Reply With Quote
try and send a ceo to jail for a corporations nonpayment of debts and see how quick you get the door slammed in your face.
Its a rigged game, and Marcus is spouting the company line. You dont have to buy that moral horse MB.
Show up to court when summoned, don't borrow more than you can afford, or file bankruptcy. Problem solved for the folks.
try and send a ceo to jail for a corporations nonpayment of debts and see how quick you get the door slammed in your face.
Its a rigged game, and Marcus is spouting the company line. You dont have to buy that moral horse MB.
I understand, but I just wanted to state my piece about the disparity between business debts and individual debts and the fraudulent moral guilt trip the wealthy impose on the working class.
'Hey, the other guy does it' isn't a persuasive argument.
As for morality, that is your appeal.
you imply its inherently wrong, which implies application of moral judgment. BUT, Its only wrong if the law says so. And if the law favors options in business, the same should apply to individuals. No jailtime for CEOs should mean no jailtime for individuals.
If we can sheild a ceo from default on company debts as a matter of law, lets shield a father in time of unemployment. just sayin.
Sure, it would be nice to see those in positions of power and influence held to account more often.
And it's not like there do not already exist options for those who are not so fortunate.
If it's moral to expect contracts to be upheld, sobeit. The opposite is not liberty.
Nice summation of your appeal. Maybe Pops should have expected that he could be laid off at some point when he was living on borrowed funds.If we can sheild a ceo from default on company debts as a matter of law, lets shield a father in time of unemployment. just sayin.
I understand what you're saying, and specifically the case you're pointing to, which is of people that won't declare bankruptcy nor paid the debt, but have extra money sitting there.
But by bas izing the legal system with inane shortcuts some of these courts are basically doing away with due process, and basically assuming that everyone that owes money is the kind of people you point out above.
Which is obviously very wrong. And the only beneficiaries of doing things this way are these collection agencies which save time and money 'expediting' the process by ting on our rights.
Such a self-righteous, ed-up at ude. People lose jobs, get sick and cannot work or have that happen to a spouse or loved one. Some people take a chance and try to start a business but fail for some reason other than laziness. It is hardly ever someone running up consumer debt and then not wanting to pay. That concept appeals to you because you are a cold sob. All kinds of things happen that cause people to have problems paying high-interest, unsecured loans. Damn. You just about make me wish some bad on your ass. You would come out of it with better character.
Top off what ever disasters they have experienced with throwing them in jail-its ing unAmerican.
If these people were such bad risks and the lenders were such good businesspeople, why were they lent any money?
This is EXACTLY like the sub-prime mortgage/liar's loans scam, with the lenders knowing full well what they were doing was a scam, fraud.
"its ing unAmerican."
Only when you believe the myths and lies Americans tell themselves.
Marcus and others here never defend the citizens, everything is always the fault of the individuals. The ins utions are always blameless.
"Heard story on the radio" about some decent number of states, about 20?, limiting rates to 24%. One chain of lenders in that state shut itself down, saying it couldn't do business taking only 24% interest.
A lady lender was almost moaning, sounded terribly depressed, Oh The Melodrama!, about how she was prevented from "helping" these poor people with 300% interest loans, and that she her lending self was now out of a job, "it's tough out there".
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-19-2010 at 11:17 AM.
People have a legal out already. Naturally not content to be able to not pay back their debts and blow off court dates, Americans term it "cold" that the fault for the majority of these ensian tales be laid where it belongs. Exercise some ing prudence and common sense. Then perhaps you won't have debt collectors and the courts raining on your great materialist masturabatory parade.
At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and des ute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''
``Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.
``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
``And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''
``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''
``The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.
``Both very busy, sir.''
``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.''
``Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the mul ude,'' returned the gentleman, ``a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?
``Nothing!'' Scrooge replied."
``You wish to be anonymous?''
``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge.
What will be a shock to corporate America is that if this proliferates, the economy may never recover. This economy REQUIRES that people go into debt to consume, and if they're scared away from doing so, the engine will just keep sputtering.
This will kill the economy much more certainly than any tax increase. Bad debt is a part of the cost of doing business.
You missed a few articles posted here concerning the fact that people are actually saving more and borrowing less. (Economist.com article showing Fed report data) That is, I believe, really one of the two core causes for the current lackluster economic performance more than anything else.
The economy does not require people to go into debt to consume; it is just that debt is required for the past pace of consumtion/growth.
We have more than tripled the amount of retail square footage per consumer in the last few decades. That trend will stop, IMO, and quite likely reverse to at least a small degree, if not more.
This is not exactly a bad thing, but it will lead to lingering higher unemployment. This will happen no matter which party is in power, or what they do.
This economy has, again in my opinion, permanently changed a lot of people's behavior, i.e. towards saving.
What if you get sick while uninsured?
The leading cause of bankruptcy is... medical bills, followed by unemployment, neither cause fits neatly into someone indulging in a "materialist masturbatotry parade".
If you like, I can point you to the specific studies done to support that statement.
The problem with this solution is the presumption of abuse in bankruptcy laws.
You must have debts past a certain level relative to income to qualify for the type of bankruptcy that allows you to dismiss debts.
Otherwise you get funneled into the "we aren't going to forgive anything, just make you stretch out the payments forever" kind of bankruptcy.
Judgmental fail.Jailed for $250
One afternoon last spring, Deborah
Poplawski, 38, of Minneapolis was digging in
her purse for coins to feed a downtown
parking meter when she saw the flashing
lights of a Minneapolis police squad car
behind her. Poplawski, a restaurant cook,
assumed she had parked illegally. Instead,
she was headed to jail over a $250 credit
card debt.
Less than a month earlier, she learned by
chance from an employment counselor that
she had an outstanding warrant. Debt
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the nature of these people, with very little data, mostly to make yourself feel morally superior.
clap.
clap.
clap.
Now, can you find some data to show what percentage of these people really did "borrow more than they could afford"?
...or did you pull that little gem out of your ass?
Bull has been called. Put up or STFU.
this seemed to be the more consistent problem throughout that article.
I'm wondering what she thought "warrant" meant"I wasn't equating the warrant with
going to jail, because there wasn't criminal
activity associated with it,"
Yes it was.
That is why I think some of this is a tad overblown.
The problem though, is that most people who work for hourly wages don't get paid time off.
Taking a day off or multiple days off for trials, motions, and so forth = less pay, which probably isn't helping the problem.
Forcing people into jail, for not showing up, also not helping the problem.
All that does is put more money into the pockets of some REALLY corrupt s, bail bondsmen.
You think any "fat cat" banker is s my, look into that little putrid cesspool.
Ick.
So they could afford it, but chose not to pay and also ignore a court summons?
But one musn't be seen as "judgmental" for pointing out the obvious.
Why, we musn't expect people to be mature about their personal affairs, including their own liberty. Rather, we must excuse rank irresponsibility with bellyaching about judgmentalism.
Description of Straw Man
Congratulations. You have succeeded in debunking an idea/opinion that no one has.The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not cons ute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Do you base all of your opinions on pure illogical arguments, or just most of them?
People obviously should pay their debts, and should not take on more debt than they can reasonably afford to.
Your problem is that you implied that everybody in trouble with unpaid debts was completely irresponsible in some way. Feel free to correct me on this.
I think you say that because you want to feel morally superior by being passing a judgment on others, as opposed to saying that because you have some data to support that.
If you do not or cannot provide data to support your opinion, I think it is safe to assume the former.
Do you think that everybody in trouble with unpaid debts got there because they were irresponsible?
I will also readily acknowledge that some people really did take on more than they could afford. Some really were morons about it, straight up. That is an easy case to make, and they have all sorts of reality shows that provide a ready stream of anecdotal evidence to support that.
BUT
Not everybody in trouble got that way because they were being morons with debt.
That's all beside the point. The real question is whether they ended up in jail for being in debt, or ignoring court summonses.
If the latter is true, as a number of posters seem to have concluded entirely without reference to the data, MB's take seems amply justified to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions