It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thousands of Troops Barred from Overseas Duty Because of High Personal Debt

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


...just as the bankruptcy laws were recently changed due to a sharply increasing number of filings, usury laws should also be adapted to curb this problem.


What can be done about it other than prohibiting people from having access to these types of loans and establishments???




First, the bankruptcy laws were changed - to prevent ordinary people from going bankrupt - and then loan and credit marketing went totally predatory. Now, ordinary people are in way over their heads, with no way out.

Looks like a set up to me.

Wonder what's gonna happen next.


.




posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by Nygdan
What can be done about it other than prohibiting people from having access to these types of loans and establishments???

Fortunately, I have never had to deal with one of these establishments, so my comment is actually part question to the board:

Maybe they can be more open in revealing the real cost of the loan to the consumer. Maybe they already do that now; I don't know. The only thing I have heard is for Title Loans, they want the title to your car AND a set of keys. No grace period; one day late and they repossess the car.

If people knew just how costly these loans were, maybe they'd think twice. Of course, maybe some of them figure that they're going overseas anyway, and they can't be tracked down. Just guessing.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
psyopswatcher

Yes all military active duty have security clearance, but most military clearances are in the low scale so it has to be something more than just personal debt to be released from duty or going oversea for losing the clearance or becoming a target for coercion.

Many main based military facilities prohibits military personnel from getting into any type of places deemed Off duty. Like loan shark places as many has pointed about.

Also all records that amilitary personnel have that affects their duties and abilities to perform are called to the attention of their units.

That is why the military is finding so many problems with military personnel and debt.

I believe that the commanding officers are been bombarded with too many complains about late and none payments of debts because everything is tracked down.


apc

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Charging high interest rates on loans to people is hardly the same as molesting a child.

I am unfamiliar with any legislation that protects old people in particular from fraud. Fraud in general is protected against.

What can be done about it other than prohibiting people from having access to these types of loans and establishments???


I think the analogy is a good one. A predator is taking advantage of someone that is at a relative disadvantage and more likely to be susceptible to poor judgement, resulting in a detrimental decision that has a strong potential for long term damage.

And law is not the motivation. It's the underlying moral motivation, from which our fundamental laws are derived. A simple question of right or wrong, and is there anything we can do about it? I think there is, and it's not keeping people out. 19% is high interest. 24% is ludacris interest. 300% isshootmeintheheadnowbecauseImdeadinsidealready interest.

It is far too easy for the most desperate and needy (and soldiers, apparently), people whom chances are they're already living partially off tax-dollars, to suddenly find themselves completely and totally dependent on the state or worse.

Oh and uhm... didn't you know terrorists use them to make money?



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Many main based military facilities prohibits military personnel from getting into any type of places deemed Off duty. Like loan shark places as many has pointed about.



I believe you meant to say Off limits, Marg. But I understood by your context.

Don't worry, Jr's tightly controlled House and Senate has the problem fixed in the new appropriations bill (HR 5122) he signed last week (same day he signed the torture bill, did you know?).

And the Banking Industry has their panties in a very tight wad, because it included Pentagon oversight over them...


Banks Fight Cap on Rates, Fees for Military Families

More than any other law in years, this legislation has triggered a near panic for the banking industry operating inside the beltway, and it's up against tough opponents. Senior Defense Department officials have pushed hard for the protections, and consumer groups have already lined up to defend the interest-rate caps and other protections put in place.

...

For years, the Defense Department has struggled with ways to shield servicemembers from mounting debt problems. In the last few years, the agency has held seminars for more than 300,000 servicemembers, but this summer senior officials told lawmakers that a new law was necessary to protect the military from predatory lending, and payday and internet loan traps.

Last week, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The law includes a provision aimed to protect military servicemembers from the high fees charged by payday loan stores and other companies.

For some, this provision was thought to only address specific lenders, such as payday loan companies operating on or near military bases and internet loans where the terms were unclear. But the law actually casts a much wider net.

The provision, sponsored by Sen. James Talent, the Missouri Republican who is in a tough reelection fight, mandates that lenders - including more than 8,000 commercial banks and thrifts - cannot charge more than a 36% annual interest rate to servicemembers or most family members for short-term loans and things such as credit cards.

...

The law did something else that riled the banking industry - it gave the Defense Department jurisdiction over the new law, cutting out banking regulators such as the Federal Reserve that traditionally handle such issues. This move has already caught the regulators' attention.

...

This summer, Defense Department officials released a report alleging that many lenders stationed around military bases attempted to hook servicemembers into predatory short-term loans with high interest rates that would be difficult if not impossible to repay.

Defaulting on such loans has a devastating impact on servicemembers, including the loss of security clearance. In fact, the Associated Press reported last week that there has been a ninefold increase from 2002 to 2005 in the number of military servicemembers who have lost their security clearance because of debt problems, with security clearance stripped from 2,654 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force personnel last year. Data from the Army was not available.



36% is still out of apc's ludicrous range?


apc

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Glad to see the logical course of action being taken. And 36% is still quite insane, but acceptable. I would even be satisfied with a cap at 50%.

With changes in legislation recently meant to protect lenders, it's only reasonable something be done to help protect the recipients. Indeed there are indications of alterior motives, but at this point that is speculative.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Ah apc, that's not the only thing this bill has wrought. Look what else got snuck in:

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.


Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

...

For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.



Signed the same day as the torture bill, which the author points out complement each other nicely.

Meshes too with what Agent T said on page 1:


Originally posted by AGENT_T

And where better to have an Army vulnerable to bribery or treason than in your own back yard when The Prez calls Martial law?.

It would be beneficial to have a bunch of grunts who would sell out their principals and liberties for a promise of overlooked debts..

Hmmm.. the noose tightens


apc

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
That's an interesting interpretation...


`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2)
; or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.


The way I read that, it says "If all Hell breaks loose and the states can't control a damn thing, the military may be deployed."


>

The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service to... suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy... opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.


I put together that logical progression of elements. This I would consider to have a hazard potential. It is restricted to the letter of the law, but it will only be just so long as the law is just.

[edit on 28-10-2006 by apc]



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
This morphing of the discussion to the possibility of martial law got picked up over here:

» War On Terrorism » Bush authorizes martial law

(Sorry for the hijack, but T did call it on page one.)



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
It would seem the new law aims to prevent another New Orleans situation in the wake of hurricane Katrina.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join