patrick.net

The_Deplorable says

https://x.com/DC_Draino/status/1849477905258262859

Because of South Dakota and the stupid SCOTUS decided that where the product is sold has no bearing, only where the offer originates.

The_Deplorable says

https://x.com/DC_Draino/status/1849477905258262859

Ah, how refreshingly conservative: clamoring for gubmint to step in and protect people from themselves. And since when a situation with at least 4 major players in the market - Visa, Mastercard, Discover and AmEx - is a "monopoly"?

RWSGFY says

The_Deplorable says

https://x.com/DC_Draino/status/1849477905258262859

Ah, how refreshingly conservative: clamoring for gubmint to step in and protect people from themselves. And since when a situation with at least 4 major players in the market - Visa, Mastercard, Discover and AmEx - is a "monopoly"?

Most states have had usury laws forever, the banks/cc card companies exploited the fact they can incorporate in say Delaware to skirt around it. They get a 0% discount window from the Fed than turn around and charge you 20%. And usury is not allowed in most of our religious roots either. It's a step from preventing somebody putting up their kidney as collateral, and probably a righteous one for many. Conservative is not the same as libertarian, don't see much of a contradiction here

RWSGFY says

Ah, how refreshingly conservative: clamoring for gubmint to step in and protect people from themselves. And since when a situation with at least 4 major players in the market - Visa, Mastercard, Discover and AmEx - is a "monopoly"?

I don't think people should use credit cards if they make less than $100k. It's a recipe for disaster. Problem is schools never teach kids about this stuff. There are massive benefits to using a card IF IF IF you pay it off monthly. Problem is people of lower means just rack up the debt.

If Trump wants another goal to score before the election float writing off CC interest like you used to be able to before I could even open a card. Inner city poor that do pay some taxes would go crazy for that. Make it an income cap that you can write it off. That would at least make the huge interest rates more bearable. Might increase CC spending, but it would make the middle class with kids lives much better if they make under $100k.

They're barely paying into the federal tax system anyway. You'll make up for it with corporate taxes on the stuff they buy. Complicating the tax system more is something I don't like, but it makes sense.

People do all kinds of self-destructive shit. It used to be librul battle cry for gubmint to tell peeps what to do and not do "for their own good", because "gubmint knows better".

So now "conservatives" want the government meddling in people's finances, food they eat ... what's next? "Conservatives" clamoring for gubmint to make them vaccinate? I mean, if government know better at what rate I must borrow, it sure as shit knows what vaccine I should take, amirite? 🤡

RWSGFY says

People do all kinds of self-destructive shit. It used to be librul battle cry for gubmint to tell peeps what to do and not do "for their own good", because "gubmint knows better".

So now "conservatives" want the government meddling in people's finances, food they eat ... what's next? "Conservatives" clamoring for gubmint to make them vaccinate? I mean, if government know better at what rate I must borrow, it sure as shit knows what vaccine I should take, amirite? 🤡

Forcing somebody to do/take something affecting their health is different from preventing someone to borrow at a certain rate. You have environmental laws at work so people don't get sick and die. If elected Trump may put draconian punishment on fentanyl distribution. Of course the meddling argument is never completely without merit, but governments job first and foremost is to meddle for the benefit of its citizens, the extent is of it is the real debate.

Also it's classical conservative to forbid prostitution and have more stringent sex laws, laws against homo marriage etc. Conservatives historically have been meddling quite a bit, just on different sides and for different causes, and causing a bloated government as a result with relatively straightforward laws.

So basically "conservative" now is the same as librul, they just disagree on exact areas where gubmint should meddle into people's affairs and tell people what's good for them and preventing them from doing what gubmint considers bad?

If government caps CC interest rate this means many people will be denied CCs alltoghether. I guess if when this happens conservatives will clamour for government to force CC companies to issue CCs to everyone? And then what? Compensate CC companies for the losses they will face? 🤡

Didn't we just see something like that with mortgages and Community Reinvestment Act?

RWSGFY says

So basically "conservative" now is the same as librul, they just disagree on exact areas where gubmint should meddle into people's affairs and tell people what's good for them and preventing them from doing what gubmint considers bad?

If government caps CC interest rate this means many people will be denied CCs alltoghether. I guess if when this happens conservatives will clamour for government to force CC companies to issue CCs to everyone? And then what? Compensate CC companies for the losses they will face? 🤡

Didn't we just see something like that with mortgages and Community Reinvestment Act?

I think neo conservatism is moreso small government than the conservatism of the past millennium which was quite loaded with laws. But you can take this to a whole another level, say we don't have any usury laws, why should you have laws allowing companies to take your money you owe them by force? Why the meddling? They should have never loaned out money to someone who clearly can't pay it back at 20%! Let's get rid of all collection enforcement and other rules and lawsuits. Let people borrow and default without recourse, small government for the win! Save money by employing fewer costly judges and enforcement agencies!

RWSGFY says

If government caps CC interest rate this means many people will be denied CCs alltoghether.

True, that would happen, currently they are giving it to almost everyone though, cause they know they will always get bailed out.

People already default on CCs without pretty much any meaningful recourse. When there is a collateral for the loan (house, car, stonks) the rates are not 25%.

Another good example of "conservatives" being completely lost in their "principles": they are angry about government not allowing raw milk because government says "it's bad for you", but in the same breath they demand government to ban processed food containing certain ingridients because they say "it's bad for you".

RWSGFY says

Another good example of "conservatives" being completely lost in their "principles": they are angry about government not allowing raw milk because government says "it's bad for you", but in the same breath they demand government to ban processed food containing certain ingridients because they say "it's bad for you".

Raw milk is fine as long as there's a warning on it that many raw products carry the risk of contamination with e. coli et all so people can make informed decisions. Personally I think neo it's worth the risk as it happens so rarely and the benefits outweigh the risk. However that's not the same as some body selling food containing poison harmful at any dosage and occasion, cumulatively. There has to be a threshold, sure colorant or artificial sweeteners again with warnings maybe should not be forbidden as long as studies don't clearly show its poisonous, but other clearly harmful substances should be forbidden). That's why you have a scientific process to determine the damage if any, which can always be adjusted or reversed on follow up studies showing a different outcome.

So it boils down to what "the science" says? I vaguely remember "the science" say we must vaccinate with some safe and effective vaccine not long ago...

Don't ban/mandate things, just give people information and let them decide? But this is exactly how CC works: you know the interest rate, you know how much you'll pay overall. It's all there. And yet, "conservative" Cucker Tarlson is angry and demands change. 🤡

RWSGFY says

So now "conservatives" want the government meddling in people's finances, food they eat ... what's next? "Conservatives" clamoring for gubmint to make them vaccinate? I mean, if government know better at what rate I must borrow, it sure as shit knows what vaccine I should take, amirite?

Allowing poor to write off CC interest really isn't meddling in their affairs. People make mistakes. If allowing the poor to write off the interest on debt, the CC company still gets its money (profit/corporate taxes), but maybe it gets the poor out of food stamp land (savings) which is massively more expensive to everyone else that pays in.

People are stupid and make their own bed and sleep in it. But I don't want that to be at MY expense as someone that will pay $50-60k in federal taxes in 2025. If poorer people can write the interest off, it could lift maybe 500k people out of link cards and other government subsidies, section 8. And yes, some would spend more. But that's more corporate taxes.

It would be a policy that benefits everyone. It used to be that way 30-40 years ago. It sure as shit has potential to make at least a small dent in the deficit. I want less government, but there's ways we can reduce costs. Paying people to buy food is stupid. That's what link/food stamps is. If their net income hits a certain level, we don't have to pay for it as tax payers.

The stupid will keep spending and stay on link and the others will stop making me buy their groceries if they can write off some CC debt (interest). We'd gain more with link and section 8 in my scenario getting off the government budget. And it would be a political winner for whoever proposes it because the poor would think it's a win.

RWSGFY says

So it boils down to what "the science" says? I vaguely remember "the science" say we must vaccinate with some safe and effective vaccine not long ago...

Don't ban/mandate things, just give people information and let them decide? But this is exactly how CC works: you know the interest rate, you know how much you'll pay overall. It's all there. And yet, "conservative" Cucker Tarlson is angry and demands change. 🤡

That was not science, they criminally withheld all the bad data and flat out lied. Zero to do with science. The fact that nobody has been prosecuted shows the bad state the US is in. Giving the information and letting people decide is fine, but that information has to come from science and math as well, otherwise people cannot make informed decisions.

Writing off debt is already allowed. Cucker apparently wants government to cap the interest. These things don't work together without someone stepping in and compensating the loss from the artificially lowered rates with risks staying the same. And by someone we mean government, because who else. So basically he demands governmemt subsidies for "poor people". Which basically means further expansion of the wellfare state. Which is the epitomy of conservatism (sarcasm alert). 🤡

RWSGFY says

Writing off debt is already allowed. Cucker apparently wants government to cap the interest. These things don't work together without someone stepping in and compensating the loss from the artificially lowered rates with risks staying the same. And by someone we mean government, because who else. So basically he demands governmemt subsidies for "poor people". Which basically means further expansion of the wellfare state. Which is the epitomy of conservatism (sarcasm alert). 🤡

This is not a monetary subsidy such as money printing and bank bailouts. It's impact could be to deny people credit who are too high risk which may not be a bad thing. The banks only loan out money at 20%+ currently because they get max revenues when the party is good and get bailed out when it's bad. I'm fine with free market credit rates IF we abolish the FED today and banks have to get money from other banks and savers at free market rates. AND let states enforce their own usury laws if they have em, so banks can and will decide where to do business. That's more Libertarian a la Stossel and not conservative (Tucker), although there is a small govt by any means conservative wing. Stossel is also more aligned with big ag food and letting consimers decide if they want to consume it.

DemocratsAreTotallyFucked says

Yes, and those few women with paid off loans likely had payment help from hubby or daddy.

Never saw this movie. After watching this scene about debt, I will now:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpp4vhAxzLU