Wednesday, December 17, 2008
I'll Take With Me.........
I wanted to inform any readers of my blog how much I've enjoyed this English class. It's been 16 years since I've been in college so this has been quite an adventure. At 36 years old I've wasted a few years making poor decisions and being unaccountable for my own actions. I vowed to change my life and it began with college. As I leave this semester I will take with me the confidence to move closer to my goal of becoming a college graduate. This class has been a huge learning experience, educationally and personally. I would encourage anyone considering college at any age to push forward. I'm convinced that if I can do it anyone can. Thank you to those who took the time to read my blog and an additional thank you to those who took time to leave comments. All feedback is invaluable to me. Good luck to everyone..............
Monday, October 27, 2008
Essay #2 Prop 200 Payday Lending
Proposition 200: Payday Loan Reform
Proposition 200 is a measure on the 2008 ballot for Arizona. The claim of this measure is that this proposition would preserve small short-term loans, known to the public as payday loans. Through rate cuts, the elimination of loan extensions and a new repayment plan. A “yes” vote would repeal the termination date of July 1, 2010 for the existing payday loan licensing program allowing it to continue indefinitely, allowing payday loan services to provide electronic debit services over 35 days. That means that if the borrower goes over the period of 35 days given to pay the first loan back, they do not have to buy a second complete loan that would include the interest they have already accumulated on the first loan. This measure would also require payday loans to be printed in English and Spanish, prohibit certain fees, permit only one payday loan per customer per day, give the customer a payment plan if requested, and prohibit customers with outstanding loans to apply for new loans.
For me personally a NO vote should be the only vote. The funding for proposition 200 is provided entirely by the payday loan industry. This fact alone should be enough reason for anybody to vote no. Proposition 200 is not reform that works for the people that use them. The measure is written to seem like it is helping the public but in fact it is only helping the industry. I believe that this industry is taking advantage of the very people they are supposed to be helping. The people that utilize the payday loan stores are usually fall into the lower class income bracket. Most are individuals who often do not have a clear understanding of what they are getting into. They are often in desperate situations, lacking financial education and most speak very little English. These are the people this industry is preying on.
The values at stake here are not cheating vulnerable people. The people go into these stores attempting to relieve some financial burden they are in. While in the end they are further in debt than they were when they went in. This system of payday loans is a revolving door for the people that use them. The ultimate value is to put into place regulations on payday loans that work for not just the industry but for the people that use them.
The competing positions are the advocates who claim that this proposition will make sure payday lenders are tightly regulated, more consumer friendly, and remain available to serve those people who need a small, simple to understand, short-term loan." "This measure will bring dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and preserve consumer choice."
There are the opponents who say Arizonans have to pay interest rates on payday loans that far exceed the usury rate of 36% for all other loans in the state. This initiative would make 391% interest rates a permanent reality here. Other states have been successful in protecting their citizens by forbidding payday lending at triple-digit interest rates, and Arizona must follow suit. Payday lenders have had free reign in Arizona because of a 10-year exemption from the state's 36% usury cap that the Legislature granted in 2000. Now they are using this initiative to try to extend the exemption indefinitely.
I interviewed Debbie McCune Davis for the opposing side of this issue. She is the author of the opposition for this initiative. I asked her to give me in terms that the average person could understand the reasons why we should vote no on prop 200. She said the following: Did you know that there are more payday lenders in Arizona than McDonalds and Starbuck combined? That is a startling fact. The Payday Loan Reform Act was written and funded by the payday loan industry. It was placed on the ballot by petitions circulated by people paid by the industry.
In 2000, the legislature authorized payday lending in Arizona by providing an exemption to the Arizona Consumer Loan Act, which set interest caps at 36%. The exemption, which expires on July 1, 2010, allows payday lenders to make short term (usually 14 day) loans at exorbitant interest rates ranging from 391-458 Annual Percentage Rate. They claim payday lenders charge fees not interest, therefore should not be subject to an APR calculation. The Federal Truth Lending Act requires all loan products to contain information about the annual percentage rate because it is the only consumers can compare loan products.
If Proposition fails, the Consumer Loan Act will return to it’s original status and all small loans under $15,000 will be capped at 36% on July 1, 2010. Payday lenders will choose between operating under the 36% interest cap or going somewhere else.
Proposition 200 is billed as a consumer reform measure. It is not. All of the reforms ion the initiative sound good but do not change the industry business model which is to keep people coming back for repeat loans. In Arizona as well as other states, the average payday loan customer takes out 9 loans per year abs often slides into a cycle of debt because the loan must be paid in full on the day it is due. A study in Texas showed that individuals who received payday loans were 9 times more likely to file bankruptcy than individuals who were denied loans. $140,000,000 leaves the State of Arizona and goes into the pockets of national payday loan chains every year. Proposition 200 protects the right of payday lenders to stay in business here.
Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have changed their laws to set caps on payday lenders, usually consistent with their usury laws. The Federal Congress limited payday loan companies access to military families by capping loans at 36%. The industry is fighting for its life in Arizona and Ohio with ballot measures that will allow them to continue to operate. Voters in both states are being bombarded with advertising imploring them t allow them to continue to do business and protect “consumers choice.”
North Carolina, as an example, eliminated payday lenders in 2005. The Superintendent of Banks commissioned a study conducted by the University of North Carolina. In the study, residents were polled to see if they considered themselves better off before or after payday lenders left the community. By a substantial margin, residents, including these who used payday lenders, said they considered themselves better off when payday lenders left the community. Short term loans are available through community lenders, at lowers rates and with longer time periods to pay off the debt. This was the model before payday lenders became so dominant.
On the flip side of the issue, one person said that “a high interest loan is better than a bounced check.” They indicated that some Americans are “fed up” with politicians trying to balance our check books “whether we like it or not.” (Testimonials) The word paternalism was used to describe the idea that the government has to look after adults that can’t do for themselves. “Personal responsibility is what makes adult life possible.” When payday loan stores were outlawed in Georgia a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York indicates that the fees for bounced checks grew by $36 million and that bankruptcy filings rose almost 9%. This is good evidence for the advocate’s side.
Its evidence such as that that makes me question what is missing. There are two sides to this measure, for and against. Unfortunately there is no clearly stated resolution for the problem either way. The fact is there are people that use these payday loans responsibly. It’s too bad that there isn’t a better solution for the people that really need them.
When evaluating the evidence for and against this issue I found that the most persuasive evidence came from the opposing side. The people working against prop 200 are doing it for the people of our community who cannot ask the industry for reform themselves. They are legislators, community activists, and labor union members. They are campaigning against because it’s what right for the people. Nobody has paid them $13 million dollars to vote no.
I don’t know how anyone can vote Yes knowing that the evidence being presented by those in favor is being funded by the National Payday Loan Coalition. According to the No on 200 campaign which is being outspent by nearly 95-to-1 ratio, backers of Prop 200 have spent nearly $13 million on trying to persuade voters to approve the measure. Of course they want a Yes vote. The industry is facing the threat of going out of business. This is a proposition drafted by the payday loan industry. Scott Earl, chief executive of the Arizona Credit Union League said “the fact that a group can come together and write its own law and pass it as reform and (that) the Legislature can’t touch it is just a frightening prospect.” (McCune-Davis) They would love nothing more than to continue their current practices without reform. When casting their votes on November 4th the voters of Arizona must be able to decipher the evidence and make a decision based on just the evidence and who is providing it.
In my research on this topic I found an overwhelming amount of evidence against the payday lending industry. The reality seems to be that this industry only benefits itself. I’ve seen no testimonials from any person stating that their lives were devastated by not being able to obtain a payday loan. There are however many cases of people that have had their lives destroyed by their inability to repay the loans in the time allowed. There are alternatives out there for the payday loans. Every government across the US should take the initiative and get a measure on the ballot in their states and put a stop to the abuse.
Proposition 200 is a measure on the 2008 ballot for Arizona. The claim of this measure is that this proposition would preserve small short-term loans, known to the public as payday loans. Through rate cuts, the elimination of loan extensions and a new repayment plan. A “yes” vote would repeal the termination date of July 1, 2010 for the existing payday loan licensing program allowing it to continue indefinitely, allowing payday loan services to provide electronic debit services over 35 days. That means that if the borrower goes over the period of 35 days given to pay the first loan back, they do not have to buy a second complete loan that would include the interest they have already accumulated on the first loan. This measure would also require payday loans to be printed in English and Spanish, prohibit certain fees, permit only one payday loan per customer per day, give the customer a payment plan if requested, and prohibit customers with outstanding loans to apply for new loans.
For me personally a NO vote should be the only vote. The funding for proposition 200 is provided entirely by the payday loan industry. This fact alone should be enough reason for anybody to vote no. Proposition 200 is not reform that works for the people that use them. The measure is written to seem like it is helping the public but in fact it is only helping the industry. I believe that this industry is taking advantage of the very people they are supposed to be helping. The people that utilize the payday loan stores are usually fall into the lower class income bracket. Most are individuals who often do not have a clear understanding of what they are getting into. They are often in desperate situations, lacking financial education and most speak very little English. These are the people this industry is preying on.
The values at stake here are not cheating vulnerable people. The people go into these stores attempting to relieve some financial burden they are in. While in the end they are further in debt than they were when they went in. This system of payday loans is a revolving door for the people that use them. The ultimate value is to put into place regulations on payday loans that work for not just the industry but for the people that use them.
The competing positions are the advocates who claim that this proposition will make sure payday lenders are tightly regulated, more consumer friendly, and remain available to serve those people who need a small, simple to understand, short-term loan." "This measure will bring dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and preserve consumer choice."
There are the opponents who say Arizonans have to pay interest rates on payday loans that far exceed the usury rate of 36% for all other loans in the state. This initiative would make 391% interest rates a permanent reality here. Other states have been successful in protecting their citizens by forbidding payday lending at triple-digit interest rates, and Arizona must follow suit. Payday lenders have had free reign in Arizona because of a 10-year exemption from the state's 36% usury cap that the Legislature granted in 2000. Now they are using this initiative to try to extend the exemption indefinitely.
I interviewed Debbie McCune Davis for the opposing side of this issue. She is the author of the opposition for this initiative. I asked her to give me in terms that the average person could understand the reasons why we should vote no on prop 200. She said the following: Did you know that there are more payday lenders in Arizona than McDonalds and Starbuck combined? That is a startling fact. The Payday Loan Reform Act was written and funded by the payday loan industry. It was placed on the ballot by petitions circulated by people paid by the industry.
In 2000, the legislature authorized payday lending in Arizona by providing an exemption to the Arizona Consumer Loan Act, which set interest caps at 36%. The exemption, which expires on July 1, 2010, allows payday lenders to make short term (usually 14 day) loans at exorbitant interest rates ranging from 391-458 Annual Percentage Rate. They claim payday lenders charge fees not interest, therefore should not be subject to an APR calculation. The Federal Truth Lending Act requires all loan products to contain information about the annual percentage rate because it is the only consumers can compare loan products.
If Proposition fails, the Consumer Loan Act will return to it’s original status and all small loans under $15,000 will be capped at 36% on July 1, 2010. Payday lenders will choose between operating under the 36% interest cap or going somewhere else.
Proposition 200 is billed as a consumer reform measure. It is not. All of the reforms ion the initiative sound good but do not change the industry business model which is to keep people coming back for repeat loans. In Arizona as well as other states, the average payday loan customer takes out 9 loans per year abs often slides into a cycle of debt because the loan must be paid in full on the day it is due. A study in Texas showed that individuals who received payday loans were 9 times more likely to file bankruptcy than individuals who were denied loans. $140,000,000 leaves the State of Arizona and goes into the pockets of national payday loan chains every year. Proposition 200 protects the right of payday lenders to stay in business here.
Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have changed their laws to set caps on payday lenders, usually consistent with their usury laws. The Federal Congress limited payday loan companies access to military families by capping loans at 36%. The industry is fighting for its life in Arizona and Ohio with ballot measures that will allow them to continue to operate. Voters in both states are being bombarded with advertising imploring them t allow them to continue to do business and protect “consumers choice.”
North Carolina, as an example, eliminated payday lenders in 2005. The Superintendent of Banks commissioned a study conducted by the University of North Carolina. In the study, residents were polled to see if they considered themselves better off before or after payday lenders left the community. By a substantial margin, residents, including these who used payday lenders, said they considered themselves better off when payday lenders left the community. Short term loans are available through community lenders, at lowers rates and with longer time periods to pay off the debt. This was the model before payday lenders became so dominant.
On the flip side of the issue, one person said that “a high interest loan is better than a bounced check.” They indicated that some Americans are “fed up” with politicians trying to balance our check books “whether we like it or not.” (Testimonials) The word paternalism was used to describe the idea that the government has to look after adults that can’t do for themselves. “Personal responsibility is what makes adult life possible.” When payday loan stores were outlawed in Georgia a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York indicates that the fees for bounced checks grew by $36 million and that bankruptcy filings rose almost 9%. This is good evidence for the advocate’s side.
Its evidence such as that that makes me question what is missing. There are two sides to this measure, for and against. Unfortunately there is no clearly stated resolution for the problem either way. The fact is there are people that use these payday loans responsibly. It’s too bad that there isn’t a better solution for the people that really need them.
When evaluating the evidence for and against this issue I found that the most persuasive evidence came from the opposing side. The people working against prop 200 are doing it for the people of our community who cannot ask the industry for reform themselves. They are legislators, community activists, and labor union members. They are campaigning against because it’s what right for the people. Nobody has paid them $13 million dollars to vote no.
I don’t know how anyone can vote Yes knowing that the evidence being presented by those in favor is being funded by the National Payday Loan Coalition. According to the No on 200 campaign which is being outspent by nearly 95-to-1 ratio, backers of Prop 200 have spent nearly $13 million on trying to persuade voters to approve the measure. Of course they want a Yes vote. The industry is facing the threat of going out of business. This is a proposition drafted by the payday loan industry. Scott Earl, chief executive of the Arizona Credit Union League said “the fact that a group can come together and write its own law and pass it as reform and (that) the Legislature can’t touch it is just a frightening prospect.” (McCune-Davis) They would love nothing more than to continue their current practices without reform. When casting their votes on November 4th the voters of Arizona must be able to decipher the evidence and make a decision based on just the evidence and who is providing it.
In my research on this topic I found an overwhelming amount of evidence against the payday lending industry. The reality seems to be that this industry only benefits itself. I’ve seen no testimonials from any person stating that their lives were devastated by not being able to obtain a payday loan. There are however many cases of people that have had their lives destroyed by their inability to repay the loans in the time allowed. There are alternatives out there for the payday loans. Every government across the US should take the initiative and get a measure on the ballot in their states and put a stop to the abuse.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Ignorance!!!!
I've attached an email that was sent to me by an ignorant member of my own family. If I disclosed the position that this person holds in our community you might be surprised. It just goes to show the ignorance and intolerance that some people in this country still maintain. I'm ashamed to say that this person who sent me the email also sent it to every member of our family and to the majority of the employees at their company. That is about 250 people.
If you were an employee there how would you feel this email being sent to you at work? I hope somebody reading will give me some feedback. Oh, can anyone can guess what religion this person is that sent me this email?
Subject: Fw: Columbo Looking for Answers> > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:12:36 -0700> >> >> > .> >> >> > Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean Senator Obama, sir. Um . . . know you are busy and important and stuff. I mean running for president is veryimportant and . . ah . . . I hate to bother you. I will only take a minuteok, sir?> >> >> > See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and Iwas wondering sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things.> >> >> > Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like thisonTV all the time and says boy she wishes she had digs like this you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow. I saw something like that in a museum once!> >> >> > Oh, sorry sir. I didn't mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out ofyour way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island ? No, I didn't think so. .> >> >> > Well, listen, anyways, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be "locked" or "not available'. I'm sure it's just some oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are . . . I .. . . I . . . have them written down here somewhere . . . oh wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you.> >> >> > Could you help me please find these things, sir?> >> >> > 1.OccidentalCollegerecords -- Not released> > 2.ColumbiaCollegerecords -- Not released> > 3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "not available"> > 4.HarvardCollegerecords -- Not released> > 5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released> > 6. Medical records -- Not released> > 7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- "not available"> > 8. Law practice client list -- Not released> > 9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released> > 10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Notreleased> > 11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None> > 12.University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None> >> >> > 13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or "not available"> >> >> > 14. Your Illinois State Senate records--"not available"> >> >> > Oh hey . listen! I know you are busy! Is this too much for you now? I mean tell you what. I will come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you are busy, so I will just let myself out. I will be back tomorrow.> >> >> > "Who wants to know these things?" asked Senator Obama.> >> >> > Columbo answered: THE PEOPLE> >> >
If you were an employee there how would you feel this email being sent to you at work? I hope somebody reading will give me some feedback. Oh, can anyone can guess what religion this person is that sent me this email?
Subject: Fw: Columbo Looking for Answers> > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:12:36 -0700> >> >> > .> >> >> > Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean Senator Obama, sir. Um . . . know you are busy and important and stuff. I mean running for president is veryimportant and . . ah . . . I hate to bother you. I will only take a minuteok, sir?> >> >> > See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and Iwas wondering sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things.> >> >> > Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like thisonTV all the time and says boy she wishes she had digs like this you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow. I saw something like that in a museum once!> >> >> > Oh, sorry sir. I didn't mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out ofyour way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island ? No, I didn't think so. .> >> >> > Well, listen, anyways, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be "locked" or "not available'. I'm sure it's just some oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are . . . I .. . . I . . . have them written down here somewhere . . . oh wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you.> >> >> > Could you help me please find these things, sir?> >> >> > 1.OccidentalCollegerecords -- Not released> > 2.ColumbiaCollegerecords -- Not released> > 3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "not available"> > 4.HarvardCollegerecords -- Not released> > 5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released> > 6. Medical records -- Not released> > 7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- "not available"> > 8. Law practice client list -- Not released> > 9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released> > 10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Notreleased> > 11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None> > 12.University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None> >> >> > 13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or "not available"> >> >> > 14. Your Illinois State Senate records--"not available"> >> >> > Oh hey . listen! I know you are busy! Is this too much for you now? I mean tell you what. I will come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you are busy, so I will just let myself out. I will be back tomorrow.> >> >> > "Who wants to know these things?" asked Senator Obama.> >> >> > Columbo answered: THE PEOPLE> >> >
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Don't Forget to Vote!!
This presidential election is easily the most important election in this country's history. We for the first time in history have a man of African American descent running for the highest elected office. Not only he is running for the presidency he has more than 50% of this country behind him. That's unheard of. There is en excellent chance the Barak Obama will win this election and become the first black president of the United States. I cannot express how honored I am to be a part of such a important part of American history. It is the responsibility of the American people to be in the voting booths on November 4th and cast their vote for the person they find best suited for the office of president. Myself and others hope to have the largest voter turnout in history. Please, take the time to cast your votes whether by early ballot or in the booths on November 4th. Your voice must heard. Voting is a right to provided to every citizen of the United States. It's what makes this country the most sought after place to live in the world.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Debbie McCune Davis No On Prop 200
If anyone is interested please watch the short speech given by Debbie McCune. I think she makes a very compelling argument against Prop 200. Just click on the link http://video.aol.com/video-detail/arizona-2008-proposition-200-arguments-against/3324671422/?icid=VIDURVHOV01
Monday, October 6, 2008
What's it take to get fired from this job?
I was horrified to read this morning about a teacher in Florida that asked his 7th grade class if they knew what the acronym was for Obama's campaign slogan - CHANGE? Well being in 7th grade I don't believe that most of the children knew what an acronym was to begin with. So thats when the teacher should have known to stop but no, he kept on. He told these 12 year olds that CHANGE stood for Can Help Get A N word Elected. Now not a lot surprises me anymore so I wasn't dumbfounded to hear that a teacher had said this. I was however disgusted to read that his teacher was not fired from his job. NOT FIRED!!! He was placed on a 10 day paid suspension and required to go to some sort of reeducation classes. I don't know what to say and that doesn't happen very often. It makes me wonder what criteria has to be met in order to get fired from that job. I guess that's Florida for ya!!
Arguments for Prop 200
Summary of Prop 200
This proposition would preserve small short-term loans, known to the public as payday loans, through rate cuts, the elimination of loan extensions and a new repayment plan. A “yes” vote would repeal the termination date of July 1, 2010 for the existing payday loan licensing program allowing it to continue indefinitely, allowing payday loan services to provide electronic debit services over 35 days. That means that if the borrower goes over the period of 35 days given to pay the first loan back, they do not have to buy a second complete loan that would include the interest they have already accumulated on the first loan. This measure would also require payday loans to be printed in English and Spanish, prohibit certain fees, permit only one payday loan per customer per day, give the customer a payment plan if requested, and prohibit customers with outstanding loans to apply for new loans.
Some questions to ask are would this law really reform the current payday loan industry? Proponents want this because it will require the payday loan stores to significantly reduce loan fees, eliminate costly loan extensions and mandate a no-cost repayment plan for the customers that cannot meet their obligations. Thus allowing to payday loan companies to preserve their services for those that need them.
Advocates say this proposition will make sure payday lenders are tightly regulated, more consumer friendly, and remain available to serve those people who need a small, simple to understand, short-term loan." "This measure will bring dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and preserve consumer choice."
Opponents say Arizonans have to pay interest rates on payday loans that far exceed the usury rate of 36% for all other loans in the state. This initiative would make 391% interest rates a permanent reality here. Other states have been successful in protecting their citizens by forbidding payday lending at triple-digit interest rates, and Arizona must follow suit. Payday lenders have had free reign in Arizona because of a 10-year exemption from the state's 36% usury cap that the Legislature granted in 2000. Now they are using this initiative to try to extend the exemption indefinitely
This proposition would preserve small short-term loans, known to the public as payday loans, through rate cuts, the elimination of loan extensions and a new repayment plan. A “yes” vote would repeal the termination date of July 1, 2010 for the existing payday loan licensing program allowing it to continue indefinitely, allowing payday loan services to provide electronic debit services over 35 days. That means that if the borrower goes over the period of 35 days given to pay the first loan back, they do not have to buy a second complete loan that would include the interest they have already accumulated on the first loan. This measure would also require payday loans to be printed in English and Spanish, prohibit certain fees, permit only one payday loan per customer per day, give the customer a payment plan if requested, and prohibit customers with outstanding loans to apply for new loans.
Some questions to ask are would this law really reform the current payday loan industry? Proponents want this because it will require the payday loan stores to significantly reduce loan fees, eliminate costly loan extensions and mandate a no-cost repayment plan for the customers that cannot meet their obligations. Thus allowing to payday loan companies to preserve their services for those that need them.
Advocates say this proposition will make sure payday lenders are tightly regulated, more consumer friendly, and remain available to serve those people who need a small, simple to understand, short-term loan." "This measure will bring dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and preserve consumer choice."
Opponents say Arizonans have to pay interest rates on payday loans that far exceed the usury rate of 36% for all other loans in the state. This initiative would make 391% interest rates a permanent reality here. Other states have been successful in protecting their citizens by forbidding payday lending at triple-digit interest rates, and Arizona must follow suit. Payday lenders have had free reign in Arizona because of a 10-year exemption from the state's 36% usury cap that the Legislature granted in 2000. Now they are using this initiative to try to extend the exemption indefinitely
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
