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.

 

Americans Falling Behind on Credit Card Payments at Alarming Rate

page: 18
8
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


I don't use credit cards anymore, so I can't read off the agreement, but my rates never changed at all unless I transferred a balance. The only exception would be of course if I missed a payment.



They bought optional items they could not afford in a interest rate environment where such luxuries were affordable...


And therein lies the dubious nature of our banking system and the terminal flaw of our economy.

[edit on 1/5/0808 by jackinthebox]




posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


If credit card rates never change, then how is it we have entire studies based on this? Of course they change, its called variable rates. YOU might have had a fixed rate, but even those are subject to change at any time - and most people (according to those studies) have variable rates.

And I don't see a problem at all if people are allowed to buy things they can't afford. They have that right, and should not be deprived of the choice to get into debt. If they want to pay interest...why shouldn't they be allowed to? And if they can't afford it, why shouldn't they pay the price of defaulting?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




And I don't see a problem at all if people are allowed to buy things they can't afford. -LightinDarkness


Here is the problem...



"And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise" (John 2:13-16).




"Oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself "(Ezekiel 18:12-13).




"If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury "(Exodus 22:25).




"Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase" (Lev. 25:37).




"Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury "(Deut. 23:19).




"He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved" (PS. 15:5).


Has anyone seen the light?

[edit on 1/5/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I actually had to not reply for a while. Wow. Where to begin?

#1) I am a Christian, but this government is not a theocracy, this is a republic. The United States government should not and will not ever begin following rules simply because they are IN THE BIBLE. The commandments of the bible are not binding on a secular government, nor should they be.

#2) Banks are private businesses and are under no obligation to follow the commandments of a religious text.

#3) Consumers CAN CHOOSE TO DO BUSINESS WITH A BANK OR NOT TO DO SO. Don't want to take out a loan? Then don't - who are you to force religious ideology on others?

#4) Assuming 1-3 above are not correct for the sake of argument (ha, I'm being generous), who gets to define usury? You? What is the basis for your definition? Why is it that you do not also force everyone else to follow the other commandments of the Bible? Like the prohibition against eating seafood - would you have the government enforce that as well? No? What commandments does the government get to enforce? Why?

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the biblical concept of FREE WILL?



[edit on 5-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
For those who want to claim that usury (interest) is essential to a successful economy, consider that the ancient nation of Israel forbid usury and yet came to surpass all other in wealth.



"So king Solomon exceeded ALL the kings of the earth for riches and for wisdom....And the king made silver (real money) to be in Jerusalem as stones...." I Kings 10:23-27.


This famous man became rich through hard work and fair trade. Sloth is the sin of the moneylenders who let money work for them.


"And Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold" (Genesis 13:2).



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Double post - mods, please delete.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


We're still waiting for you to define what usury is. What percent interest is usury? I would also point out all of the empires which came after Israel, who allowed free reign of interest rates and surpassed the wealth of that kingdom. Or will you now tell us that the wealth of Israel surpassed Greece and Rome? Also, the historical evidence shows Israel in fact allowed freedom of banking and had no laws against usury, simply discouraged people from doing it - they did it anyways.

But I suppose you'd like us to be a theocracy now?

Isn't it funny how people selectively quote the bible to try to make it fit their viewpoint. I'm still waiting for you tell me if you think we should also outlaw eating seafood, since that was also prohibited in the old testament. Or prohibit women from speaking in churches, which was a commandment in the new testament.

I am a Christian, and in no way want the state to try to selectively enforce the Bible. That is not the role of the state.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




#1) I am a Christian, but this government is not a theocracy, this is a republic. The United States government should not and will not ever begin following rules simply because they are IN THE BIBLE. The commandments of the bible are not binding on a secular government, nor should they be.


I am not a Christian but I once heard something like "...one nation, under God..."



#2) Banks are private businesses and are under no obligation to follow the commandments of a religious text.


A most obvious point. They have always ignored righteousness.



#3) Consumers CAN CHOOSE TO DO BUSINESS WITH A BANK OR NOT TO DO SO. Don't want to take out a loan? Then don't - who are you to force religious ideology on others?


If you use US currency, you are doing business with a bank that has forced usury upon this nation since 1913. I do not see the need to force secular views upon those who believe in God.



#4) Assuming 1-3 above are not correct for the sake of argument (ha, I'm being generous), who gets to define usury? You? What is the basis for your definition?


u·su·ry (yōō'zhə-rē)
n. pl. u·su·ries

1.The practice of lending money and charging the borrower interest, especially at an exorbitant or illegally high rate.

2.An excessive or illegally high rate of interest charged on borrowed money.

3. Interest charged or paid on a loan.

This definition is compliments of the American Heritage Dictionary.

Perhaps someone might need this one as well:

dic·tion·ar·y /ˈdɪkʃəˌnɛri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dik-shuh-ner-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ar·ies.

1. a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language; lexicon; glossary: a dictionary of English; a Japanese-English dictionary.

2. a book giving information on particular subjects or on a particular class of words, names, or facts, usually arranged alphabetically: a biographical dictionary; a dictionary of mathematics.
















[edit on 1/5/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I am not Christian but I once heard something like "...one nation, under God..."


Did you? Good for you. Now, can you tell me what God? The Christian God? The Islamic God? Perhaps one of the countless Hindu Gods? Maybe a Nordic God? Perhaps a Neopagan God? Which God are we under? You tell me, and you win a prize!



A most obvious point. They have always ignored righteousness.


Really? I totally wasn't aware that businesses were in business to be righteous. I thought they were in business to make a profit. I have no idea where I got that idea from, though.



If you use US currency, you are doing business with a bank that has forced usury upon this nation since 1913. I do not see the need to force secular views upon those who believe in God.


No, your little conspiracy doesn't mean that at all - even though its completely a untrue conspiracy. Still, how is it that people (according to you) don't get to choose about whether or not to do business with someone again?

Your little dictionary quote of usury is cute and I was waiting on you to do it. You still haven't answered the question. It certainly isn't an illegally high rate - it is quite legal. What percent rage is excessive or high? Who gets to decide? What's the standard? Why don't we get to also enforce the rules about not eating sea food? Or stoning adulterers?

As usual, you've got nothing.




Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

- Romans 13:8


Well gee, now, how can you owe no man anything? Oh, I'VE GOT IT! Don't TAKE OUT LOANS!



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 



Did you? Good for you. Now, can you tell me what God? The Christian God? The Islamic God? Perhaps one of the countless Hindu Gods? Maybe a Nordic God? Perhaps a Neopagan God? Which God are we under? You tell me, and you win a prize!


It is of no concern to you what (if any) God I choose to believe in. However, if you are looking to define the God referred to by our founding fathers, history books should further your understanding of the concept. Our entire legal system is based on a belief in God. So why not our economy?



Really? I totally wasn't aware that businesses were in business to be righteous. I thought they were in business to make a profit. I have no idea where I got that idea from, though.


Again you amaze me with your keen ability to state the obvious, and waste thread space.



No, your little conspiracy doesn't mean that at all - even though its completely a untrue conspiracy. Still, how is it that people (according to you) don't get to choose about whether or not to do business with someone again?


Now you're babbling. What are you talking about? Are you trying to argue that the Federal Reserve is not a privately owned bank?



Your little dictionary quote of usury is cute and I was waiting on you to do it. You still haven't answered the question. It certainly isn't an illegally high rate - it is quite legal. What percent rage is excessive or high? Who gets to decide? What's the standard?


You asked me what usury was. If you can't comprehend the definition of the word, I suggest you get a refund on your education.



Why don't we get to also enforce the rules about not eating sea food? Or stoning adulterers?


Is this another feeble attempt to derail the discussion because you have nothing? We are not talking about shellfish or punishing adulterers. Gark on.



Well gee, now, how can you owe no man anything?


If my family homestead had not been taken by the government and the banks, I would be living off the land right now, and wouldn't owe anyone anything.

Well actually, I don't owe anyone anything anymore anyway.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
This is comical, you invoke biblical quotes to defend yourself then turn a 360. Desperate measures...


It is of no concern to you what (if any) God I choose to believe in. However, if you are looking to define the God referred to by our founding fathers, history books should further your understanding of the concept. Our entire legal system is based on a belief in God. So why not our economy?


You are the one invoking biblical quotes to defend your view point. So its a logical question - which God have you now determined that United States law must mirror? You can't do them all. Pick one..or admit this avenue of logic was dead upon arrival - but I know you won't do that.

The founding fathers were all manners of Deist - some Christian, others not. So which God are we following? I would say none as a government, but since you've determined we need to...do tell.


Again you amaze me with your keen ability to state the obvious, and waste thread space.


The irony that you say something like this after just declaring businesses should be righteous and follow the Bible instead of making profits fails no one. You are wasting thread space.


Now you're babbling. What are you talking about? Are you trying to argue that the Federal Reserve is not a privately owned bank?


Why do you keep babbling? You've declared we have to follow the biblical laws against usury - but won't tell me what other laws we also have to follows. Apparently we don't have to follow any other biblical commandments - like the ones about not owing any man anything. Why is it OK for the people to have the free will to follow commandments IN A GOVERNMENT THAT IS NOT A BIBLICAL THEOCRACY, but not the banks?


You asked me what usury was. If you can't comprehend the definition of the word, I suggest you get a refund on your education.


My child, you still have not told us what percentage rate is usury. Since you have declared that we are to follow biblical law in this secular republic, you must also tell us what percentage rate is usury.


Is this another feeble attempt to derail the discussion because you have nothing? We are not talking about shellfish or punishing adulterers. Gark on.


My child, you have declared banks are charging interest rates that are usurious and cannot do that because of the Bible. I have asked you what other biblical laws this secular republic must also follow - the Bible tells us we must stone adulterers and not eat seafood. Do we also have to follow those commandments? Should the government enforce those as well? What about the order to owe no man nothing?


If my family homestead had not been taken by the government and the banks, I would be living off the land right now, and wouldn't owe anyone anything.


Perhaps if you would have followed the commandment of owing no man nothing, the bank wouldn't have taken it. You should follow the bible your going to preach to us.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




This is comical, you invoke biblical quotes to defend yourself then turn a 360. Desperate measures...


Turn a 360?
OOOOkay then.



You are the one invoking biblical quotes to defend your view point. So its a logical question - which God have you now determined that United States law must mirror? You can't do them all. Pick one..or admit this avenue of logic was dead upon arrival - but I know you won't do that.

The founding fathers were all manners of Deist - some Christian, others not. So which God are we following? I would say none as a government, but since you've determined we need to...do tell.


"...one nation, under God..." Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the meaning. "In God We Trust." Or is it your position that these phrases mean nothing?



You've declared we have to follow the biblical laws against usury - but won't tell me what other laws we also have to follows.



My child, you have declared banks are charging interest rates that are usurious and cannot do that because of the Bible. I have asked you what other biblical laws this secular republic must also follow - the Bible tells us we must stone adulterers and not eat seafood. Do we also have to follow those commandments? Should the government enforce those as well? What about the order to owe no man nothing?


On ATS we must follow the laws of sticking to the subject, lest we prove ourselves ignorant disinformation agents trying to derail a thread.



Perhaps if you would have followed the commandment of owing no man nothing, the bank wouldn't have taken it. You should follow the bible your going to preach to us.


The court ruled that the land was taken in a bank swindle, but could not be returned as the property had already been built on. A monetary reward for damages was irrelevant at that point since the farm could not keep running without the fields. The house was seized well below market value to put in a road, at the behest of a local banker and developer who wanted to expand their illegally built apartment complex. Another fine example of the cozy relationship between the banks and the government.

BTW, I am not your child and using such phraseology is idiotic.













[edit on 1/5/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Perhaps you could enlighten us about what God it is we trust in? Apparently you know, since you've declared we must follow certain biblical rules (but not others for some reason - which you refuse to answer).

You apparently do not follow the rules of sticking to the subject, since YOU are the one who starting quoting the bible about usury. Why do you refuse to answer the question? Since you have declared that we must follow the bible's definition of usury - although you cannot say what usury actually means or what percentage rate is usurious - what about the rest of the commandments? Do we follow those as well? Why not? Do not start quoting from the bible and declaring we should follow it if you do not want to answer these sorts of questions.

What happened is called eminent domain - and it is perfectly legal in every state for the narrowly tailored public use definition as defined by the Supreme Court, and the Court leaves it to the states about the more broadly tailored definition of public good. You are entitled to fair market value, nothing more, nothing less.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




You apparently do not follow the rules of sticking to the subject, since YOU are the one who starting quoting the bible about usury.


And ususry is directly related to credit. So what about the rules now?



What happened is called eminent domain - and it is perfectly legal in every state for the narrowly tailored public use definition as defined by the Supreme Court, and the Court leaves it to the states about the more broadly tailored definition of public good. You are entitled to fair market value, nothing more, nothing less


Eminent domain was a part of the overall scheme. And regardless of entitlement, far less than market value was paid.



Why do you refuse to answer the question? Since you have declared that we must follow the bible's definition of usury - although you cannot say what usury actually means or what percentage rate is usurious - what about the rest of the commandments? Do we follow those as well? Why not? Do not start quoting from the bible and declaring we should follow it if you do not want to answer these sorts of questions.


I have answered your questions several times now, but it seems you have now lost the ability to read. I posted the English language definition of usury. If you can't understand that, you are wasting everyone's time.

And what about the Commandments? They have nothing to do with what we are discussing here.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I am still waiting on you to tell me (1) why a secular republic should abide by Biblical commandments, (2) what percentage rate is usurious, (3) why is it we don't have to follow other commandments, why have you declared as our Ruler that we only have to follow that one? I know you keep dodging these questions because you can't answer them, but the more you reply the more I'll keep repeating myself - as it shows everyone that you have nothing to back up your position.

I spent years doing a thesis on eminent domain. I personally dislike the concept, but it is a "necessary evil." You are entitled to fair market value for any property taken from you. That means the value the land was worth were it to be sold on the open market. Period. Judges know this and are terrified of the legal smack down that would come upon them should they not follow the law in this respect.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




I am still waiting on you to tell me (1) why a secular republic should abide by Biblical commandments, (2) what percentage rate is usurious, (3) why is it we don't have to follow other commandments, why have you declared as our Ruler that we only have to follow that one? I know you keep dodging these questions because you can't answer them, but the more you reply the more I'll keep repeating myself - as it shows everyone that you have nothing to back up your position.


As to question one. You do realize that a law is based on morals handed down from ancient times, do you not? ALL laws are based on religious values.

Question two has already been answered repeatedly.

Qustion three is not relevant to this discussion.



I spent years doing a thesis on eminent domain. I personally dislike the concept, but it is a "necessary evil." You are entitled to fair market value for any property taken from you. That means the value the land was worth were it to be sold on the open market. Period. Judges know this and are terrified of the legal smack down that would come upon them should they not follow the law in this respect.


The payment recieved was far below market value, and no compensation was rewarded for the other irregularities that surrounded the final seizure of property.

Furthermore, the house was supposed to be knocked down to make way for the road, but never was, and was instead incorparated into the apartment complex.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


And you get to decide what religious values to enforce why? Why are you the anointed to determine what religious values get enforced into law? What percentage rate is usurious? All you have done is pompously pasted the definition of usury which no one asked for - I have asked you to tell me what exactly is excessive - what is the interest point where something becomes excessive? How do you determine this? Why is it we don't have to follow other commandments, why have you declared as our Ruler that we only have to follow that one?

I know you keep dodging these questions because you can't answer them, but the more you reply the more I'll keep repeating myself - as it shows everyone that you have nothing to back up your position.

Regarding eminent domain - why did you not appeal? If you really did NOT receive fair market value, an appeal would have guaranteed it. The expansion of the apartment complex is irrelevant if your state endorses a broad definition of the public good doctrine, otherwise, that too would have been appealable.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




Regarding eminent domain - why did you not appeal? If you really did NOT receive fair market value, an appeal would have guaranteed it. The expansion of the apartment complex is irrelevant if your state endorses a broad definition of the public good doctrine, otherwise, that too would have been appealable.


Obviously you have no concept of the power of political corruption and how it is fueled by banks. People here in NY get their dead bodies found in icy rivers. Now if this happens at the local level, decades ago, try to imagine what is happening at the national level today.



All you have done is pompously pasted the definition of usury which no one asked for...



We're still waiting for you to define what usury is.


This is proof positive that your only purpose here is to provoke a fight and derail the topic. You have no interest in the truth. Your feeble attempt at furthering your own fallacious and ignorant agenda has now been exposed.

You asked for information, then refute it when it is given. Most illogical.

You lose. Now buh-bye.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Obviously you have no concept of eminent domain. You could have removed the case to another court easily.

Your postings are proof positive that you are only here to derail the topic and bait people who disagree with your worldview for which you have no evidence. I have asked you over and over to tell me what IS the percentage rate that is usury, and you refuse to do so because you cannot. You also cannot tell us why it is that banks have to abide by the bible but no one else does, and how you can decide that THIS biblical rule must be abided by but all the other rules do not have to be. You cannot answer these questions because these are essentially why you've got nothing for your case. You decided to derail the topic by posting bible quotes. I am sorry your upset that you've been called out on your absolute lack of any logic, reason, or evidence.

Your little cute "you lose" sayings show how little evidence you have. You've lost this since you first starting posting.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
If anyone other than LightinDarkness has any questions about my posts, please feel free to U2U me, or post your questions here. I will stop back sometime in the next few days to see if this discussion has resumed in a more relevant direction.

This is an example of having nothing important to say, but having to keep saying it anyway.


And this is how I feel...

...yes, Groundhog Day. Now if I could just throw in the audio of "I Got You Babe" I'd have it made.



[edit on 1/6/0808 by jackinthebox]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join