Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    No Party/Other

Profile Fields

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    cis male
  • Location
    northern Wisconsin
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

8,223 profile views
  1. Personhood? Good grief. I have a better idea. Why don't you explain when "personhood" begins so the rest of us can follow this new talking point?
  2. If it works for guns, why not take away everyone's access to a massage and ban any and all massage parloring?
  3. Won't be long before leftists claim I'm exploiting the poor by not paying an annual fee, paying my full bill on time so as not to be charged interest and taking advantage of cashback bonus awards.
  4. All good points. Operating costs do become extremely important when government steps in and caps how much you can charge for your services. IMHO, capping the interest rate, at any level, will only serve to hurt the smaller businesses more than the giants, leaving only the giants.
  5. Capping the interest rate at the highest any company can charge isn't going to solve the problem of Goldman Sachs already offering you a loan at 5 or 4 percent. Capping the interest rate isn't refereeing, it's fixing, as in the game was "fixed". Seems to me your problem is with "bespoke derivatives". If I follow your logic correctly, you believe these bespoke derivatives are the cause of the higher interest rates or stated otherwise, higher interest rates are the effect of "bespoke derivatives". Assuming you believe there to be no feedback, ie, higher interest rates causing more "bespoke derivatives", I'm going to use a some medical analogy to explain my disagreement. Treating the symptom does not relieve you of the underlying cause and typically leads to more side effects. In other words, capping the interest rate at some highest percentage that can be charged is counter-intuitive and the focus should be on "leveling the playing field" as far as "bespoke derivatives" are concerned and not the outcome of it's effects as the playing field sits now.
  6. I think operating costs are important, but to me they only serve as a base that must be covered before profit can be achieved. Operating costs are going to vary from business to business. I wonder if supply and demand is more of a dictator of the higher interest rates the industry is experiencing. Not sure how reasonable this will sound but, if the number of dollars available to lend is high but demand to borrow dollars is low, then wouldn't lenders lower interest rates to get those dollars earning something? If the number of dollars available to lend is low and demand to borrow money is high, wouldn't lenders raise their interest rates for those dollars?
  7. Goes without saying that the Federal government is running the largest debt scam.
  8. or go out of business if she can't keep her costs below 15%. Who is responsible if government forces these organizations to take credit risks and to make unwise loans?
  9. That's predicated on the assertion that the system is broken to begin with. There could be other reasons than just plain greed that credit card interest rates are what they are. If it is just plain greed, then the remedy is people competing by being less greedy.
  10. I'm sure their explanations for breaking the law are taken prima facie while Trump's are nit picked by the unfreedom of the press.
  11. So, tell me how capping the interest rate at 15% is a regulation that protects the competition instead of a regulation that would push out the competition leaving only existing giants.
  12. Seems pretty obvious that deleting emails and destroying devices ahead of a subpoena is an attempt to obstruct justice. Seems reasonable to ask why she wasn't indicted for something much more obvious than what the Dems and RINos want to hang Trump for.
  13. Then why 15% and not say 5%? Is it possible the lower you make the cap the more difficult it will be for smaller lenders to stay in business?
  14. You might be correct, but I don't think so. What causes confusion is how the left uses the justice system and the unfreedom of the press to pursue at best ambiguous obstruction charges against Trump all while ignoring the obvious conscious obstruction by Hilliary by deleting subpoenaed emails and destroying devices. Granted, Hilliary may not have knowingly paid Russians for dirt on Trump, but the hypocrisy of giving it less than lip service while not even informing Trump that Russians may be trying to influence certain members of his campaign has got anyone without Trump Derangement Syndrome confused.
  • Create New...