A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[Foxfyre]

More like someone without a great credit score who doesn't want to be denied credit altogether. It's not up to you, or a "we-know-better-than-you" regulator, to tell me how much interest I should be willing to pay. If it's too high, I'll say no. If I think it reasonable, and I need it bad enough, I'll pay the higher interest. As long as there is no fraud or deception going on, the terms should be up to me and the lender, and no one else's business.

Actually the Government would disagree with you there. So do I. There are limits as to what can be charged.

I understand that you, and the government, disagree with me. I think you are both wrong. I just explained why.

I have to agree with this. If somebody wants to charge 100% interest or 500% interest or 1000% interest, it should be the borrower's prerogative to pay it if the borrower chooses to do that.

It should be the role of government to safeguard the borrower's right to be fully informed of what he or she is agreeing to however. I wouldn't even object to a requirement that the borrower sign acknowledgement that he or she has been duly informed and that he or she understands that other lenders offer a much lower rate.

We cannot say that we want self governance with the federal government playing only a support role to defend our rights and then regulate what we are allowed to choose to do.

 

[saveliberty]

We allow the goverment to regulate many parts of life where a person may injure themselves. Interest rates appraoching 40% are almost impossilbe to payoff in a person's lifetime. For the protection of that person, as well as the financial system itself, reasonable rates are necessary so that repayment is a likely outcome most of the time. I find the legalized loan sharking that takes place with some credit cards and payday advances should be reined in.

 

[JDzBrain]

All interesting concepts for sure. But obviously the Founders reassured all that the Constitution neither required slavery nor prohibited slavery at the time it was presented and ratified by the states. So the consensus was that slavery was legal for those states that chose to have it and it was also legal for states to prohibit it. The 13th Amendment made it illegal for anybody to have it.

It has been explained that the Declaration of Independence is the reason for the Constitution, the Preamble is what it is intended to accomplish, and the body of the Constitution is the how that is to be done. All that, plus the documents of the Founding Fathers is essential to an honest interpretation of original intent.

So we now have a President and Congress who no longer feel bound by original intent. And they all are now caught up in a system that feeds upon itself to benefit those in government, is totally self serving, and is a roadblock to focusing on what government was originally intended to do.

How do we get back to original intent?

That's the point Foxy. It's EXACTLY like the debate over abortion. If the congress would simply pass a law that defines a fetus as a human being...whole and actualized at conception or 20 weeks or 30 weeks or whatever...Row v Wade would be rendered moot. Then the debate could move to what is "justifiable" homicide!

The same thing would have been true with slavery or indentured servitude. Federal law DOES take president over state law. So why the amendment? For the same reason as the 18th that abolished liquor or the 17th that took away the state's representatives in the Senate...POLITICS!

But you are dead right. What to do indeed?

I personally think repealing nearly everything after the 10th Amendment would be a good start. ;~)

In reality...it starts with your dog catcher! Seriously, it starts with elections at the local level. When we stop voting for our neighbor because they go to church with us or are married to our cousin OR just because they are willing to do the job...THAT begins the process of reclamation.

People do not seem to realize that if they vote for the guy who is just trying to get the parking meters removed from in front of their store, that person may one day end up as their representative in the state capitol. OR worse yet as their representative in the US Congress.

The problem with that is that that person's reason for getting into politics in the first place is selfishness. And selfish politicians are the problem we have now. We need selfLESS politicians.

I know that's not the magic pill most who ask your question want Foxy, but it IS the pill that will PERMANENTLY cure our government. WE THE PEOPLE have to re-engage at every level to turn this around. NOT just the national level!

If the person running for dog catcher has never read the Constitution...DON'T SUPPORT THEM. And if you have to, work to find someone who has and is willing to run against them!

We allow the goverment to regulate many parts of life where a person may injure themselves. Interest rates appraoching 40% are almost impossilbe to payoff in a person's lifetime. For the protection of that person, as well as the financial system itself, reasonable rates are necessary so that repayment is a likely outcome most of the time. I find the legalized loan sharking that takes place with some credit cards and payday advances should be reined in.

I'll just re-post what Foxy wrote, because she stated it PERFECTLY and deserves rereading!

I have to agree with this. If somebody wants to charge 100% interest or 500% interest or 1000% interest, it should be the borrower's prerogative to pay it if the borrower chooses to do that.

It should be the role of government to safeguard the borrower's right to be fully informed of what he or she is agreeing to however. I wouldn't even object to a requirement that the borrower sign acknowledgement that he or she has been duly informed and that he or she understands that other lenders offer a much lower rate.

We cannot say that we want self governance with the federal government playing only a support role to defend our rights and then regulate what we are allowed to choose to do.

The way predatory lending is ended in a free society with free market principles is DON'T BORROW FROM THEM!

If they can't make a living a 40%, they will at 20% or 10% or 3.458%...whatever the market will bare!

 

[Foxfyre]

The only issue I have with your argument JD, is what Congress and the President pass as law can be rescinded at any time the Congress and President wish to rescind it. And lately the President seems to be finding all kinds of loopholes to bypass Congress to make or rescind laws.

When the Constitution started out with the understanding by all signers that black people were not included in the unalienable rights afforded everybody else, I think the Constitution does have to correct that in order for it to be forever corrected. Ditto to women's suffrage. But I am certainly open to debating whether other amendments do in fact change original intent and need to be repealed.

 

[Foxfyre]

We allow the goverment to regulate many parts of life where a person may injure themselves. Interest rates appraoching 40% are almost impossilbe to payoff in a person's lifetime. For the protection of that person, as well as the financial system itself, reasonable rates are necessary so that repayment is a likely outcome most of the time. I find the legalized loan sharking that takes place with some credit cards and payday advances should be reined in.

If we could rein it in without controlling a person's right to be smart or stupid as he or she chooses, I would agree. But there is no way to protect people from their own stupidity without restricting the freedoms we all enjoy.

The free market has resulted in me having no fees on my credit card and, because we pay the balance in full every 30 days, we pay no interest at all. If the credit cards are not allowed to charge what they can get for interest, I wind up paying a fee to have my card and maybe lose the grace period too. I prefer free market principles along with the schools again teaching real subjects like borrowing and interest and budgeting, etc.

 

[saveliberty]

I was in local politics for six years JD. It is highly insulting to me that you think we all do it for selfish reasons.

 

[JDzBrain]

I was in local politics for six years JD. It is highly insulting to me that you think we all do it for selfish reasons.

LOL...well, we ARE free to feel however we want, but there really is no need to be liberty. Not only would I not presume to make such a blanket statement, but that wasn't even the point to the statement.

I THINK that if you reread my post, you'll see that my point was aimed squarely at the apathy of the average American voter who takes for grated the importance of EVERY vote. NOT just the national ones.

My point was NOT that being someone's cousin disqualifies them, but that it does not automatically qualify them as deserving of our vote. And until the number of people who understand that outnumber the number who don't...we are not going to get the representation we want.

The only issue I have with your argument JD, is what Congress and the President pass as law can be rescinded at any time the Congress and President wish to rescind it. And lately the President seems to be finding all kinds of loopholes to bypass Congress to make or rescind laws.

When the Constitution started out with the understanding by all signers that black people were not included in the unalienable rights afforded everybody else, I think the Constitution does have to correct that in order for it to be forever corrected. Ditto to women's suffrage. But I am certainly open to debating whether other amendments do in fact change original intent and need to be repealed.

First...and just to get this out of the way Foxy, there was NO such assumption written into the Constitution. At one point in our history, there were MORE whites and non blacks in slavery than there were blacks. ONE MORE of those things about our history most people don't know. Along with things like the FIRST slave owner in this country WAS BLACK!

YES, there were founders who owned slaves. However, there were free black men who played a huge part in our founding as well. That iconic picture of Washington crossing the Delaware, if you look closely, you'll notice that one of the fellas at his feet was a black man. A FREE black man who was at Washington's side throughout the War of Independence!

11 of 13 casualties in the first battle of our revolutionary war were black men. That's right, whites AND blacks fought at Lexington and Concord!

While there is no doubt that slavery was turned into a huge business of buying blacks from blacks and importing them to this country by the Dutch, it was NOT written into our Constitution or even presumed to it by the founders to be exclusively a black or white problem. Just an immoral practice and contrary to the founding principles written into the Declaration.

As a matter of fact, the so called, 3/5ths clause was written into the Constitution for the sole purpose of forcing future generations to deal with indentured servitude and slavery of ALL men AND women described as "all other Persons" in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution...NOT just blacks.

That out of the way, you are DEAD RIGHT!

It HAS become all to easy and routine for our elected officials to ignore the Constitution, the laws they pass and even their own rules. And you know what? It is all linked DIRECTLY back to a politically motivated Amendment!

When the 17th Amendment was passed, it not only took away the peoples leverage within the Congress, but within their own state governments. Does ANYONE honestly think that Obamacare would have ever seen the light of day if when the Senator's voted for it, they had to go back to the state representatives who elected them and explain how THEY were then going to explain to their constituents that they had to raise their state taxes to pay for the unfunded liabilities written into it? There's not a chanch in franch as they say over in central Kentucky. ;~)

Things like Obamacare ARE what comes from playing politics with the amendment process. Repelling the 17th Amendment and returning the appointment of Senators BACK to the states as was the ORIGINAL INTENT of our founders would go a long way toward restoring checks and balances to our government.

If we are to accept that our Senators are going to be corrupted, at least it would be by the selfish self interest of the citizens of their home states and not the highest bidder in Washington! LOL

If we could rein it in without controlling a person's right to be smart or stupid as he or she chooses, I would agree. But there is no way to protect people from their own stupidity without restricting the freedoms we all enjoy.

The free market has resulted in me having no fees on my credit card and, because we pay the balance in full every 30 days, we pay no interest at all. If the credit cards are not allowed to charge what they can get for interest, I wind up paying a fee to have my card and maybe lose the grace period too. I prefer free market principles along with the schools again teaching real subjects like borrowing and interest and budgeting, etc.

Perfectly stated Foxy. Maybe the only person who has ever said it better is Thomas Jefferson. "I prefer the inconvenience of too much liberty to the tyranny of too little of it." ;~)

And yes, we WILL allow you the "great minds think alike" comment since you stated the principle so well and provided such a great example. LOL