• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Romney on Obama Voters: stupid poors should buy more money

New polling in New Hampshire: Christie-19%, Rand-14%, Jeb-11%, rest in single digits. Some may quibble with the order, but top three appear to be what people would expect from the only swing state in the Northeast.

Adding Romney into the mix: Mitt-39%, Christie-7%, Rand -7%, Jeb-6%. Can't see Romney running, especially if Jeb and/or Christie run. That being said, if those two don't run, Romney would suck up all of the traditional 'Pub money and would crush any of the Tea Party wingnuts financially.

Dems have a very viable electoral path and Hillary/Jeb or Hillary/Mitt would substantially neuter her biggest negatives: dynasty, retread, out of touch elite.
 
And that's why Rand is trying to position himself more like Christie and Jeb than Cruz, Rubio, Ryan, etc.
 
Oliver has one of the best treatments on income inequality. The part of why reality shows killed me and made a ton of sense.
 
PhDeac said:
And that's why Rand is trying to position himself more like Christie and Jeb than Cruz, Rubio, Ryan, etc.
Click to expand...

Christie's going to Iowa and some conservative PAC is running ads criticizing Christie's judicial appointments. Social conservatives must be terrified of the establishment GOP (Jeb, Christie, Mitt) and social libertarians. Think only one of the establishment 'Pubs will run and that the GOP is hosed if their 2016 nominee is a pure social conservative.
 
Putting it here just because I love this thread title so much, stupid poors should get better car loans.

NYT Article
 
94Deac said:
How terrible. They should inform borrowers of those devices before letting finance the car.
Click to expand...

I think they do, and the borrowers expressly sign off to consent.

ETA: It's possible my sarcasm meter has not had enough coffee to work this morning.
 
i said this on the other thread but i support these things and I think states should mandate they be installed on all vehicles with respect to enforcing mandatory car insurance
 
Deacon923 said:
I think they do, and the borrowers expressly sign off to consent.
Click to expand...

So what's the problem? "Yes, I accept your money to buy my car. I agree to pay you back at $X on the _ of the month." I'm sure the secretary at the finance company who gets laid off because people aren't paying their loans will have a hard time too.
 
94Deac said:
So what's the problem? "Yes, I accept your money to buy my car. I agree to pay you back at $X on the _ of the month." I'm sure the secretary at the finance company who gets laid off because people aren't paying their loans will have a hard time too.
Click to expand...

i don't really have a problem with it. I do think the finance company should have liability if they shut off the car when the loan is not in default. This is a technology that is really easy for the consumer to understand and provides an extremely direct link between (in)actions and consequences. I would rather finance companies use this vs. a lot of other much more shady practices, like all the fees and charges and extreme compounding interest games they play with paycheck loans and title loans. That stuff is a lot harder for the consumer to understand than "don't pay, we shut off your car".
 
I agree if you sign off on something like this don't get upset when it happens.

But what is it the financier gains from shutting down the car? Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning either, but the financier wants money and most people need the car to run to go make money or to at least prevent further debt. I get the incentivising payment angle, but it seems counter-productive to the ultimate goal of getting money. They come get the car it sits on the lot for some period making them no money.
 
I think disabling someone's car is an extreme move unless you are far enough along to repossess the car. I'm fine with disabling or GPS tracking when you have determined you can exercise your legal rights of repossession, but not when someone is just running late on their payment. That's what late fees are for.
 
yeah the article said she was three days behind. Seems a little harsh and I can't find the winner in this scenario
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top