aren't kept by the state but only by
the homes they stay in with no requirements to keep that
documentation, etc. And care givers turn over rates here in Oregon
are around 300%.
The only solution I see that works to the advantage of all is to form
community. Forcing a state system to pay for individual care that is
designed from the ground up as "person-centered" will always cost the
most, if "done right." They know this and they know they can't
actually pay for it, either. So they work to cover over problems. On
the other hand, within a closer knit community where external costs
(those that leave the community) are far less, the 'burden' of
providing services is much less, as well. And better, besides. And
disabilities can actually become something that provides a center of
meaning to that community.
Let me tell you about here. Many people in my area love horses. But
they are VERY expensive, these days. The lady across the street from
me has one that she pays $400/mo to board. She sees her horse many
times a week, but it remains occasional not constant. Her husband
doesn't like the cost, but accepts it. This is a horse community and
this situation is multiplied by hundreds, if not a thousand times.
I'm going to depart this story for a moment, then come back to it....
I had started a newsletter called Rain Kids many years ago. My first
issue was 400 that I printed myself and distributed to any parents who
wanted it. It was intended to be a gadfly, to make a little fun out
of otherwise sometimes difficult situations and to poke at parents, at
teachers, at society. It was well received and I started getting
calls from many, many people I had no idea who they were and I got to
know many families over time, as a result.
One mother called me, one day. She told me about all the things she
was doing... vitamin therapy, homeopathy, sign language lessons,
Berard sound therapy, and ... well, she was a soccer mom regarding her
autistic boy. At the end of the conversation she said, "After 5 years
now, I'm still cleaning feces off the wall. When is this going to
end?"
I didn't know what to say. I was going though much of the same issues
with my daughter, who is profoundly autistic. But I didn't feel the
same way. I ended the call without really knowing what to say and I
sat there afterwards, asking myself why I didn't feel like asking
"when is this going to end?"
I sat there thinking and wondering why I felt different. Then it hit
me. I wasn't trying to "fix my broken child." I accepted her fully
and embraced her as a complete and whole person. Yes, a Martian of
sorts. Different. But whole and someone deserving a relationship.
Not someone to be repaired and changed. I accepted her and loved her
for who she actually was, not for something I wished she'd become.
When you do things, like picking up clothes on the floor or cleaning
feces off the wall, it is admittedly work you might wish otherwise
about. But when you do that for someone you love and accept, it isn't
that hard on you. But when you are forced to do that for someone you
don't like, don't accept, and ultimately don't really love, then the
whole thing grates on you each and every day and it becomes an almost
constant pain. A mental pain that becomes unbearable in the end.
By their very attitude, they are rejecting their own children as
broken and they never permit a healthy relationship to develop.
So I started thinking sneaky about how to get parents and care givers
and teachers and their aides to embrace and accept these children (and
now, I'm working on the adult side of the equation) as whole people.
We (my wife and I) lit upon the idea of riding horses. What we
started doing was to go to a large horse farm and rent ALL of their
horses for an afternoon. We'd pay the entire bill ourselves and
invite everyone. We'd sit their kids onto the horses in a covered
indoor riding arena to make sure they felt comfortable (and do the
same for the care givers, aides, teachers and parents alike) and then
we'd ask if they'd like to walk the trails. We'd get everyone out
there having fun.
When you are doing something you like, for yourself not just
vicariously, and doing it with others who are also enjoying themselves
then a bond forms. It's almost like magic. It is invisible but it is
there, all the same. I wanted to get these parents to embrace their
children, to accept them as whole people. And the means I used was
horse riding. Because almost everyone loves that for themselves, not
just for others. And it is quiet, peaceful and wonderful experience
that takes (and gives) time to all.
Sharing this time helped. It helped parents to see their own children
as someone who "got them into something fun" and as someone who could
give to them as well as take from them. Bonds formed. Just a little
at first. But gradually a lot over time. And it helped some parents
make the decision to keep their children instead of shuttling them off
to a dispassioned 3rd party state system. And, I like to imagine, it
may have also helped some not see the day in and day out work they
have to do as being for someone they embrace and accept, not reject,
which makes it easier to do no doubt.
Now bring all this back to my community here of horse people and high
boarding costs. Suppose we incorporate horse riding, acceptance and
love and fun, for disabilities into what everyone here is already
doing -- maintaining their expensive horses and being with them only
once in a while. If we include disabilities horse riding, it helps to
justify the costs of the horses (which pleases some husbands paying
the bills a bit) as well as using them more continually. And also,
the state could help defray _some_ of the costs here, without having
to dig a hole in the gov't budget. In fact, because everyone sees
themselves more as part of this community those with disabilities get
out more, meet people and live better lives themselves, while also
providing a center about which a community finds meaning and wants to
continue helping with. The state winds up paying less for more, too.
...
I earlier mentioned that the state knows it cannot do a proper job and
tries to cover up. I know this as a fact. In my state in and around
1989 and 1990, I attended a 15-member governor-appointed commission
with a charter to deal with the newly passed PL 99-457 (the early
intervention bill that required public schools to extend services to
children with disabilities to ages below 'school age'.) Two members
were the head of the department of education in my state, Karen
Brazeau, and a guy from the department of mental health whose name I
can't remember right now. Karen headed the meetings as chair.
After a year and a half (I attended every meeting), I got my copy of
the final report to the legislature. On the first page were 6 bullet
points. The 6th one was "Direct Services, as necessary." The other 5
were about "case loading" changes. I went through the thick report
quickly and couldn't find anything in it about these direct services
but I did find a whole lot about all the case loading changes
required.
So I went up to Karen after the meeting and asked, "Where are the
direct services, here?"
She said, "Hmm?"
I said, "Well, I mean, where does this report talk about the direct
service changes you expect?"
She replied, "What do you want to know?"
I said, "Well, there are 36 counties in the state. Surely, you must
have information about the identified needs in each and have projected
these for a few years in order to come up with these loading figures."
She said, "No, we don't have that information."
After a little more checking and finding out that she really meant
that and that they hadn't even bothered to try, I said,
"Karen. The direct services are the ONLY reason there is any need at
all for case management. Without direct services, there is no need
for anyone at all. Your report goes into intimate detail about the
case loading and management of prospective services and now you tell
me that you don't have ANY IDEA at all what those direct services
might be in the 36 counties in the state. There is no point to all of
this. Basically, you've ponied up a perception about you are going to
deliver direct services without knowing anything about those direct
services or how you will actually deliver them, on the ground. Is
that about right?"
She turned angrily away and left, without saying a word more to me.
I'd been there through all of it. I knew why. She knew why, too.
They had actually done an early educated guess and come up with
numbers that were huge. More than 100 million dollars per biennium --
in our state, that's a lot. They had talked with some legislators and
realized (were told) there was no way that was happening. The
questions from legislators become, "What happens if we don't do it?"
The answer in our state was a penalty under USC 10-20 (PL 92-142 from
1970) that would cost the state in shared regular education funds to
the tune of 7 million per biennium. Well, gee. That was a no brainer
for the legislature. "Let's just not do it," was the common response.
Oregon was planning to be the only state other than Mississippi in
announcing that they wouldn't conform and would take the hit.
The staff folks knew this was a political mess. There was no way
they'd get anywhere near the kind of money the expected. So they
started asking the legislators, "What kind of figure can we manage?"
Well, after some time (and I was involved a little here), the figure
of "worst-case $30 million" came up as negotiable. In other words, if
the staff (and this committee report) could support (falsely) that the
state could "do the job" for $30 million or less, then it might pass
through the committees. Anything more, no way.
So that's what they did. The direct services needed by individuals in
the state were ultimately irrelevant. So that's way Karen and others
didn't spend the necessary time here trying to go around the state and
collect data, make projections, etc. Everyone already knew that they
wouldn't get enough, anyway. It was just a matter of coming up with a
negotiated figure that the legislature could pass and not about
actually caring in the end about delivery.
That's the reality.
>> Mostly, all this is my attempt to point out that there are some folks
>> out there who really do want to live nothing more than a very modest
>> life and would never consider the idea of not paying their bills. Your
>> earlier comment, "Anyone who accepts whatever phantasy rate they
>> charge might have no real intention to pay their debt in the first
>> place" caused me to bristle a little. But I know because of what else
>> you've said months and years back, that this was more out of ignorance
>> about those who I work with far more regularly than you do, I suspect.
>
>Yes, clearly my comment does not include people who aren't mentally
>competent to make such judgement. In those cases the onus should
>squarely be with the banks as I said above. Our banking system is way
>too lax with credit and this is the root cause of the current economic
>situation. If a person has mental issues then he or she will most likely
>be on a fairly fixed income. That alone should be a sign to be cautious
>with credit but unfortunately banks don't care.
>
>But: I bet that 95% or more folks are fully competent mentally, enough
>to realize that "just putting it on a charge" as many say or "buy now
>and pay in 2015" will cause backlash. It does not take an IQ of 100 to
>understand that. Pretty much all the people I know who got themselves
>into a financial pickle were fully competent in that matter, they
>ploughed into that situation with their eyes wide open. If the person
>has a mental disability that is another story.
I've always enjoyed your view on these things. They are well-centered
I think and I wish there were more like you. Thanks for sharing.
Jon
Joerg
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:32:49 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Jon Kirwan wrote:
[...]
>>> The usual case has people like my son 'forced into the wild' so to
>>> speak and having to struggle without even the basic skills needed to
>>> survive on their own. The bulk of the developmental disabilities
>>> curve works like that -- it is how the system is set up. To some
>>> terrible and very sad results, many times.
>> There need to be people out there in the wild who have compassion. In
>> some areas you'd find a whole lot more of them than in others. People
>> might call me biased and in this respect I probably am but I believe
>> that the deeper the religious faith of the local population is the more
>> likely it is that he'll find that compassionate help. Meaning without
>> any pay or expectations. In a big city you can usually forget it.
>
> If one is surrounded by those who truly shape their own lives around
> Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, I suppose you'd be right. Sadly, I meet
> such people about as often as I find hens' teeth. ...
Then you either live in the wrong community or aren't plugged into a
congregation. Out here I've seen that almost ten times as much as during
my whole time in Europe. Somebody gets very sick, people know stuff
needs to be taken care of, they don't call, they just show up.
> ... Deepness of faith
> is by itself NOT a sufficient measure of compassion, I'm sorry to say.
>
True, that isn't a guarantee. But the chances are much higher. Anybody
who didn't get the story of the Samaritan should really go to bible
class, and soon.
> But you are right in an important way. At one time in the US (I
> cannot speak to other cultures), the center of a community was the
> church and communities were small enough that anonymity was almost
> impossible. Over my lifetime (and I'm sure well before it), and with
> the advent especially of 'free energy' discovered in fossil fuels
> which enabled the successful development of profound isolation in our
> communities, we've moved increasingly away from such community and
> towards not even knowing our next door neighbors very well. We can do
> that, because rather than being forced to ask for a cup of sugar from
> a neighbor or a hand in setting up a footing in a foundation we want,
> it is the fact that we can just step into our car and drive to a store
> for the sugar or else hire some contractor who comes in with trucks
> and power tools to lay the foundation. We don't __need__ our
> neighbors and don't __have__ to deal with their crotchety ways,
> anymore. And in the process, we've acquired a new sense of what I
> imagine as an unhealthy isolation. No one knows what goes on in our
> homes, anymore, when we close the doors. But that wasn't always the
> case.
>
Out here it really isn't that way. People check in on each other. Some
(very few) don't want that and this is respected. When my wife broke her
arm and my back had gone out at the same time a neighbor from about five
houses down the road showed up, with a big pot of delicious stew.
> It's got advantages and disadvantages, of course. Consumption is
> greatly increased when we divide ourselves into these smallest viable
> units of single families living in profound isolation, which improves
> the economy of course. And we don't have to learn how to deal with
> the proclivities of our neighbors. But we also lose something very
> very important, which are the values of a community itself where the
> lives of all are lifted (or fall) together. [Also, it's very unlikely
> our neighbors will 'scam' us, because in a community they will be
> called to account. But we are more susceptible to scam artists when
> we live in isolation... contractors hired to set that foundation may
> simply rip you off and walk away, hard to find later on.]
>
> Public schools have become the 'new' community, I suppose. It's the
> one thing left, other than churches, that most people within a
> geographic area are forced to share with each other. And this burdens
> public schools with roles for which they aren't well equipped.
>
Schools are being dumped upon from two side. Parents who think that
schools take care of education so they don't have to, and states that
put tons of categoricals and mandates in place. So, many of our friends
home-school their kids in groups, one of the old-time freedoms that
haven't been taken away (yet).
But honestly ask yourself: Do you know the dozen or so neighbor families
around you? With their problems and all? If you and your wife would be
T-boned by a huge truck tomorrow would they show up at your door and be
there for you?
This would probably be the time for a little lawsuit. I am not an
advocate of lawsuits but sometimes gross negligence needs to be brought
to the bench. And maybe also into the media. Especially the latter can
really shake up some corporate big shots, they don't want that kind of
PR. Out here we drop a line to "Kurtis" at KOVR. That has VP's shaking
in their boots because then the case will be on TV, and soon.
> They are bastards!
>
> Now if I am having these troubles, can you imagine what happens to the
> people I'm talking about in this dog-eat-dog world?
>
Yes, that's why they need others who help them.
And that's not a bad thing at all. It brings some of the old American
values back to the people.
Our friend with down syndrome (pretty hardcore case) has also passed
away half a year ago. But he made it to 63. Folks at the local hospital
considered that a miracle, and maybe it was.
> The only solution I see that works to the advantage of all is to form
> community. Forcing a state system to pay for individual care that is
> designed from the ground up as "person-centered" will always cost the
> most, if "done right." They know this and they know they can't
> actually pay for it, either. So they work to cover over problems. On
> the other hand, within a closer knit community where external costs
> (those that leave the community) are far less, the 'burden' of
> providing services is much less, as well. And better, besides. And
> disabilities can actually become something that provides a center of
> meaning to that community.
>
It sure does. In our church everybody knew who Georgie was.
Yes, and you see that again when someone gets old, frail, can't hold it
anymore etc. Then they are often seen as a "problem" and not so much as
a person.
> So I started thinking sneaky about how to get parents and care givers
> and teachers and their aides to embrace and accept these children (and
> now, I'm working on the adult side of the equation) as whole people.
> We (my wife and I) lit upon the idea of riding horses. What we
> started doing was to go to a large horse farm and rent ALL of their
> horses for an afternoon. We'd pay the entire bill ourselves and
> invite everyone. We'd sit their kids onto the horses in a covered
> indoor riding arena to make sure they felt comfortable (and do the
> same for the care givers, aides, teachers and parents alike) and then
> we'd ask if they'd like to walk the trails. We'd get everyone out
> there having fun.
>
That is very nice of you. This is the stuff that builds a community and
it doesn't matter whether you just moved there, what your ethnic
background is, or whatever. It shows others what can be done. The most
common excuse I hear is "Oh, but I don't know anyone" and our answer is
often "Well, then let's do something about that".
Sad, but that is politics and typical bureaucrat behavior. Trying to get
a certain result with the least amnount of change because change is
often considered a bad thing. To be fair, there are a few exceptions,
very few.
>>> Mostly, all this is my attempt to point out that there are some folks
>>> out there who really do want to live nothing more than a very modest
>>> life and would never consider the idea of not paying their bills. Your
>>> earlier comment, "Anyone who accepts whatever phantasy rate they
>>> charge might have no real intention to pay their debt in the first
>>> place" caused me to bristle a little. But I know because of what else
>>> you've said months and years back, that this was more out of ignorance
>>> about those who I work with far more regularly than you do, I suspect.
>> Yes, clearly my comment does not include people who aren't mentally
>> competent to make such judgement. In those cases the onus should
>> squarely be with the banks as I said above. Our banking system is way
>> too lax with credit and this is the root cause of the current economic
>> situation. If a person has mental issues then he or she will most likely
>> be on a fairly fixed income. That alone should be a sign to be cautious
>> with credit but unfortunately banks don't care.
>>
>> But: I bet that 95% or more folks are fully competent mentally, enough
>> to realize that "just putting it on a charge" as many say or "buy now
>> and pay in 2015" will cause backlash. It does not take an IQ of 100 to
>> understand that. Pretty much all the people I know who got themselves
>> into a financial pickle were fully competent in that matter, they
>> ploughed into that situation with their eyes wide open. If the person
>> has a mental disability that is another story.
>
> I've always enjoyed your view on these things. They are well-centered
> I think and I wish there were more like you. Thanks for sharing.
>
Thanks for sharing yours, I always learn something new.
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
I've been involved in the disabilities communities for a long time,
J�rg. It's not comprehensive, of course. But it is a lot. And much
of it is with churches and their laity. There are far too many people
within these communities who are suffering terribly without much
support at all. A couple of years ago, after attending a Catholic
retreat one summer week where families of disabilities were the focus
(it was a wonderful experience, J�rg, and I don't mean to say anything
bad about these sporadic events.. but they are sporadic and don't
really help that much with chronic situations in the longer term), I
had been thinking over my experiences talking with one family from
Roseburg attending it. Over the weekend, I came to realize just how
little support they needed and how much these two parents were falsely
blaming each other for little things when the real issues were very
real and putting stresses on them they didn't really understand all
that well and wound up beating up on each other instead of realizing
they needed just a little more support from their Catholic community.
So on Monday, I called one of the upper level people in the diocese
whom I respected a great deal (she is an x-nun, sings and plays
guitar, and is a wonderful human in almost every respect I've been
exposed to) and "let her have it." I practically read her the Sermon
and all she could do is say "Oh, Jon. I know." with a sad lilt in her
voice. I told her there is no excuse.. none. And the Sermon says
that even the hypocrites serve their own, that this should be
something they do OUTSIDE their community and NOT in plain view (as
then you are already paid in this world and have no reward waiting in
the next.)
Even religious communities don't engage well enough for their own, let
alone others, J�rg. Not in my experience.
>> But you are right in an important way. At one time in the US (I
>> cannot speak to other cultures), the center of a community was the
>> church and communities were small enough that anonymity was almost
>> impossible. Over my lifetime (and I'm sure well before it), and with
>> the advent especially of 'free energy' discovered in fossil fuels
>> which enabled the successful development of profound isolation in our
>> communities, we've moved increasingly away from such community and
>> towards not even knowing our next door neighbors very well. We can do
>> that, because rather than being forced to ask for a cup of sugar from
>> a neighbor or a hand in setting up a footing in a foundation we want,
>> it is the fact that we can just step into our car and drive to a store
>> for the sugar or else hire some contractor who comes in with trucks
>> and power tools to lay the foundation. We don't __need__ our
>> neighbors and don't __have__ to deal with their crotchety ways,
>> anymore. And in the process, we've acquired a new sense of what I
>> imagine as an unhealthy isolation. No one knows what goes on in our
>> homes, anymore, when we close the doors. But that wasn't always the
>> case.
>
>Out here it really isn't that way. People check in on each other. Some
>(very few) don't want that and this is respected. When my wife broke her
>arm and my back had gone out at the same time a neighbor from about five
>houses down the road showed up, with a big pot of delicious stew.
Probably much the same around here.
>> It's got advantages and disadvantages, of course. Consumption is
>> greatly increased when we divide ourselves into these smallest viable
>> units of single families living in profound isolation, which improves
>> the economy of course. And we don't have to learn how to deal with
>> the proclivities of our neighbors. But we also lose something very
>> very important, which are the values of a community itself where the
>> lives of all are lifted (or fall) together. [Also, it's very unlikely
>> our neighbors will 'scam' us, because in a community they will be
>> called to account. But we are more susceptible to scam artists when
>> we live in isolation... contractors hired to set that foundation may
>> simply rip you off and walk away, hard to find later on.]
>>
>> Public schools have become the 'new' community, I suppose. It's the
>> one thing left, other than churches, that most people within a
>> geographic area are forced to share with each other. And this burdens
>> public schools with roles for which they aren't well equipped.
>
>Schools are being dumped upon from two side. Parents who think that
>schools take care of education so they don't have to, and states that
>put tons of categoricals and mandates in place. So, many of our friends
>home-school their kids in groups, one of the old-time freedoms that
>haven't been taken away (yet).
The main thing is involvement, I think, regardless of whether the
inspiration comes from religious belief or from other sources. It's
just important that communities develop healthily. Period.
Yes.
>With their problems and all?
Some of them! ;) I'm sure I'm not privy to everything!
>If you and your wife would be
>T-boned by a huge truck tomorrow would they show up at your door and be
>there for you?
Some would, yes. At least two I know of. But we are in the process
right now of developing a tighter community. I need to work out the
details of people leaving and taking earned or included resources in
the process, but that solution isn't impossible. I will need to
'create a market' for the stock, is all. The key is not to destroy a
community when a few find a need to pull resources out of it for
important reasons they must follow. But it is doable. The first few
years will be critical.
Hehe.
>> They are bastards!
>>
>> Now if I am having these troubles, can you imagine what happens to the
>> people I'm talking about in this dog-eat-dog world?
>
>Yes, that's why they need others who help them.
The need for something does not necessarily make it happen, though.
Need is one thing, provision another.
Short note. Last summer I was in need of an attorney who was familiar
with the 1990 ADA and the recent modifications passed about a year or
two ago. Someone to represent my adult daughter (I'm her legal
guardian.) I spent a full 40 hour week doing nothing but looking for
such an attorney. One of the attorneys I talked with even suggested I
call his mother (which I did) because she was politically involved.
Before and after this week, I also called many of our state
legislators and their aides looking for advice and help in finding
such a person. (I remember a two hour conversation I had out on the
deck under the trees here with one.) I even affected some legislation
on two points I made in these conversations (an aide who was working
on it told me one afternoon that she'd include these two in the next
draft bill, which she did the very next day in fact.)
None of this resulted in my finding one. Because of advice during the
course of all of this, I even called DRO (Disability Rights Oregon)
and had them go through a process to see if they'd be willing to
represent us. (They are a mandated, fed-funded attorney organization
that specializes in this area. But because of low funding levels,
they cannot afford to take on personal cases but only those class
action ones that may have very broad effect.) They weren't able to
help. So back around the circle I went. In the end, two legislators
insisted that I use their name and call DRO again. So I did. I got a
call from their executive director on a Sunday. He asked about what I
was looking for and then said, "Jon, have you considered the idea that
what you are looking for simply doesn't exist?"
There are many attorneys, whole firms in fact, specializing in elder
care law. Because there is money there. But in disabilities, there
is no money. Everyone is poor (close enough to the real situation
that this approximation does well in a pinch) and there is no money to
be made specializing in this field. To ask an attorney to put serious
time into this field is to ask them to live a spartan life. It just
doesn't happen. The only attorneys specializing in this area are
working for the state, not for people like me.
There is a strong need, J�rg. I know that is so, because of my own
circumstance. Besides, I could pay, too. But my need (and the need
of many others most of whom cannot pay much, if at all) doesn't create
a market for the product if people cannot pay the price for it.
I hope to see more.
Some make it. Some don't. There are two interesting reports on this
subject, one from Minnesota (a governor's report) and one here in
Oregon both of which were released within about 6 months of each other
(the Oregon one was early 2008.) In each, the statistics of lifespan
were 25 years less than the norm. Both reports spent the effort to
remove the influence of medical problems and stated that the residual
25 year difference was due to differences in access to care.
In any group, there are outliers. But these two reports are
consistent with another one that came out of the US Surgeon General's
office in 2001. I spoke with one of the authors of that report who
works at the University of Washington now and got an earful. Fact is,
the situation in the US is in a horrible state of affairs. That's the
broader picture.
>> The only solution I see that works to the advantage of all is to form
>> community. Forcing a state system to pay for individual care that is
>> designed from the ground up as "person-centered" will always cost the
>> most, if "done right." They know this and they know they can't
>> actually pay for it, either. So they work to cover over problems. On
>> the other hand, within a closer knit community where external costs
>> (those that leave the community) are far less, the 'burden' of
>> providing services is much less, as well. And better, besides. And
>> disabilities can actually become something that provides a center of
>> meaning to that community.
>
>It sure does. In our church everybody knew who Georgie was.
I really love seeing such things, too. It brings tears to me because
I know just how much this means not only to those with disabilities
but also to the larger community too and yet how little it takes from
a community. It is a message that gets lost, too often, in all the
other pressures everyone seems to feel, though. We need more leaders
who can keep this kind of thing on the front burner.
That's true enough. The thing is, there are enough elder folks who
keep their minds and some energy who do keep this on the front burner
for all. It's a constant voice. Lots of things still slip through
the cracks (I just recently did hospice care here in my home and have
many stories there.) But the fact remains that there is money in
elder care and people willing to provide services and a voice to this
group. In contrast, there is no money in disabilities and little by
way of voice (and no attorneys to help, as mentioned above, in my
state.)
>> So I started thinking sneaky about how to get parents and care givers
>> and teachers and their aides to embrace and accept these children (and
>> now, I'm working on the adult side of the equation) as whole people.
>> We (my wife and I) lit upon the idea of riding horses. What we
>> started doing was to go to a large horse farm and rent ALL of their
>> horses for an afternoon. We'd pay the entire bill ourselves and
>> invite everyone. We'd sit their kids onto the horses in a covered
>> indoor riding arena to make sure they felt comfortable (and do the
>> same for the care givers, aides, teachers and parents alike) and then
>> we'd ask if they'd like to walk the trails. We'd get everyone out
>> there having fun.
>
>That is very nice of you. This is the stuff that builds a community and
>it doesn't matter whether you just moved there, what your ethnic
>background is, or whatever. It shows others what can be done. The most
>common excuse I hear is "Oh, but I don't know anyone" and our answer is
>often "Well, then let's do something about that".
Yes.
These staff jobs, by the way, pay more than the governor of the state
gets paid. They play musical chairs and work hard to keep their high
paid jobs. The power really rests more with them than with the term
limited legislators and governor.
:)
Jon
AwlSome Auger
wrote:
>
>>>> Jon Kirwan wrote:
>>
Jeez, learn to snip, ya friggin retards!
JosephKK
Agreed, i am replacing it. Or maybe not. I have a handful already.
JosephKK
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
That reminds me; a couple years back i bought a vehicle "cash". Both
i and the seller went to the local grocery store mini-branch, and i
wrote a check for over $4000 cash. Paid the previous owner, received
the signed over title, and nobody blinked. The vehicle still runs
real well.
Jim Thompson
Nine years ago, when I bought the Frontier Pick-up (new car
dealership), I simply wrote a check for the full price. They had a
cow, wanted my S-S number, etc. I refused (I had all kinds of ID, and
the check was drawn on a local bank). They finally relented when I
announced, "Fuck it, I'll buy elsewhere."
Joerg
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:05:55 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Jon Kirwan wrote:
[...]
>> Then you either live in the wrong community or aren't plugged into a
>> congregation. Out here I've seen that almost ten times as much as during
>> my whole time in Europe. Somebody gets very sick, people know stuff
>> needs to be taken care of, they don't call, they just show up.
>>
>>> ... Deepness of faith
>>> is by itself NOT a sufficient measure of compassion, I'm sorry to say.
>> True, that isn't a guarantee. But the chances are much higher. Anybody
>> who didn't get the story of the Samaritan should really go to bible
>> class, and soon.
>
> I've been involved in the disabilities communities for a long time,
> J�rg. It's not comprehensive, of course. But it is a lot. And much
> of it is with churches and their laity. There are far too many people
> within these communities who are suffering terribly without much
> support at all. ...
That can happen when congregations become too large. But there are also
folks who absolutely do not want help because self-reliance has been way
too much ingrained in them since childhood.
> ... A couple of years ago, after attending a Catholic
> retreat one summer week where families of disabilities were the focus
> (it was a wonderful experience, J�rg, and I don't mean to say anything
> bad about these sporadic events.. but they are sporadic and don't
> really help that much with chronic situations in the longer term), I
> had been thinking over my experiences talking with one family from
> Roseburg attending it. Over the weekend, I came to realize just how
> little support they needed and how much these two parents were falsely
> blaming each other for little things when the real issues were very
> real and putting stresses on them they didn't really understand all
> that well and wound up beating up on each other instead of realizing
> they needed just a little more support from their Catholic community.
> So on Monday, I called one of the upper level people in the diocese
> whom I respected a great deal (she is an x-nun, sings and plays
> guitar, and is a wonderful human in almost every respect I've been
> exposed to) and "let her have it." I practically read her the Sermon
> and all she could do is say "Oh, Jon. I know." with a sad lilt in her
> voice. I told her there is no excuse.. none. And the Sermon says
> that even the hypocrites serve their own, that this should be
> something they do OUTSIDE their community and NOT in plain view (as
> then you are already paid in this world and have no reward waiting in
> the next.)
>
Yes, that's what the bible says, do things quietly without anyone seeing
it and lauding you. This is why I was always pushing to bring our lay
caregiving program out into the community, to non-congregants, and we
did. Nobody other than the coordinator knows which care receivers we
have, not even our spouses.
> Even religious communities don't engage well enough for their own, let
> alone others, J�rg. Not in my experience.
>
Try a smaller congregation. But they aren't perfect either, nobody is.
[...]
>>> Public schools have become the 'new' community, I suppose. It's the
>>> one thing left, other than churches, that most people within a
>>> geographic area are forced to share with each other. And this burdens
>>> public schools with roles for which they aren't well equipped.
>> Schools are being dumped upon from two side. Parents who think that
>> schools take care of education so they don't have to, and states that
>> put tons of categoricals and mandates in place. So, many of our friends
>> home-school their kids in groups, one of the old-time freedoms that
>> haven't been taken away (yet).
>
> The main thing is involvement, I think, regardless of whether the
> inspiration comes from religious belief or from other sources. It's
> just important that communities develop healthily. Period.
>
Right, it doesn't have to be within a church. It's just that a lot of
outreach does originate there, at least in this area. For example we man
and run a large chunk of the food closet here. And if they become cash
strapped which happens a lot in this economy right now we announce that
and hold a basket at the end of the service. Which fills up quite quickly.
[...]
>> But honestly ask yourself: Do you know the dozen or so neighbor families
>> around you?
>
> Yes.
>
Very good. I remember when we wanted to visit a CNN reporter north of
S.F., she wasn't home yet and her neighbor didn't even know who lived
next to them.
>> With their problems and all?
>
> Some of them! ;) I'm sure I'm not privy to everything!
>
>> If you and your wife would be
>> T-boned by a huge truck tomorrow would they show up at your door and be
>> there for you?
>
> Some would, yes. At least two I know of. But we are in the process
> right now of developing a tighter community. I need to work out the
> details of people leaving and taking earned or included resources in
> the process, but that solution isn't impossible. I will need to
> 'create a market' for the stock, is all. The key is not to destroy a
> community when a few find a need to pull resources out of it for
> important reasons they must follow. But it is doable. The first few
> years will be critical.
>
Yes, it has to be a fair give and take. Without boasting among
participants because that would quickly destroy morale within this group.
[...]
That is a situation you find a lot. For example in the care for
wildlife, where you end up doing much of it yourself, donate, become a
member and so on. Because there is no well-heeled constituency.
However, in the US we have a few very important tools many other
countries (like much of Europe) do not have: Direct access to our
political representatives. I know, because I've used that on behalf of
others and was amazed how much reaction I got. Then we have FOIA which
works very well (used it, too). Then the media which are a whole lot
more aggressive here than anywhere I've lived, once you get them
interested in your case. IOW our civic toolset is excellent compared to
most parts of the world.
[...]
>>> I don't think someone would have said it just quite like that, some
>>> years back. They might have just laughed it off or said something
>>> else. But this was truly unusual. It embodied something we'd
>>> forgotten over the years and remarked, as well, upon the fact that we
>>> all need to help each other more.
>>>
>>> I think this consciousness is growing.
>> And that's not a bad thing at all. It brings some of the old American
>> values back to the people.
>
> I hope to see more.
>
If there's more people like you and me we can make that happen, at least
on a local level.
[...]
>> Our friend with down syndrome (pretty hardcore case) has also passed
>> away half a year ago. But he made it to 63. Folks at the local hospital
>> considered that a miracle, and maybe it was.
>
> Some make it. Some don't. There are two interesting reports on this
> subject, one from Minnesota (a governor's report) and one here in
> Oregon both of which were released within about 6 months of each other
> (the Oregon one was early 2008.) In each, the statistics of lifespan
> were 25 years less than the norm. Both reports spent the effort to
> remove the influence of medical problems and stated that the residual
> 25 year difference was due to differences in access to care.
>
> In any group, there are outliers. But these two reports are
> consistent with another one that came out of the US Surgeon General's
> office in 2001. I spoke with one of the authors of that report who
> works at the University of Washington now and got an earful. Fact is,
> the situation in the US is in a horrible state of affairs. That's the
> broader picture.
>
Not sure if other countries fare better. In some they are quickly
institutionalized and I don't feel very positive about that. Yeah, you
can stretch the average mortality age that way because of continuous
monitoring, but what is done to that persons quality of life?
We can't change the fact that down syndrome does things to the body that
can lead to serious complications. Our friend also was in the hospital a
lot but I guess he was more lucky than others in that they were always
able to fix it. Until pneumonia set in last time :-(
>>> The only solution I see that works to the advantage of all is to form
>>> community. Forcing a state system to pay for individual care that is
>>> designed from the ground up as "person-centered" will always cost the
>>> most, if "done right." They know this and they know they can't
>>> actually pay for it, either. So they work to cover over problems. On
>>> the other hand, within a closer knit community where external costs
>>> (those that leave the community) are far less, the 'burden' of
>>> providing services is much less, as well. And better, besides. And
>>> disabilities can actually become something that provides a center of
>>> meaning to that community.
>> It sure does. In our church everybody knew who Georgie was.
>
> I really love seeing such things, too. It brings tears to me because
> I know just how much this means not only to those with disabilities
> but also to the larger community too and yet how little it takes from
> a community. It is a message that gets lost, too often, in all the
> other pressures everyone seems to feel, though. We need more leaders
> who can keep this kind of thing on the front burner.
>
I don't count much on leaders there. It's each individual who has to
decide to help. As you said, it really doesn't take much. Providing a
ride here and there, going to the store, a small surprise birthday
present, things we do anyways where it just takes a little extra time.
[...]
Elders have AARP, and often money. With disabilities you can often only
try to find someone who is willing to do some pro-bono work. Which may
be possible because engineers do that as well and like attorneys, they
are just normal human (at least we tend to think so ...). Like when we
revamped the whole audio system at church, other than some materials it
didn't cost the congregation anything.
[...]
>>> So that's what they did. The direct services needed by individuals in
>>> the state were ultimately irrelevant. So that's way Karen and others
>>> didn't spend the necessary time here trying to go around the state and
>>> collect data, make projections, etc. Everyone already knew that they
>>> wouldn't get enough, anyway. It was just a matter of coming up with a
>>> negotiated figure that the legislature could pass and not about
>>> actually caring in the end about delivery.
>>>
>>> That's the reality.
>> Sad, but that is politics and typical bureaucrat behavior. Trying to get
>> a certain result with the least amnount of change because change is
>> often considered a bad thing. To be fair, there are a few exceptions,
>> very few.
>
> These staff jobs, by the way, pay more than the governor of the state
> gets paid. They play musical chairs and work hard to keep their high
> paid jobs. The power really rests more with them than with the term
> limited legislators and governor.
>
Same in CA. Plum jobs are doled out left and right while the state has
no budget, paying six figures just for sitting through a few meetings.
This has eroded the trust of taxpayers so much that they (finally!) said
enough is enough and voted down all tax increase measures by huge
margins. Which was IMHO a good thing.
[...]
Charlie E.
"JosephKK"<quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That would make it one of my 'former' cards, immediately!
Charlie
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:45:22 -0700,
>"JosephKK"<quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:44:14 -0700, Robert Baer
>><rober...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>>> Get a card with NO annual fee and ignore the interest rate which one
>>>can make meaningless by paying the balance due (or more) each and every
>>>month.
>>
>>One of my cards just eliminated the "grace period". They now charge
>>interest from date of purchase until payment clears.
>
>That would make it one of my 'former' cards, immediately!
>
>Charlie
Heard of it. Haven't seen it yet on any of my (few) cards. But
you've spooked me enough that I'm watching the interest box for
anything to show up.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Bill Clinton also had a Stimulus Package. Her name was Monica.