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: 19
8
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Yes, it is always best to ignore calls for evidence. It might shatter your worldview once you realize you have none. I know its hard, but your posts are a perfect example of having no point but continuing to post anyways. I will continue to ask:

(1) What interest rate is usurious? How is this determined? What is the INTEREST RATE PERCENT when a bank is now usurious? 5%? 10%? 30%?

(2) Since you have declared that banks are being usurious and should follow biblical law on the matter, what other biblical principals must this secular republic enforce? Why? Who gets to decide?

You can insult all you want, it just shows everyone that you've got nothing and are desperately grasping at threads to reaffirm the reality you've built for yourself.


[edit on 6-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




Since you have declared that banks are being usurious and should follow biblical law on the matter, what other biblical principals must this secular republic enforce? Why? Who gets to decide?


Perhaps we should start with the Biblical commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Kill," unless of course you think murder should be acceptable in a secular republic. Shall we continue debating the basis of Law?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
As I stated earlier, I will be happy to answer any other quetions and to engage in fruitful debate at a later time with other ATS members who are actually interested in revealing the truth. But for now, I must go. Cheers.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Perhaps we should start with the commandment that you should owe no man anything. How is it we even have to worry about usury if you don't owe anything? Hmm? Or how about stoning adulterers? Not eating seafood? Which commandments must we abide by since you have declared that the SECULAR REPUBLIC must now follow the bible in regards to PRIVATE BANKING.

Of course, I am STILL waiting on what percent interest is usury. I realize you can't answer because it shows how selective your being and brings down the house of cards that is your argument.

I do not feel the need to only associate those who confirm my worldview. That is why I talk to all ATS members, and do not disassociate from people because they offer firm evidence that is completely contrary to my viewpoint.


[edit on 6-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
An economic factor that has been overlooked so far is this...
The national-minimum-wage, and paychecks for the working masses in general have barely increased to account for the rise in goods and services prices and other inflation-affected resources, and rather than increase wages through employee salaries, the pay-rise has been 'privatised' to an extent.

Rather than negotiating a raise directly with an employer and having that raise based on performance and productivity in the workplace, the relaxation of credit-borrowing has allowed an individual to give themselves the raise they feel they deserve (whether at a realistic level or not)

Where economics and fiscal-statistics may be rational and based on set calculations, it doesn't balance with the irrational human-emotional factor (basic need/greed/envy/etc) which is the ultimate cause behind the growing economic problem



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by citizen smith
 


The minimum wage artificially manipulates market forces, and - were it absent - workers are likely to be paid more than they are worth because the government has not deemed how much the worker is worth. The minimum wage is one of the few areas of economic scholarship where there is actually a consensus: its bad. The minimum wage sets an artificial price point for everything else, as it rises the prices for everything else will rise. A minority of workers are actually paid minimum wage.

The "every day" American is paid far more, and those wages have risen without government manipulation to match or in most cases gone above and beyond inflation. The public sector is the only sector that lags behind everyone else in not getting raises that are equal or above inflation.

I agree with you though - although statistics and rationality tell us all this, it will never convince the innately human fear that "disaster" is just around the corner. No matter how good or how bad anything is in the economy, someone will always predict more doom and gloom. Its part of human nature to be negative, despite any evidence that such fear is unwarranted.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by citizen smith
 


I have to disagree with you based on your inclusion of "basic need" as an emotional factor.

Would you agree that agressive/predatory/false advertising and lending practices have fueled this emotionally based drive toward self-gratifying spending based on one's own measurement of their worth?

Is it your opinion that Americans have not been given the pay raise they deserve, and therefore decided to put that raise on credit?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by citizen smith
 


I also agree that everyone always feels they deserve more than they have. NPR recently talked about a survey where 80% of employees thought they were in the top 5% of their company and profession. People consider many luxuries - cable, internet, etc. to be "basic needs" that they "must have" - and this is indeed the reason for many of our economic problems. People are never satisfied, and the urge to have more always results in debt when they want more and don't have the money to afford it.

I believe people are intelligent enough to know that they don't need everything they are told they need. That they choose to ignore this intelligence and fall for marketing is unsurprising, and is the result of current problems with a few exceptions.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   


NPR recently talked about a survey where 80% of employees thought they were in the top 5% of their company and profession.


Talking about some group who was talking about some survey is not evidence of anything, regardless of the invocation of important looking statistics.



People consider many luxuries - cable, internet, etc. to be "basic needs" that they "must have" - and this is indeed the reason for many of our economic problems.


Unsupported presumption is not evidence to explain why Americans have suddenly begun to default on their credit cards.



People are never satisfied, and the urge to have more always results in debt when they want more and don't have the money to afford it.


If "people are never satisfied", and the economic woes are the result, then the economy would be in a constant state of failure. This does nothing to explain the recent surge in defaults.



I believe people are intelligent enough to know that they don't need everything they are told they need. That they choose to ignore this intelligence and fall for marketing is unsurprising, and is the result of current problems with a few exceptions.


Following this line of thought would lead one to the false conclusion that Americans have suddenly chosen to ignore their intelligence and/or become more gullible to advertising.









[edit on 1/6/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


And the comedy continues...

Jack, I know you get upset when all the research points the other way. Where is YOUR RESEARCH FOR ANYTHING YOU SAY? WHERE? Let's see it. Your hypocrisy is amazing, you don't bother to do your own research and demand everyone else show you theirs.

You won't get away with this double standard. Where is your survey that shows people are too stupid to not fall for marketing? Where is your peer reviewed study that shows Americans "deserve a raise" but aren't getting one? I will spoon feed you again, but only after you stop using this comical double standard.

I'm waiting.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I realize if we wait for you to show any evidence we'd be here forever because you have none, so I'll spoon feed you information again:



Unsupported presumption is not evidence to explain why Americans have suddenly begun to default on their credit cards.


Yet another peer reviewed academic study says your wrong. How could it be?

Paulhus, D.L., & J.P. Oliver. (1998). Egoistic and Moralistic Biases in Self-Perception: The Interplay of Self-Deceptive Styles With Basic Traits and Motives. Journal of Personality 66(6): 1025–1060.



If "people are never satisfied", and the economic woes are the result, then the economy would be in a constant state of failure. This does nothing to explain the recent surge in defaults.


Another fundamental misunderstanding of what the economy is on your part. Prevailing economic conditions often enable wanton spending on behalf of those who don't have money - this occurs every time interest rates are low. When they rise as the economy cycles, people default. Happens every single economic cycle.


Following this line of thought would lead one to the false conclusion that Americans have suddenly chosen to ignore their intelligence and/or become more gullible to advertising.


Another logical fallacy on your part that I have never said. In fact I have shown exactly the opposite, poor spending habits are enabled through prevailing economic conditions over the long-term, they are not short-term. I even gave you peer reviewed articles, or is your memory that bad?

No where is your peer reviewed evidence jack? Quick, put the truth back in the box!



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   


Where is your survey that shows people are too stupid to not fall for marketing?


See Disinformation Rule #19: Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs.



Where is your peer reviewed study that shows Americans "deserve a raise" but aren't getting one?


This is a clear attempt at misdirection. I have never claimed that Americans "deserve a raise."



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Ahh see, no evidence as usual. Why am I surprised? I have evidence for my viewpoints, but for you, all information which disagrees with you is "disinformation"



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


Please provide a link to your source, or display pertinent text. Otherwise I have no way of verifying the validity of your data, or your own personal interpretation.



Prevailing economic conditions often enable wanton spending on behalf of those who don't have money - this occurs every time interest rates are low.


"Wanton spending" is a matter of opinion.



poor spending habits are enabled through prevailing economic conditions over the long-term, they are not short-term.


We have already covered this. Poor spending habits are not the problem. The problem is a terminally flawed economic system that slowly but surely puts more and more of America's resources under the direct control of the Rothschilds and other international financiers.

What we are seeing here in the short-term, is the banks seizing real property after making loans that were based on a ficticious source. The money they lend is based on no tangible resource, yet with it, they manage to swindle actual goods and property.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Please provide YOUR data. You have given me NOTHING, I have given you PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC JOURNALS. Go look them up in the library, or buy a subscription to a journal service that provides them online. I am still waiting for you to cite one piece of data that backs up anything you say - of course you can't provide such cites, because there is no evidence for anything you say.

"Wanton spending" is described in the article and its quite correct. We have already covered this. Poor spending habits are the problem. The problem is people refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions and would prefer to blame someone else for their inability to spend within a budget.

What we are seeing here is something that happens during every economic cycle. People continue to spend money they do not have on things they do not need, and the environment changes to where they can no longer do that and keep up on payments. They are spending other peoples money and they cannot pay it back because most of them cannot budget. How do you think those "actual goods and property" were paid for? This logical fallacy of yours makes no sense, and is yet another attempt to redirect blame from personal responsibility.

But I know its easier to blame the bogey man than take personal responsibility. Speaking of personal responsibility, I'm still waiting on you to show data for any of this.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I have posted this information elsewhere on ATS, which LightinDarkness is fully aware of, since he has already derailed and walked away from several discussions involving this data. But I will post it again here for those who have not seen this information. Please feel free to U2U me if you would like to see more data.



The Congressional Budget Office examined tax data for 2005 and found that the highest 1 percent of Americans saw their after-tax earnings rise by an average of $180,000 — more than average families earn in three years. Income for the median U.S. family rose only $400, less than enough to keep up with inflation. The working poor got only $200 more.

Charleston Gazette


According to LightinDarkness...


The problem is people refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions and would prefer to blame someone else for their inability to spend within a budget.


Here is the truth...


Budgeting for Poverty

The federal government says a family of four earning $19,971 or less a year is living in poverty.

But how far does $19,971 go in America today? How do you budget? What do you leave out?

You make the hard choices.

Housing? In America, a family of four earning less than $19,971 a year
will spend on average $5,478 annually for the most basic of shelter.

$19,971
- 5,478
14,493

Utilities? To keep a family of four warm and secure, the average expense for utilities and public services runs $2,371 a year.

$14,493
- 2,371
12,122

Transportation? A family at the poverty line will spend $5,005 a year to own and maintain a used car, and fill it with the gas and oil needed to go to work, to day care, to the store, wherever.

$12,122
- 5,005
7,117

Food? Even with public assistance such as food stamps, families
making less than $19,971 will spend $4,139 a year for food
at home and away.

$7,117
- 4,139
2,978

Health Care? Even if an employer contributes part of the costs of health
insurance, a family of four at the poverty line would still pay on average $2,139 for health and medical expenses. The cost of not having health insurance, however, could be devastating.

$2,978
- 2,139
839

Child Care? The costs in a metropolitan-area child care center for two
children five and under can reach over $13,000. Even with child care subsidies, low income families with two small children will spend on average $2,440 on child care annually.

$839
- 2,440
- 1,601

So now you’re $1,601 over budget, and you still don’t have
everything you need.

What do you leave out?

Toiletries, School Supplies, Shoes, Clothes, Holiday Gifts,
Education, Life Insurance, Furnishings, Recreation, Cleaning
Supplies, Entertainment, Birthday Gifts
These are the decisions that people are forced to make every day
when they live in the state of poverty.

Visit www.povertyusa.org to learn more.

Source of Statistics:
Rent, utilities, transportation, food, health care: Consumer Expenditures Survey,
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 2006;
Child care: Expenditures on Children by Families, United States Department of
Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, April 2006
Poverty threshold: U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance
Coverage in the United States: 2005









[edit on 1/6/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Here is the truth...

This wrong information has been previously debunked, which jackinthebox is well aware of, and I will not copy and paste my responses. However, since no actual data agrees with him, he continues to post debunked data.


You can see from my statement and the "evidence" that it is a classical non-sequitur logical fallacy. Where is the evidence that everyone who defaults is poor? There is none, because it's not true. In any case, jack is of course as usual still factually wrong...

jackinthebox claims:

Poor spending habits are not the problem.


Facts




Source: U.S. Census Bureau

- Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.


Just more evidence that people spend money on things they don't need. But I'm sure DVD players, cable TV, dishwashers, and *OWNING* (not RENTING) HOUSES are of course, "necessities."


[edit on 6-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




This wrong information has been previously debunked, which jackinthebox is well aware of, and I will not copy and paste my responses. However, since no actual data agrees with him, he continues to post debunked data.


If you can't debunk my information, don't claim that it has been. You insult the intelligence of every ATS member, and refuse to recognize legitimate data when it is peresented. These are clearly disinformation tactics. See Disinformation Rule #19: Ignore facts, demand impossible proof.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


What's wrong jack, upset that your information was debunked and revealed as methodologically flawed weeks ago? You insult the intelligence of every ATS member by presenting purposely distorted information, and refuse to recognize that the world does not fit your narrow ideology. These are clearly disinformation tactics. See Disinformation Rule #1: When everything says your wrong, lie!



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 



Your Census Bureau info proves nothing, as I will now show:



Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.


If you consider that many people who are poor do not live in an urban environment, these facts are not surprising. Given the overcrowded conditions of urban living and a lack of affordable housing, where would you suggest these poor people be moved to? Furthermore, it's a good thing they were able to pay off their homes before the banks put them out on the street.



Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.


This has nothing to do with being poor. The decision to place air-conditioning in the majority of houses and apartments is made by the builders, not the tenants. You would be hard pressed to find an apartment that didn't have air-conditioning today.



Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.


Is this proof that you are falsifying data? It certainly looks as though you have dangerously misquoted your source to the detriment of your own credibility. This quote is a complete contradiction.



The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)


Again, this is simply due to the fact that there are many poor people in rural areas, and a larger portion of our population in general do not live in urban areas. Therefore, this point is irrelevant. You are wasting our time.



Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.


Again, rural and suburban populations induce a need for private transportation. It's a good thing these people have a car, or they would never be able to get to their sub-standard jobs, the gorcery store, take their childern to ther doctor, etc. The small 30% that own two cars may be in a constant state of repairing one while the other is running, or may be necessary for two working parents on incompatible shifts.



Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.


TV's, VCR's and DVD players are a basic level of entertainment that can be had for minimal to no cost. I personally have pulled working electronic goods off the top of a dumpster for my own use. In my last apartment I owned two free TV's, a free VCR, and a $20 DVD player. But perhaps it would be better if poor people spent more time selling drugs instead of watching TV.

Of the 62% that have cable, I'm sure a large portion live in apartment buildings where the service is included as a basic feature in the rental.



Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.


Microwave ovens are a safe way for youngsters to cook their own meals when there parents are out working. Furthermore, some places do not have stoves and therefore the tenant is limited to cooking with a microwave only. The stereo is covered above with other electronic goods. The automatic dishwasher is again often part of the unit like an air-conditioning, as explained above.

Despite your best attempt yet, you have failed to prove that Americans are spending irresponsibly.

[edit on 1/6/0808 by jackinthebox]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join