GOP Blocks Freeze On Credit Card Interest Rate Hikes
Jim_Higgins
GOP Blocks Freeze On Credit Card Interest Rate Hikes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/gop-blocks-freeze-on-cred_n_362787.html
Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic effort Wednesday to immediately
freeze increases in credit card interest rates, fees and finance charges.
Shortly after Democrats passed credit card reform legislation in May,
the card companies began jacking up rates in advance of its
implementation. Major parts of the act won't take effect until February
and August of 2010.
Earlier this month, to combat the rate hikes, the House passed
legislation to move the effective date up to December 1st. The Senate
moves much more slowly and the credit card industry has been arguing
that it can't practically get its act together to implement the reforms
that quickly.
Okay, said Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who sponsored the original bill
that passed 90-5. Instead of implementing the entire basket of reforms,
Dodd proposed instead simply freezing interest rate and fee hikes in
advance of the holidays. Surely, he said, that's not too difficult to
implement.
"We worked long and hard to enact the safeguards included in the Credit
CARD Act," said Dodd. "And no sooner had it been signed into law, but
credit card companies were looking for ways to get around the
protections this Congress and the American people demanded. This bill
would end those abuses and further protect customers today."
The Senate schedule is packed with nominations, health care and
appropriations bills, leaving no time for a prolonged floor fight over
credit cards.
The only way Democrats could pass the bill in time for the holidays
would be with the support of the GOP -- all but five of which voted for
it initially.
Dodd, on Wednesday afternoon, asked for unanimous consent to move the
bill forward.
"On behalf of several senators on this side of the aisle, I object,"
said Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). And that's the end of it.
The Senate moved on to a tribute to the service of Sen. Robert Byrd
(D-W.Va.), who became the longest-serving senator in the history of the
institution Wednesday.
WATCH:
VIDEO
Evelyn
"Jim_Higgins" <gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:he256i$2td$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It is absolutely unbelievable! Screwing the public over like this is
unconscionable!
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Maude Burch
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:57:54 -0800, Jim_Higgins
><gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Dodd, on Wednesday afternoon, asked for unanimous consent to move the
>>bill forward.
>>
>>"On behalf of several senators on this side of the aisle, I object,"
>>said Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). And that's the end of it.
>
>What else to expect from the Party of the Banking industry and other
>Robber Barons ? Anytime they get a chance to screw the American
>consumer, they do so.
>
Why is the consumer screwed? When you use other peoples money
you have to pay the fees. Live within your means if you can't afford
to pay for credit.
Jim_Higgins
Kinda hard to say "thank you" for being raped by the Party of No's Masters.
Rumpelstiltskin
That's true, but the credit card companies allowing people
to run up debt at one interest rate and then raising the rate
smells of "bait and switch" to me. IMO, the credit card
companies should not be allowed to jack up rates
tremendously on debt that was already run up, though they
can charge whatever they want (within any usury laws) for
new debt as long as there's prior notice given.
I pay off my credit cards every month, by the way.
As soon as the bill arrives, I make out a check and put
the envelope on the stairs, so I'll post it the next time I
leave the house. I do that because I don't want to
forget, and get hit with an outrageous "late fee".
Werner
> "Jim_Higgins" <gordian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:he256i$2td$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Party of No Knows how to serve its masters
>
> > GOP Blocks Freeze On Credit Card Interest Rate Hikes
Don't like the tems? Cancel the card. But, speaking of getting
screwed, try that with your taxes.
Werner
> ...
>
> I've read that people have had their accounts canceled --
> for not using them often enough to suit the credit card
> company. So people who do live within their means and
> use credit cards as a sometime thing as a convenience
> for certain types of purchases -- such as online -- get
> screwed as well as the late payers.
>
>
If card holders can end the agreement, why shouldn't card issuers?
Werner
>
> news:he256i$2td$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Party of No Knows how to serve its masters
>
> > GOP Blocks Freeze On Credit Card Interest Rate Hikes
Watch Dog
And give in to the loan sharksi
No, this is why usuary laws are passed.
The opposition to usury dates from Abrahamic religious principles.
At one time in Christian history usury meant any level of interest.
This historical personality against it include Plato, Aristotle,
Cato, Cicero, Seneca Plutarch, Aquinas, Muhammad, Moses,[and Gautama
Buddha.
In Europe for a long period only Jews dealt with lending money in
which
interest was charged.
However "A great deal of Jewish legal scholarship in the Dark and the
Middle Ages was devoted to making business dealings fair, honest and
efficient."
Christians eventually adopted this approch. Basically interest is a
charge
for renting money, just like any other rental.
Still excesses are commited and loan sharking is one of them. So
we have laws, or can have them to limit the sins of the greedy.
The basic principle in judging whether interest rates (or other loan
charges)
are fair or not is when one party or the other feels abused, cheated.
A healthy situation is when both parties profit. Otherwise one is
dealing with economic pathology. We have the collective right
to legislate in this area (as we do, by the way with taxes).
As the other end of the scale, those of us who are retired and trying
to live from fix income investments find interest rates far too low
(one year CDs are below 1%). Somebody is making a lot of money
and it ain't us.
Thumper
>I've read that people have had their accounts canceled --
>for not using them often enough to suit the credit card
>company. So people who do live within their means and
>use credit cards as a sometime thing as a convenience
>for certain types of purchases -- such as online -- get
>screwed as well as the late payers.
>>
>>
Nearly everyone who has a balance had the interest on that balance
changed or the card would be canceled. The problem is that most
consumers don't have the choice once the card is issued. The fine
print says that the card company can do pretty much as it pleases.
These are banks that received money from the government money at 0%
and turn around and lend it back to the people at 17-25%.
Thumper
Evelyn
"Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:3f151dec-ea23-4a5e...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
It isn't me that is going to be affected by this. I keep a credit card,
yes.... for convenience, but keep it within manageable limits.
It is the young people who have lost their jobs, or who are trying to keep
their lives together, who will suffer from this. To me, that is
unconscionable. Why allow the banks, who have ALREADY gotten big handouts
from the public, be allowed to screw the public over with gouging rates?
Evelyn
"Watch Dog" <jcbep...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4476925f-d88d-4684...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
That is exactly the case.
SOMEbody is making money, and it isn't us.
Rumpelstiltskin
>I've read that people have had their accounts canceled --
>for not using them often enough to suit the credit card
>company. So people who do live within their means and
>use credit cards as a sometime thing as a convenience
>for certain types of purchases -- such as online -- get
>screwed as well as the late payers.
I've heard of that, but it hasn't happened to me yet.
I did get the interest rate raised on one card, or maybe
it was that I got my credit limit lowered. Whichever it
was, I found it a bit annoying since I always pay up.
It really doesn't affect me though, because I always
pay off my cards every month, and I never come
within a hundred miles of my credit limit.
Rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
>Nearly everyone who has a balance had the interest on that balance
>changed or the card would be canceled. The problem is that most
>consumers don't have the choice once the card is issued. The fine
>print says that the card company can do pretty much as it pleases.
>These are banks that received money from the government money at 0%
>and turn around and lend it back to the people at 17-25%.
>
>Thumper
I'd forgotten about customers being allowed to pay off at
the existing rate as long as they cancelled the card. That,
IMO, is perfectly OK, unlike changing the rate with no
alternative after a customer has run up a lot of debt at lower
rate. One can always retain the original agreement by
ceasing to use the card further.
I do, however, object to the "default" position, as I often
do with things like this. IMO, the card should be cancelled
and the rate on the balance left as is UNLESS the customer
signs and sends in an agreement to accept the new rate,
not the other way around. The new rate shouldn't be
something that can get slipped in without the customer
noticing because he didn't pay enough attention to see it.
People are not lawyers and don't have the time or inclination
to look at tiny-print or superfluous documents every month.
Changes in my telephone bills are like that. I miss them
because the company is in the habit of sending out useless
advertising and legaldygook along with the bill every month.
Most people, including myself, just throw that stuff away
because it's almost always a waste of time and energy,
and/or reading that stuff gives them a headache. I haven't
had any big surprises with my telephone that I wouldn't
have agreed to anyway if I'd paid attention before it
happened, but the possibility is always there, because the
default position is a disincentive to the providers to make
any changes clear and unmissable by ordinary folks.
Abuse based on effectively hiding changes to more or less
extent would be a much more lively possibility IMV with a
credit card company than with the telephone company.
I don't trust credit card companies much, which would be
another reason to pay off my bill every month if I needed
another reason.
M'Balz Es-Hari
news:he256i$2td$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> The Party of No Knows how to serve its masters
>
I'd say Christopher Dudd did a pretty good job when he basically told them,
'look the party's coming to an end, You'd better fuck 'em while the fuckin'
is still good'.
Werner
> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message
Banks should not have gotten handouts. They should also not be told
how to run their business just as you should not be told how to run
your life.
JC
Another crock of bullshit from the Obama groupies. The republicans
can't block shit unless the democrats want them to. In case you
suckers missed it, the house is majority democrat, the senate is
majority democrat and the executive is democrat. You idiots don't
stand for anything so you'll just fall for everything.
Werner
> On 19 nov, 04:54, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> The basic principle in judging whether interest rates (or other loan
> charges)
> are fair or not is when one party or the other feels abused, cheated.
> A healthy situation is when both parties profit.
Contract law exists for this.
Otherwise one is
> dealing with economic pathology. We have the collective right
> to legislate in this area (as we do, by the way with taxes).
>
There is no Collective. So how can there be a collective right? This
country was created on the principle of Individual Liberty, not
collective rights.
"
In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to
acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges
them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and
what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of
Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure
them.
The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers,
not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully
enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and
it specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated.
Our rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are
sacrosanct. Any government which infringes upon them is engaged in an
intolerable usurpation.
"
www.badnarik.org
-----
A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government
was not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e.,
your pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere
with your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the
government cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right"
to health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in
the way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your
obtaining health care. The "right" to an attorney means that the
government cannot prevent you obtaining an attorney to represent
you.
Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must
supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that
some slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health
care means that some slave must supply you with health care, and your
"right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you with an
attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must
supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to
own guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Rights.shtml
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
----
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
of others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2008/August/the-national-debt.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp8ZmQMCtqA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSoXKapKQs&feature=related
Evelyn
I am in agreement about that. Banks should be allowed to fail or succeed
on their own steam..... problem is that with the previous repeal of the laws
controlling them, they were too intertwined with too many other entities to
allow them to do that. New laws need to go into effect, or reinstate the
old ones, and then the principle of what you say is correct.
Evelyn
"JC" <jc4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0qmdnS7887CQFJjW...@giganews.com...
Don't be a dummie. Werner is not a democrat nor is he a republican. Ever
heard of the libertarians? They are almost right, but a little bit off in
some important areas. Better than republicans who are almost all wrong all
the time. The party of NO who gave us the divine Sarah..... (hand to
forehead and eyes rolling dramatically)
Evelyn
Now there you go off the deep end again. We are a civilized nation and we
don't like to see people dying for lack of basic needs of any kind. I
think that health care is a RIGHT.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipāta 1.8
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
As somebody said, a company that's "too big to fail" is
just "too big". We used to have anti-trust laws to prevent
companies becoming so powerful and intertwined that
they can't be allowed to die without taking the whole
country with them. It's time to break up these big outfits
IMV. They're not good for the country.
Werner
> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message
You can think anything you want, Evelyn. You just can't (of musn't)
impose it.
Werner
> "JC" <jc46...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0qmdnS7887CQFJjW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dems are worse than Repugs.
LTE
Your 15 November Opinion “A milestone for health care” asks, “can the
nation afford for reform not to become law?" History should be a valid
guide. We don't want to repeat it.
In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt promised the American people
that the new Social Security Tax would be invested at 3 per cent
interest, so that, by 1983, the tax could be ended and returns on the
investments would guarantee a retirement income for all Americans. NOT
TRUE.
He Promised participation in the Program would be completely
voluntary; that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the
first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the program; that the
money the participants elected to put Into the program would be
deductible from their income for tax purposes each year; that the
money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather
than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and that the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income. NOT TRUE.
In 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson in his Special Message to the
Congress Proposing a Nationwide War on the Sources of Poverty said, “
I have called for a national war on poverty. Our objective: total
victory ... And in the future, as in the past, this investment will
return its cost many fold to our entire economy ... The new program I
propose is within our means. Its cost of 970 million dollars ...” NOT
TRUE AND OFF BY TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
How about federal health care programs? Medicare for the poor aged is
an extension of the original Social Security Act and financed much
like the Trust Fund. Like the Trust Fund it has no surplus, no
savings, no assets, only federal IOUs. Medicaid expenditures for poor
adults and children, financed directly by the treasury, are largely
out of control and demand an ever expanding part of government budgets
and the economy. Like the Social Security retirement program, both
medical programs are flirting with FINANCIAL CATASTROPHY.
The nation is bankruptcy. It can not afford another government reform.
How much care can a bankrupt country provide?
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
Your position is no less arbitrary than Evelyn's (and mine).
You feel that "survival of the fittest" should be the rule of
law, with no real reference to the co�perative nature of
human society which is, in fact, what has allowed humanity
to survive. We as a species do not "go it alone" like
mountain lions, or make a point of killing off all competition
if we can, like elephant seals. If that had been our survival
strategy, we might not be here by now. We're like wolves
in that it's our nature to take care of each other. That's
just as valid a survival strategy as mountain lions or termites
or elephant seals. Libertarianism is not "the only philosophy":
it's just one of many different and sometimes incompatible
ways of structuring (or not structuring) human society.
Rumpelstiltskin
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:54:56 -0800, Rumpelstiltskin<snip>
>>>You can think anything you want, Evelyn. You just can't (of musn't)
>>>impose it.
>>
>>
>> Your position is no less arbitrary than Evelyn's (and mine).
>>You feel that "survival of the fittest" should be the rule of
>>law, with no real reference to the co�perative nature of
>>human society which is, in fact, what has allowed humanity
>>to survive. We as a species do not "go it alone" like
>>mountain lions, or make a point of killing off all competition
>>if we can, like elephant seals. If that had been our survival
>>strategy, we might not be here by now. We're like wolves
>>in that it's our nature to take care of each other. That's
>>just as valid a survival strategy as mountain lions or termites
>>or elephant seals. Libertarianism is not "the only philosophy":
>>it's just one of many different and sometimes incompatible
>>ways of structuring (or not structuring) human society.
>
>Often the line between libertarians and anarchists is very
>thin indeed. Werner goes over it often in my view.
>
>Some anarchists, however, do unite for survival. I once
>experimented with a food coop run by anarchists. Problem
>was they operated totally on complete consensus and therefore
>seldom got anything done.
Yep, I don't think anybody who had a clue what he was
talking about ever said that human social organization was
simple!
The main reason we developed big brains was very
arguably to deal with the horrendous complexity of
interpersonal interaction. If that sounds like I'm kidding,
I'm really not!
;->
freeisbest
Bull. Nearly everyone and their Alaskan cousin Sarah tries to
impose his/her/their will and their understanding of the universe on
as many others as they can. Religions organize for that express
purpose. Even WE soc.rets spend most of our time engaged in trying
to do exactly that, tho liberals/progressive/Democrats always hope
that sweet reason and provable facts will do the imposing without
force being needed... which just shows how little we know about the
rest of the electorate.
freeisbest
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:54:56 -0800, Rumpelstiltskin
> <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:30:26 -0800 (PST), Werner <whetz...@mac.com>
-snip-
> >>You can think anything you want, Evelyn. You just can't
> >> (of musn't) impose it.
>
> > Your position is no less arbitrary than Evelyn's (and mine).
> >You feel that "survival of the fittest" should be the rule of
> >human society which is, in fact, what has allowed humanity
> >to survive. We as a species do not "go it alone" like
> >mountain lions, or make a point of killing off all competition
> >if we can, like elephant seals. If that had been our survival
> >strategy, we might not be here by now. We're like wolves
> >in that it's our nature to take care of each other. That's
> >just as valid a survival strategy as mountain lions or termites
> >or elephant seals. Libertarianism is not "the only philosophy":
> >it's just one of many different and sometimes incompatible
> >ways of structuring (or not structuring) human society.
>
> thin indeed. Werner goes over it often in my view.
>
> Some anarchists, however, do unite for survival. I once
> experimented with a food coop run by anarchists.
> Problem was they operated totally on complete consensus
> and therefore seldom got anything done.
A food coop with anarchists who operated totally on complete
consensus. I'm hopeful, but I suppose the actual experience was not
as comic as it sounds. Thanks for shaking my world up like it's a
kaleidoscope....
Evelyn
"Rumpelstiltskin" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:0k2bg5djfdh5sg7g2...@4ax.com...
That's exactly what I am talking about.
Evelyn
It is doable, but it will require some sacrifice and some cost and some
adjustment. Other countries have it, so should we.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Evelyn
This is exactly how I feel about it. Humans are not lone creatures, they
were meant to live in tribes where everyone takes care of everyone.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Glenn
"freeisbest" <demeter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9759e461-18ae-4ba5...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I was just passing and happened to notice you were discussing
something of importance - rights. I'm not going to stay, but I
would like to drop off a "fly in the ointment," so to speak. See:
http://jim.com/rights.html for constraints on law and the
Constitution. The Constitution isn't self contained but is part of
a long history starting with The Old Testament, Socrates and the
Germanic tribes.
--
Glenn
Thumper
wrote:
Many of these people are using their cards to survive. Those pompous
asses who say don't use a card apparently failed to see the concerted
effort by merchants and lenders to substitute credit for wages high
enough to buy things. If no one borrowed half the banks and merchants
wouldn't exist now. The same thing happened with the mortgage
industry. When wages couldn't keep up with home price inflation they
threw credit at the problem and you see what that did.
Thumper
Thumper
Of course they should if their business practice is detrimental to
society.
Thumper
Thumper
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:54:56 -0800, Rumpelstiltskin
><nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>Often the line between libertarians and anarchists is very
>thin indeed. Werner goes over it often in my view.
>
>Some anarchists, however, do unite for survival. I once
>experimented with a food coop run by anarchists. Problem
>was they operated totally on complete consensus and therefore
>seldom got anything done.
>>
>>
He's another that I kill filed long ago.
Thumper
freeisbest
> "freeisbest" <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Constitution. The Constitution isn't self contained but is part of
> a long history starting with The Old Testament, Socrates and the
> Germanic tribes.
Ok, it sounds good. I'll take a look at it. Sorry you have to
post and run.
Watch Dog
be89-16d...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, "Werner"
<whet...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 6:07 am, Watch Dog <jcbepst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 19 nov, 04:54, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> Contract law exists for this.
So other laws can too.
>
> Otherwise one is
>> dealing with economic pathology. We have the collective right
>> to legislate in this area (as we do, by the way with taxes).
>
> There is no Collective. So how can there be a collective right?
When the people get together and have a vote is collective.
> This
> country was created on the principle of Individual Liberty, not
> collective rights.
after that you off on a rant. It the subjected getting to
uncomfortable for you?
So I will get you back on track.
Is it unconstitutional to pass laws on usury interest
rate limits?
I have seen no challenge in the Supreme Court on this issue.
(a collective body of judges :-))
Watch Dog
> I am in agreement about that. Banks should be allowed to fail or succeed
> on their own steam..... problem is that with the previous repeal of the laws
> controlling them, they were too intertwined with too many other entities to
> allow them to do that. New laws need to go into effect, or reinstate the
> old ones, and then the principle of what you say is correct.
Even Adam Smith, the often cited father of modern capitalism said
that the banks had to be regulated. He had intrinsic trust in
individual
enterprises but not the banks.
I am not in agreement of just allowing this mess to spoil, however.
A lot of innocent people are outfoxed by the crooked element
of financial capitalism. Those are the ones who need protection
from these people as we all do.
Werner
> On 19/11/09 19:06, in article f5988464-08a9-465e-
>
> <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
...
>
> So I will get you back on track.
>
> Is it unconstitutional to pass laws on usury interest
> rate limits?
>
> I have seen no challenge in the Supreme Court on this issue.
> (a collective body of judges :-))
FDR wanted to pack the SC to get the collective he wanted. Democrats
want the SC to be a Democrat collective and Republicans want a
Republican collective.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Myth.shtml
JC
And me, I want it to be a collective of constitutionalists!
Rumpelstiltskin
>>>I am in agreement about that. Banks should be allowed to fail or succeed
>>>on their own steam..... problem is that with the previous repeal of the
>>>laws
>>>controlling them, they were too intertwined with too many other entities
>>>to
>>>allow them to do that. New laws need to go into effect, or reinstate the
>>>old ones, and then the principle of what you say is correct.
>>
>>
>> As somebody said, a company that's "too big to fail" is
>> just "too big". We used to have anti-trust laws to prevent
>> companies becoming so powerful and intertwined that
>> they can't be allowed to die without taking the whole
>> country with them. It's time to break up these big outfits
>> IMV. They're not good for the country.
>
>
>That's exactly what I am talking about.
So it is. Sorry about that! I just wanted to get the
comment about "too big to fail" being "too big" in,
but then I just rattled on after that.
Rumpelstiltskin
>> Your position is no less arbitrary than Evelyn's (and mine).
>> You feel that "survival of the fittest" should be the rule of
>> law, with no real reference to the co�perative nature of
>> human society which is, in fact, what has allowed humanity
>> to survive. We as a species do not "go it alone" like
>> mountain lions, or make a point of killing off all competition
>> if we can, like elephant seals. If that had been our survival
>> strategy, we might not be here by now. We're like wolves
>> in that it's our nature to take care of each other. That's
>> just as valid a survival strategy as mountain lions or termites
>> or elephant seals. Libertarianism is not "the only philosophy":
>> it's just one of many different and sometimes incompatible
>> ways of structuring (or not structuring) human society.
>
>
>This is exactly how I feel about it. Humans are not lone creatures, they
>were meant to live in tribes where everyone takes care of everyone.
I remember seeing a show about the Neandertals, in which
one of the skeletons had a healed injury so severe that its
repercussions must have made him incapable of contributing
fully to society after it happened. However, the injury itself
had healed over long before the man died. So even Homo
neanderthalis seems to have exhibited the natural (for most
people) compassion that we see in our own Homo sapiens.
Evelyn
"Watch Dog" <jcbep...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da3c5ace-599a-4011...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Evelyn a �crit :
That is true. But unfortunately the foxes are guarding the henhouse.
Evelyn
I have seen more compassion between animals than most of the republicans on
this group.
Rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
>> I remember seeing a show about the Neandertals, in which
>> one of the skeletons had a healed injury so severe that its
>> repercussions must have made him incapable of contributing
>> fully to society after it happened. However, the injury itself
>> had healed over long before the man died. So even Homo
>> neanderthalis seems to have exhibited the natural (for most
>> people) compassion that we see in our own Homo sapiens.
>
>
>I have seen more compassion between animals than most of the republicans on
>this group.
There is that. I perhaps should say no more.
Thumper
No you don't. You want a collective that agrees with your wrong
interpretation of the constitution.
Thumper
Watch Dog
> > I have seen no challenge in the Supreme Court on this issue.
> > (a collective body of judges :-))
>
> FDR wanted to pack the SC to get the collective he wanted. Democrats
> want the SC to be a Democrat collective and Republicans want a
> Republican collective.
Once again you are wandering, unable to stay on topic. I am sure
your rants are appreciated by all but the issue here has to do with
the legality of usury laws. The Supreme Court has never fully
challenged these even in the days when the Court were packed
by pro-business judges. The one Supreme Court decision which
affected their application is the 1978 Marquette decision (unanimous)
that allowed credit card issuers could apply the law of the state in
which
their business was domiciled to out-of-state customers. Essentially
the borrower was borrowing from somebody in another state. So
the Court had authority under the Constitution to make this
decision since in involved interstate commerce. But it is
also possible for the Congress to enter with news laws in
the same vane preventing excesses.
One notes that after the Marquette decision credit card
companies relocatied to states with liberal or no usury laws.
Thus, for instance, Citibank moved their credit card business
from New York to South Dakota.
The Government also in 1980, due to high inflation,
allowed national banks to ignore state usury laws.
The problem with rigid laws is that circumstances
can make them obsolete, high or low inflation can do that
with usury laws. Right now we are in a low inflation period
and the rates charged by the Credit card companies
are high. That and the fact they use some devices to
get around the laws.
.
The legislative bodies in the US are slow in reacting,
never take into account inflation or disinflation to reset
the meter. Note that the Federal reserve can change
interest rates and do so quickly. "Quick" in not in
the legislative lexicon.
Watch Dog
re meant to live in tribes where everyone takes care of everyone.
> So even Homo
> neanderthalis seems to have exhibited the natural (for most
> people) compassion that we see in our own Homo sapiens.
The behavior of man is altered by the introduction of a
modern ego-centric ideologies. Man is naturally a social animal.
Family or tribal groups are self-governed by unwritten social laws
which include caring for others in the group if they need it
and have played the ame.
In man this occurred through Darwinian selection, hyperindividualism
in man did not develop, single individuals out on their own died.
In fact banishment from the group was the ultimate form of
punishment, it was a death sentence.
In some animals, like bears it is hyperindividualism which
allowed them to survive, possibly driven by male bears killing the
young
in order to mate with the mother. This occurs partly in lions
but for overall survival they have a social structure in which
male lions in the tribe can not kill the young.
Tigers are not social, most feline species are not.
So there is no general rule on which wins out in particular
cases, individualism or collectivism. Which wins out
depends on the course of evolution.
In the case of man it is clear we are a social animal but some of
our ideological driven directions have messed things up.
I would say that in its present form capitalism is
not sustainable because it is intrinsically faulted
because it is based on short term profit making
and has no social goals compatible with the nature
of man.
Europe has moved more toward a hybid socio-capitalist
system than the US, its collectivized health care system
shows that.
There is no possiblity that libertarianism will survive,
it is already too absurd. Capitalism has shown
its weakness because of a libertarian approach
going bad.
Controlling the excesses of credit cards
is part of the correction.
In a larger system
having no generalized social protection, protection is maintained
at the family level (like India). Capitalist economies do drive
people apart, it is built on hyperindividualism.
Rumpelstiltskin
That all sounds good to me!
Especially the "Europe" part. To me, the Scandinavian
countries seem, broadly speaking, the best models for the
future, but I'm open to other suggestions. I've heard that
the Danes are the happiest people in the world, obviously
not including Kierkegaard, though such an assertion is
inevitably subjective.
In counterpoint to that, one often hears that there's a
high suicide rate in Sweden. There's a high suicide
rate in Alaska too though, arguably for the same reason:
too much darkness in winter.
The table and map at the URL below are interesting.
http://fathersforlife.org/health/who_suicide_rates.htm
Russia and Lithuania lead the list, which I would suggest
(based only on what I hear) is due to those societies being
somewhat bleak. Most of the other countries on the
chart are, on the other hand, quite liberal. Finland and
Denmark have even higher rates than Sweden
according to the table. As the chart notes, "climate"
might have something to do with some of the rates.
I would suggest another reason, though even more
questionably, is that people in rich countries have
enough free time for contemplation that weltschmerz
becomes a danger. As the philosopher Rosannadanna
noted, "it just goes to show you, it's always something".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseanne_Roseannadanna
The map at the same URL as the table shows the
highest rates in the former Soviet countries, and the
next highest in the highly developed "Western"
societies (including Japan). That might justify the
contention that bleakness and weltschmerz are two
almost opposite, but individually large, factors in
tendency to suicide.
According to the following URL:
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
Alaska does indeed have one of the highest rates
in the USA, though Montana and Nevada have
higher rates.
I guess I launched into this sidetrack partly
because Watch Dog's post seemed to me so
balanced and comprehensive that there was
little else to say without wandering into detail.
But another factor contributing to "death"
being on my mind was that I was shocked to
learn yesterday that a guy I know, well
enough though just an acquaintance, who was
seemingly in very good physical condition, had
died of a heart attack at age 43 on Monday.
Watch Dog
rh3dg5lno1ibcgass...@4ax.com, "Rumpelstiltskin"
<nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> Especially the "Europe" part. To me, the Scandinavian
> countries seem, broadly speaking, the best models for the
> future, but I'm open to other suggestions. I've heard that
> the Danes are the happiest people in the world, obviously
> not including Kierkegaard, though such an assertion is
> inevitably subjective.
They also have the lowest corruption and the lowest
proverty rates (due to transfers from the better off
to the less better off).
> In counterpoint to that, one often hears that there's a
> high suicide rate in Sweden.
Suicide rates are tied to the culture and
as you mention climate. The Islamic
country statistics show low or no suicide. This is probably
because the numbers are cooked. But it is also true religion
plays a key role. While suicide is generally deplored
it is understood in the case of the old and dying. Some
what to choose their end. For those who are young
and in good health and depressive, there may
be biochemical factors. Isolation is important,
states like Montana have the highest suicide rates,
three times higher than NY. For some reason
American Blacks have a lower suicide rate than Whites.
In some cases, low suicide rates are match by higher
homicide rates.
> There's a high suicide
> rate in Alaska too though, arguably for the same reason:
> too much darkness in winter.
Yes, some people have periods of depression, sunlight exposure
is biochemically important to them. Others adore the Northern
winter. Some depression can be treated just by subjecting
the ill with high light exposure.
> The table and map at the URL below are interesting.
> http://fathersforlife.org/health/who_suicide_rates.htm
> Russia and Lithuania lead the list, which I would suggest
> (based only on what I hear) is due to those societies being
> somewhat bleak.
Russia has a high rate of alcoholism and it is one large nation
in which longevities have been dropping.
There is only one way to be born and thousands
of ways to die. I have run into really unexpected
deaths like that several times. Certainly any
body over 75 has a short future in front of them.
Often a serious medical problem just pops up, like
a cancer diagnosis. Many old people thought they
were going to live longer than they do, we all
suffer from denial. The big problem with death
is that the living can imagine being dead because
they have "always" been alive. Freud mentions
somewhere that even when dreaming about being
at one's funeral (I have never had that dream)
one is an observer, alive so to speak. More
over in our dreams we often encounter love
one's who are dead so we also have a problem
with that.
One notes that on "soc.retirement" or anywhere
on the groups I have looked at, nobody really
talks about death and the problems dealing
with one's own approaching death or that
of a loved one. We do mention religion now and
then but death is specifically not part of
the lexicon. On this group, there is no real
discussion by those who are sufficient ill
that they can expect to die with a year or`
so. Those who become seriously ill drop out,
close up. A few, like AJ Vinson years ago,
who had lung cancer, did talk about the hopeful
therapy he was having but in fact died shortly
after having done so. Others just stop
posting and say nothing. Most of us
will quietly leave the stage of life,
we do go "gently into that good night"
hardly protesting at all.
Evelyn
> One notes that on "soc.retirement" or anywhere
> on the groups I have looked at, nobody really
> talks about death and the problems dealing
> with one's own approaching death or that
> of a loved one. We do mention religion now and
> then but death is specifically not part of
> the lexicon. On this group, there is no real
> discussion by those who are sufficient ill
> that they can expect to die with a year or`
> so. Those who become seriously ill drop out,
> close up. A few, like AJ Vinson years ago,
> who had lung cancer, did talk about the hopeful
> therapy he was having but in fact died shortly
> after having done so. Others just stop
> posting and say nothing. Most of us
> will quietly leave the stage of life,
> we do go "gently into that good night"
> hardly protesting at all.
Hi Watchdog,
Actually I have participated in many discussions about death, but not on
this newsgroup.
On this newsgroup political squabbles and partisan herd strategies are the
name of the game, and few are concerned about their own mortality, at least
not in public.
Talking about ones mortality is something that brings up our most visceral
fears, touches our innermost being, and in an atmosphere where most people
have their defenses raised due to insults flying daily, that kind of
sensitive thing is the last subject, (pardon the pun) to be discussed.
I have a folder in my computer called "death" and it contains poetry,
quotes, excerpts from various buddhist books, and more. When the subject
arises, I have all this lovely reference material to draw from, but few want
to come face to face with their own mortality.
I might add that as a Tibetan Buddhist of many years, our view of death is
quite a bit different from the Western Judeo Christian view. Death is
seen as a process, not an event that occurs in a specific moment. So it
is quite a natural thing, as the end of ones life approaches (in natural
death), there is less angst and less of an inclination to fight it, as you
say "hardly protesting at all"
So what particular aspects of death interest you discussion wise? There
are philosophical, spiritual and physical issues all involved. The one
that bothers me the most is fear of the physical pain and suffering in end
of life issues. I have a living will in which I have expressed a wish to
receive pain killers if I need them at my own deathbed, even if they
eventually shorten the time I have left.
I have also stated very clearly that I do not want tube feeding under any
circumstances, and the proverbial plug should be pulled if there is little
or no chance of recovery.
So where do you stand on all of this?
Rumpelstiltskin
I didn't consider some countries "cooking the books"
as a factor, but that is likely a significant one in some
places, as you note, particularly in Islamic countries.
One possible reason I'd throw out as a possible
reason for American blacks having lower suicide rate
that whites is that black people in modern times
arguably feel that they're involved together in a
struggle, giving them a group identity and a common
purpose. Religion might also play a part, for similar
reasons. I'm atheist, but it wouldn't surprise me if
atheists had higher suicide rates than religious people.
That would be related to my conjecture that more
liberal cultures get higher suicide rates: the more
freedom, the more pressure to "make it" oneself as
a human being, and thereby the more possibility for
feeling that one has failed.
My mom died at 79, of liver cancer. She thought
she was going to live longer than she did, and
anybody who knew her at 77 would have thought
so too.
>The big problem with death
>is that the living can imagine being dead because
>they have "always" been alive. Freud mentions
>somewhere that even when dreaming about being
>at one's funeral (I have never had that dream)
>one is an observer, alive so to speak. More
>over in our dreams we often encounter love
>one's who are dead so we also have a problem
>with that.
I've never had that dream either. I have dreamt
about dead people being alive. Milton has a
wonderful sonnet about dreaming of his dead
wife, ending with the pun of day bringing back
his night in two ways: he was blind but could
once see, so when he dreamt he could see in
the dream, and also in the dream his wife was
still with him but when he awoke, that light
slipped away from him again:
Sonnet 23
Methought I saw my late espous�d Saint
Brought to me like Alcestis from the grave,
Whom Joves great son to her glad Husband gave,
Rescu'd from death by force though pale and faint.
Mine as whom washt from spot of child-bed taint,
Purification in the old Law did save,
And such, as yet once more I trust to have
Full sight of her in Heaven without restraint,
Came vested all in white, pure as her mind:
Her face was vail'd, yet to my fancied sight,
Love, sweetness, goodness, in her person shin'd
So clear, as in no face with more delight.
But O as to embrace me she enclin'd,
I wak'd, she fled, and day brought back my night.
-- Milton
http://tinyurl.com/y9q2onn
Sonnet XVI is at that site. I'd never seen that
sonnet before. It's on Cromwell. I didn't make the
connection before that Milton had even lived
during the Commonwealth. Checking on that, I
found that he was actually a political functionary
during the Commonwealth, and that he had to
go into hiding for a while when Charles II (most
regrettably IMV) came back and overthrew the
Commonwealth. That knowledge raises my
opinion of Milton as a man. I also read elsewhere
that Milton travelled to Italy, where he met Galileo.
>
>One notes that on "soc.retirement" or anywhere
>on the groups I have looked at, nobody really
>talks about death and the problems dealing
>with one's own approaching death or that
>of a loved one. We do mention religion now and
>then but death is specifically not part of
>the lexicon. On this group, there is no real
>discussion by those who are sufficient ill
>that they can expect to die with a year or`
>so. Those who become seriously ill drop out,
>close up. A few, like AJ Vinson years ago,
>who had lung cancer, did talk about the hopeful
>therapy he was having but in fact died shortly
>after having done so. Others just stop
>posting and say nothing. Most of us
>will quietly leave the stage of life,
>we do go "gently into that good night"
>hardly protesting at all.
There's so much great poetry on death. Here's just
one, from an American poet who IMO should be far
better known than he is in our times:
29. For a Dead Lady
NO more with overflowing light
Shall fill the eyes that now are faded,
Nor shall another�s fringe with night
Their woman-hidden world as they did.
No more shall quiver down the days
The flowing wonder of her ways,
Whereof no language may requite
The shifting and the many-shaded.
The grace, divine, definitive,
Clings only as a faint forestalling;
The laugh that love could not forgive
Is hushed, and answers to no calling;
The forehead and the little ears
Have gone where Saturn keeps the years;
The breast where roses could not live
Has done with rising and with falling.
The beauty, shattered by the laws
That have creation in their keeping,
No longer trembles at applause,
Or over children that are sleeping;
And we who delve in beauty�s lore
Know all that we have known before
Of what inexorable cause
Makes Time so vicious in his reaping.
-- E.A. Robinson
http://www.bartleby.com/233/529.html
Rumpelstiltskin
"100 greatest Britons" according to
a BBC poll. It's just pop culture of
course, but it is a bit interesting.
There must have been a write-in
campaign by supporters of #2 because
I don't recall hearing of him other than
in this poll. Some interesting entries
are:
1. Churchill, of course
4. Darwin, just below fashion queen Lady Diana
5. Shakespeare
6. Newton
7. Elizabeth I
10. Cromwell (I'd put him #1 or #2 politically, with Churchill)
14. Alfred the Great
21. Turing
22. Faraday
30. Guy Fawkes, "the only man to enter parliament with
honourable intentions" according to an anarchist
T-shirt at the Wikipedia article on him. He's a
fellow Yorkshireman, I'm happy to say.
34. Thomas Paine, a bit surprisingly, since he made his
fame in America and France. His greatness was
ranked just below David Beckham in the poll.
35. Buddica, also not quite as great as Beckham
38. Blake
40. Henry VIII - you've got to be kidding - a monster !!!
41. Dickens
46. Boy George
51. "King" Arthur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons
Richard Dawkins didn't make the list!
Evelyn
Ah but he should have!